The murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, MN last Monday, May 25

[Treehugger]

I think it's important to notice and remember how these issues intersect with race, and create perfect storms whose impacts disproportionately fall on people of colour. Not doing so is a recipe for the same old externalization of costs that we see happening over and over again.

This still raises the question of how (or even whether) it makes more sense to treat these as issues of racial discrimination rather than socioeconomic inequality. It's like the issue of hate crimes; shouldn't people be appalled that some completely innocent person got beaten up, regardless of the victim's ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.?  The intent of tying it to discrimination of some sort is understandable, but it has the side effect of suggesting the crime itself is somehow "not so bad" under other circumstances.

Exactly! This is why I support broad-based social economic reforms for all troubled communities regardless of the race and ethnicity involved. I realize that there are all kinds of sophisticated theoretical and historical justifications for prioritizing black communities, but the fact is that blatantly favoring one race over others, no matter how great you think the justification is, is not going to bring racial harmony to this country. No matter how you spin it, there are going to be whites who take offense (whether or not you personally think this offense is justified). If we truly focus on floating all the boats, the radical right will have much less traction and black communities will be helped (or allowed to self-empower).

Taking race out of the equation and tackling the underlying problem makes sense in some cases, but not in others. It makes sense, for example, where healthcare is concerned: universal healthcare would be a net boon for everyone, but especially for people of colour, whose economic conditions seriously limit their access to quality care. You could institute any number of race-based or means-tested versions of healthcare, but the overall outcomes will just be worse. And it will be more expensive and less effective. Everyone would just be better off with some kind of universal healthcare. (You might still need to enact particular race-oriented reforms, however; Black women, for example, are routinely assaulted, or have their pain minimized, or their concerns dismissed, by physicians. This recently happened twice in a row to a Black friend of mine visiting two different gynecologists, one male and the other female. The way she was treated was unconscionable, and I would characterize it as assault. But it's utterly commonplace, and it derives in part from being explicitly trained, in medical school, to believe that Black people have higher pain thresholds than white people.)

It doesn't make as much sense for something like pipeline construction and other undesirable land uses, where race is a clear and direct player and where the costs are routinely externalized onto people of colour. Adequate reform on that front would require, e.g., taking Indigenous land claims seriously and actively seeking consent from Indigenous peoples to exploit resources on their lands. Taking race out of that means ignoring historical and contemporary treaty obligations, and a long history of violations of those obligations.

It also doesn't make sense where a lot of criminal justice reform is concerned, since what we're talking about are issues where race is in the driver's seat. Forgetting about race in a conversation about stop and frisk in NYC, for example, is a recipe for misunderstanding (or worse, ignoring) the harms that policy perpetuates.

I don't want to deflect here (or at least not too much), but are you sure that her experience was due to racism? I have had quite negative experiences with gynecologists who were openly bullying, and would have left me in tears if I had been the sort to cry in public (the last time I cried in public due to hurt feelings or physical pain was in elementary school) and I certainly didn't attribute this to racism, just to the gynecologists being total jerks.

But anyway ... thanks for the analyses.

[marshwiggle]

But this creates a very fine line; if you require medical professionals to be especially sensitive to pain of black women (for instance), then they are open to the criticism of over-medicating black women.

Not really. I just require them not to dismiss reports of pain, to give appropriate doses and not cut them in half because of some magic tolerance conferred by skin colour, to give adequate and full information about procedures before they're performed, and not to perform procedures for which consent was not given or for which consent was explicitly denied.

Plus, it would be nice if a single visit to the gynecologist didn't feature violations of all of the above.

Unless you have ample evidence that white patients don't have a lot of the same complaints, and that other black women do, then you can't tell what the issue is.

The same thing goes for police response to crime. If you discourage police from intervening heavily in poor black neighbourhoods, you become open to the charge of abandoning black neighbourhoods to gangs.

Nobody is discouraging police from policing Black neighbourhoods. What's being discouraged are the "heavy" responses whose euphemism covers for unwarranted aggression, one-sided enforcement of misdemeanours, seeking out particular neighbourhoods to meet quotas, non-random random checks, etc. We're also calling for actual accountability.

But "heavy" responses are going to be needed when dealing with gangs and in other violent (or potentially violent) situations.*
As for the other things, as I've said, I'm heavily in favour of dashcams and bodycams so that as much actual objective data is available. If "accountability" just means "assume cops are guilty" it's no better than if it means "assume black people are guilty".

*Important fact; cops don't go into those neighbourhoods for giggles; they go because we (i.e. society) ask them to becuase we are too scared to do it ourselves.  If it gets to the point where no-one can be found who will work under all of the restrictions imposed, then we'll have achieved the "Escape from New York"-esque dystopia.

[Treehugger]

Second, I realize that there is a #shutdownSTEM, #shutdownacademia movement afloat. If I understand correctly, the idea is to take one day (just one day!!) June 10th to become anti-racists, to actively work to bring racial equality to the workplace. Hello? I know that my husband who is the department chair in a STEM field has always supported and actively worked to make his department more inclusive and diverse. When they hire a woman or POC, he is genuinely thrilled. When women or POC have any complaint about discrimination, he is on it. Seriously. And, seriously, it is not just him. It is by far the majority of the professors in the department who feel the same way (and I hear about the very few who don't). Also, they don't just react, they are doing their absolute best to be proactive and think about how to get more women and POC interested in the field.

So, as you might imagine, my husband doesn't have any problem with taking June 10th to continue the work they are already doing and, who knows, maybe learn something new.

So far so good. However, when I read the material on the #shutdownSTEM website (which was sent to my husband, who shared it with me), I saw that not only were they calling for anti-racist action on June 10th, but they were calling academia in general and STEM in particular "white supremacist." I'm sorry? What? What are your grounds for calling institutions and departments who are already doing their best to be inclusive "white supremacist?" From what I have read, I suspect that it is in part because the number of specifically black professors does not match the percentage of blacks in the general population. However, they are many possible reasons for this and I actually think that a supposed "culture of white supremacy" is one of the least plausible ones.

I don't think this is against your husband who seems to be doing the right thing or any other individual person. For a long time, the term "white supremacy" was used to talk about Jim Crow-style racism, Nazism, white nationalism, etc. Recently, however, this term has been revived as a broader theoretical concept to examine the long-standing global system of power that privileges whiteness. I have to say I too was confused when I first saw the term white supremacy being used this way. However, having done some reading, my understanding is that it aims to talk about this system, and how we and our institutions may be implicated in maintaining this system of white privilege, and not so much about individuals being good or bad.

Yes, I totally understand what is supposedly meant by the term "white supremacy" now. However, I honestly believe this is really quite disingenuous. The very people who worked to expand the meaning of "white supremacy" are people (many of whom are in academia) who are extremely aware of language and how it works. These are the same people who are constantly policing themselves and others for language that could possibly give the slightest offense to minorities. Then they turn around and sort of accidentally on purpose use a term that is meant (but not really meant, but maybe meant?) to offend people who are repeatedly told that being white is the most import thing about them (whether they feel that way or not) and that whiteness is the root of all evil. But when challenged, they say: "Oh we're just talking about a system, not individuals."

I have seen the usage and abuse of such terms described as a motte and bailey strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy. By using the term  "white supremacy" they can get white folks feeling good and guilty, even downright fearful of their reputation (Who wants to have the term "white supremacy" associated with their name?), however, when challenged, they just say: "But that's not what we really mean. We're just talking about the system..." Just like those friends-not-friends who insist they were "just joking" if you take offense at their offensive remarks.

[delsur]

I have seen the usage and abuse of such terms described as a motte and bailey strategy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy. By using the term  "white supremacy" they can get white folks feeling good and guilty, even downright fearful of their reputation (Who wants to have the term "white supremacy" associated with their name?), however, when challenged, they just say: "But that's not what we really mean. We're just talking about the system..." Just like those friends-not-friends who insist they were "just joking" if you take offense at their offensive remarks.

Yes, I have no doubt you have encountered people who misuse the term or commit fallacies in their arguments. Putting those aside, if you are ever interested, there are many others who have studied, experienced, and written about these issues quite thoughtfully. Reading the works of Charles W. Mills, Cedric Robinson, bell hooks, Franz Fanon, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva and many others might show you that there are discussions about racism and white supremacy that are not as simplistic or fallacy-ridden, but rather important considerations toward a more equitable society. (I wrote this in another thread as well where there is a similar discussion going on).

[mahagonny]

It is possible that AA communities, after centuries of systematic institutionalized violence, wealth disparity, and oppression, are now more crime-ridden than white communities.

They could also be more crime ridden because people like George Floyd are present in them. After serving five years for being the ringleader in a home invasion (a pregnant black woman's home), he was again a free man, and continued buying illegal drugs, hanging out in public stoned out of his mind, and probably passing counterfeit bills, and who knows what else. But what you read about him is stuff like this: 'the changed man.' 'Joined the ministry.' "Determined to change.' 'The Gentle Giant.'

https://www.the-sun.com/news/931741/did-george-floyd-have-criminal-past/

I don't know any gentlemen who are capable of running an armed home invasion.

I've also got to say, my friend, since there has been a fair amount of personal anecdote of late on this thread, that you are positing to a recovering alcoholic and drug addict.

I never did anything that would have put me in prison, and this was well before crack, meth, of fentanyl, but things were going very badly for me.  I seriously doubt I would have turned to a life of crime; nevertheless, I was a rip-roaring disaster in every way possible. 

After one particularly horrific night I went to my parents and told them I was in trouble, and the first thing they did, God bless them, was to find the best in-house treatment center they could find and sent me there.  I had a very bad year and a half after that---and not just the cravings, which were terrible, but I also had no idea what to do with my self, how to interact with sober people, and had to deal with the personal rubble I'd left in my wake. 

And throughout it I had a huge support network of friends, family, and even college faculty behind me.  I never went hungry or had to fight off a drug-dealer, a drunken family member, or explain to a gang-banger why I was going straight. 

When I needed and wanted help, wealth, security, and a place to hide out when I was feeling weak, it was all there.  I am the perfect example of white privilege in action.  In fact, I could be the poster-boy for white privilege.

The funny or ironic thing about recovery is that people really admire and support you----which is fair; people only recover from this dreadful illness under their own steam---yet I always tell people that I was one of the very lucky ones who, when he needed it, had help.

And now, my sibling, who is as lilly white as I am, and has had all the benefits and actually a good deal more help through life than I have, is living in a park in a tent.  Hu has not done any home invasions that I am aware of, but lots of laws have been broken----I can look up my sibling's mugshot on Google.  I've had to intervene personally in a couple of circumstances to keep my aged parents safe from this person.  So understand that the kind of judgment you are meting out has its limits and a limited rational, particularly under the circumstances this thread is talking about.

Glad you got your life and health together. Indeed, some of us, any at any time, may hit the skids, but may then recover, and it means everything to have that support.

[mamselle]

In the UK, there are related issues:

   https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/08/boris-johnson-colston-statue

   https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/07/europe/edward-colston-statue-bristol/index.html

Of note: the Clapham Sect started in the UK, as well....

   https://www.britannica.com/topic/Clapham-Sect

M.

[mamselle]

Sorry for the double post but this defies understanding...

  There is video of the Minneapolis police slashing the tires of every car in a parking lot.

Not only protesters, but news crews, medical personnel and others were affected.

   https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FKarlSteel%2Fstatus%2F1270060556695855104&widget=Tweet

I thought it was Flint, MI that had the weird stuff in the water...

M.

[Treehugger]

Sorry for the double post but this defies understanding...

  There is video of the Minneapolis police slashing the tires of every car in a parking lot.

Not only protesters, but news crews, medical personnel and others were affected.

   https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FKarlSteel%2Fstatus%2F1270060556695855104&widget=Tweet

I thought it was Flint, MI that had the weird stuff in the water...

M.

Wow, that's really really weird. A backstory, maybe? Or just police run amok.

By the way, one issue that rarely seems to come up in these conversations is that, as part of the job application process, police wannabes are given an IQ test. If they score too high, they are turned down. Maybe this could be changed and intelligent people could allowed on the force?

[marshwiggle]

By the way, one issue that rarely seems to come up in these conversations is that, as part of the job application process, police wannabes are given an IQ test. If they score too high, they are turned down. Maybe this could be changed and intelligent people could allowed on the force?

Someone else on here said this. Is this actually documented, or is it an urban myth? I'm skeptical.

[Treehugger]

By the way, one issue that rarely seems to come up in these conversations is that, as part of the job application process, police wannabes are given an IQ test. If they score too high, they are turned down. Maybe this could be changed and intelligent people could allowed on the force?

Someone else on here said this. Is this actually documented, or is it an urban myth? I'm skeptical.

Courts OK barring high IQ cops

This is old news, but I'm pretty sure it is still a practice.

By the way, this happens in other fields too, if more informally. I was taken aside and talked out of getting a degree in education because I was "too smart."

[marshwiggle]

By the way, one issue that rarely seems to come up in these conversations is that, as part of the job application process, police wannabes are given an IQ test. If they score too high, they are turned down. Maybe this could be changed and intelligent people could allowed on the force?

Someone else on here said this. Is this actually documented, or is it an urban myth? I'm skeptical.

Courts OK barring high IQ cops

This is old news, but I'm pretty sure it is still a practice.

By the way, this happens in other fields too, if more informally. I was taken aside and talked out of getting a degree in education because I was "too smart."

That's amazing*. Kind of like decades ago when companies didn't want to hire young women becuase they'd just find a husband, get married and quit.

It's strange to hear an organization officially endorse the drudgery of their jobs, but I suppose it deserves some points for honesty.


*Ironic note from the story that the guy went to work as a prison guard. It seems that would be even less mentally demanding than police work. I guess prisons aren't worried about that.

[mahagonny]

By the way, one issue that rarely seems to come up in these conversations is that, as part of the job application process, police wannabes are given an IQ test. If they score too high, they are turned down. Maybe this could be changed and intelligent people could allowed on the force?

Someone else on here said this. Is this actually documented, or is it an urban myth? I'm skeptical.

Courts OK barring high IQ cops

This is old news, but I'm pretty sure it is still a practice.

By the way, this happens in other fields too, if more informally. I was taken aside and talked out of getting a degree in education because I was "too smart."

That's amazing*. Kind of like decades ago when companies didn't want to hire young women becuase they'd just find a husband, get married and quit.

It's strange to hear an organization officially endorse the drudgery of their jobs, but I suppose it deserves some points for honesty.


*Ironic note from the story that the guy went to work as a prison guard. It seems that would be even less mentally demanding than police work. I guess prisons aren't worried about that.

I notice they are smart enough to get some pretty impressive privileges through their unions.

[Wahoo Redux]

Sorry for the double post but this defies understanding...

  There is video of the Minneapolis police slashing the tires of every car in a parking lot.

Not only protesters, but news crews, medical personnel and others were affected.

   https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FKarlSteel%2Fstatus%2F1270060556695855104&widget=Tweet

I thought it was Flint, MI that had the weird stuff in the water...

M.

At what point do these begin to realize that almost all of us have cellphone cameras and the Internet???

Even Bigfoot hunters acknowledge that we all carry handheld cameras these days.

[Wahoo Redux]

Sorry for the double post but this defies understanding...

  There is video of the Minneapolis police slashing the tires of every car in a parking lot.

Not only protesters, but news crews, medical personnel and others were affected.

   https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FKarlSteel%2Fstatus%2F1270060556695855104&widget=Tweet

I thought it was Flint, MI that had the weird stuff in the water...

M.

At what point do these people begin to realize that almost all of us have cellphone cameras and the Internet???

Even Bigfoot hunters acknowledge that we all carry handheld cameras these days.

[financeguy]

Someone may be in the country illegally and another person may not identify with their biological gender. There's also a word that sounds like the n word with "ly" at the end used since Shakespeare that means wasteful.

I don't call those in the country illegally "illegals" or "illegal aliens." I also don't insist on calling people their biological gender if they prefer otherwise. I also refrain from using the word referenced above. There's a reason I do all of these things even though making the statements may be objectively "true." I do this not only because I know they will be misinterpreted by either the subject of the statement and/or others. This makes all of those examples pretty ineffective from a clarity of language standpoint. The only reason I would say any of those three things is if my intent were to inflame. I have to assume this is the desired result of anyone who uses the terms "institutional racism" or "white privilege."

I'm not a big fan of cancel culture but if it's going to happen, I'd like to see whites refusing to hire or patronize people who use those and similar terms, even if they have an obscure footnote to explain their "intended" meaning. I simply don't wish to justify my exclusion from that group or feel as if someone is extorting my cooperation rather than actually trying to present a quality argument to entice me to their point of view. Say what you want, but know that there is a price to pay for continuing to use this language. I have silently made a point of not buying from people who are publicly doing this.