Bio not provided
@satay31 @richardstarr @reason1
1) I'm not saying EVERY Black American voted for Obama, I am saying that many of them were motivated by his race to vote for him. I have heard many of them affirm this as truth. Hell, many of them were in fact promoting the idea that every Black person had a DUTY vote for Obama.
2) No, I don't misconstrue his meaning. He was quite clear.
"As the chair of the Black Caucus, I've got to tell you, we are always
hesitant to criticize the President. With 14 percent (black)
unemployment, if we had a white president we'd be marching around the White House. ... The President knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white."
Tell me where that is ambiguous in the least.
3) Actually, I did hear about people talking about McCain with regards to that very question.
Regarding Obama, I'm not a birther. About the only thing that drew my interest on the subject was that his book publisher used to list him as coming from Kenya prior to his running. Additionally, there were some who claimed that he applied as a foreign student for colleges. Additionally I always thought it odd that he did not immediately get out the birth certificate and shut them up, instead he took years.
As to being a "communist" that's a bit of red herring here. I said his policies. Even some of the Democrats, for example, disagree with him on the Keystone pipeline.
4) "Nations poor" and interesting way of dodging things.
The following percentages are recipients of welfare based on race.
• White – 38.8%
• Black – 39.8%
• Hispanic – 15.7%
• Asian – 2.4%
• Other – 3.3%
So they are the largest group PERIOD, and that doesn't
even take into account that are a much small percentage
of the population than white people.
White people still make up roughly 72% of America and Black people roughly 12%. That means there are 6 times as many White people as Black people, so if they were on welfare in proportion then the numbers should also be 6:1, and they are not.
As to crime, let's look at a simple statistic. Murder.
Under race of offender, there are
2755 murders committed by people identified as white.
2698 murders committed by people identified as black.
If the murders were in proportion to population it should not
be anywhere close to being equal given there are 6 times as
many white people.
Regarding Al Sharpton, he shakes down the companies by threatening them with bad publicity.
And yes, lots of people owe some taxes, but he owes MILLIONS.
As to dictating to Obama who he should talk with, I don't
have that power. But you are judged by the company you keep.
2 weeks, 2 days ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119912/black-female-journalist-quits-media-decries-newsroom-racism
1) Lots of black folk openly admit they voted for Obama solely because he was black. Hell, I even kind of understood the sentiment the first time.
2) The head of the Black Congressional Caucus stated, prior to Obama's reelection, that things were going so bad that if Obama were not black that there would have been a march on DC.
3) I don't know the type of person you speak of when it comes to spitting on people. Then again, lots of people claim everyone who voted against Obama and his policies because of his race, which is just nonsense.
They voted against his policies because they suck.
4) Al Sharpton is not a one time visitor, in fact, he's been there more than almost any non-employee. Al Sharpton is a man who makes his money by threatening to call companies racist unless he gets cut a check. And he still manages to skip out on his taxes and legal obligations.
5) As for your statements on conservatives about Black people.
Let's just look at the facts. Black people are disproportionately on the dole or in prison. Now of course the majority of them are just regular people, not better or worse than white folk. I'm not familiar with the statistics with other races, except I do know that Asians are less represented in the prisons and welfare system. Illegal aliens are also disproportionately in the prisons, but I'm not sure what the Lation/Hispanic representation is excluding them.
And who is referring to anyone else's experiences?
Keeping exploiters from visiting the White House is a good thing.And voting for someone solely because they were white would bejust as bad as voting for someone because they were black.Of course if White people had voted for the White candidate in the percentages Black people did for Obama, he never would have got into the White House.
Each group has its racists. It is a taught response for the most part.
As long as the likes of Al Sharpton are welcomed at the White House, or people vote for someone in no small part because of their skin color, we are going to have problems.
It will be fun if Dr. Ben Carson runs for the GOP while the Democrats run an old White woman against him. It should make the liberals heads explode and might free some people of their preconceptions.
@satay31 @Jack_k1 @Hunter345 @Propecia Washington
Actually, what more relevant from your point of view is that the actions
of these people are not being done under the color of authority.
There are plenty of racists in every population.
There are black people that want to "Get Whitey", but much in the same
way if a white person were to assault a black person, its a crime.
The question in play is whether or not the historical mistreatment of people of color at the hands of (mostly white) authority figures continues to this day and to what extent it does as well as what is being done about it.
Most white people consider such actions to aberrations, while a significant portion of the black population believes it is far more common.
The problem arises when opportunists rabble rouse for their own personal benefit, making it hard for honest people to learn whether or not an action came about due to racism or simply because a criminal ended up getting shot (or an innocent person accidentally harmed).
I'm hoping that body cameras on police will become standard issue. People tend to behave a bit better when they know what they do will be captured. Bad guys know they won't be able to cry wolf, and bad cops won't be able to claim justification when none exists.
2 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119912/black-female-journalist-quits-media-decries-newsroom-racism
@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr @satay31 @Hunter345 @Propecia Washington Actually, according to another poster here, the cop was not black but apparently Hispanic(?). If it proved that he did not break the law, that's a good thing.
2 months, 1 week ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119912/black-female-journalist-quits-media-decries-newsroom-racism
@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr @satay31 @Hunter345 @Propecia Washington
Not sure what the law is regarding shooting a fleeing suspect.
If he had assaulted the officer, then it becomes reasonable to assume that
he is a danger to others, so a shoot might be legal. If he had not, and was known to be unarmed, then I can't see it being legal.
I wish someone had caught it on tape.
2 months, 2 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119912/black-female-journalist-quits-media-decries-newsroom-racism
@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr @satay31 @Hunter345 @Propecia Washington *sigh*
You will need to provide a link pointing to the video you are referring to in order for us to know I'm viewing what you are. The video I saw showed an interaction of some kind at the counter. It also showed him having a negative interaction with the clerk as he was leaving. Now if the clerk reported something as stolen, and tape shown seems to support that, why should not a reasonable person assume that this is likely to be so?
No, I'm not a cop. I defend the truth, plain and simple. If you take the time to read ALL of what I've written, you will see that I don't mince with words. I will summarize it for you.
If Brown was charging Wilson, it was a good shoot.
If Brown was standing still and surrendering to Wilson, it was murder.
I'm awaiting proof one way or the other and I'm willing to accept either
finding. Are you?
@satay31 @richardstarr @CeceliaHolland @Hunter345 @Propecia Washington
As far as I know, this grand jury acts as you state. They decide whether or not evidence is sufficient or not to go forward.
Wilson did not know, but Brown did know and it explains his actions if he thought Wilson was aware of what happened in the liquor store.
Does Wilson have parents or siblings? That's family too.
I'm assuming then that tear gas was used because an order to disperse was not obeyed. Was an order given and ignored?
Actually, it IS illegal to block the roads unless permits have been issued. It is often not politically expedient to enforce those laws however. A PLANNED tribute for 30 minutes is not what we are talking about here. As to making assumptions, I was simply stating the way things work regarding peaceful attempts to gain redress and was not specifying anyone's particular actions. Remember, I state up front that I'm not up to date to all of the events and I'm trying to not make any assumptions, though I will draw logical conclusions based on my experience.
I doubt Wilson will ever have his named fully cleared if innocent.
Zimmerman was not charged and still is assumed guilty.
And last I heard, Zimmerman was NOT doing well financially or
socially. Everyone still remembers the name Mark Fuhrman because
of his stupid testimony, and he was never accused of doing anything,
just tarred by his association with the OJ trial.
And I was not making a judgment on how the money is being used, only stating that people are raising it for stated purposes. If the kids benefit, more power to them. Less thrilled with the parents essentially making a living off of their kid's death. *shrug*
Link to whole tape please.
All I saw was what looked like a payment for something and him pushing by the clerk trying to stop him to get him to pay for something else. Why was the clerk trying to stop him, otherwise?
I'm not sure how long it takes to investigate a scene. Given the nature of what happened, nothing should be moved until the medical examiner and crime scene people are done. If they had moved too early, there would have
been complaints about destroying evidence.
He's being investigated now, that's what the grand jury is about.
Yes, they were protecting him. Given the reactions in the past, this was
frankly sensible to prevent people from trying to do harm to him or his
The tape was NOT inflammatory, it reflected the truth. Whoever leaked false photos, THAT is inflammatory.
I did not keep close tabs on the events, I have no idea of when the riots started or what the particular triggers were. People have the right to peaceably assemble for redress. They may not, however, block traffic or impede others from also lawfully going about their business.
I'm sure the authorities could have done a better job.
I'm not aware what was done with the body.
Certainly they would need evidence to be gathered before moving it.
EVERY officer involved shooting should always be investigated.
If threats were made against Wilson, if makes sense to not have him in the public eye.
I'm not sure what "inflammatory"data you are referring to, but both sides are playing the PR game. My only concern is that nothing false get puts out there. Again, by either side.
While I'm less than enthused by the idea of military vehicles being used in the public, I still remember scenes where rioters have over turned police cars, which can't help but to make things worse. All it takes is one bad person to throw something, hurt a cop, and have a terrible over reaction
occur and lethal force used with innocent people harmed.
@satay31 @richardstarr @Hunter345 @Propecia Washington
No, I don't know the leadership of any group, other than national figures. I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself. Sharpton and Jesse are the ones on TV all the time. There are others out there, but I don't know them and of course there are those individuals like Larry Elder who I believe have a view that does not conform to the average black American based on the phone calls he receives and comments from black politicians like Maxine Waters. And of course there is Dr. Ben Carson who is running as a conservative, but I have not heard either of them comment on the issue.
I'm waiting to hear results from any investigation, but given the DOJ past pronouncements when they thought it likely charges would be made, its reasonable to assume that nothing is coming. Politics are certainly involved and Sharpton (there's that name again) apparently has the ear of the president at times and he's been making demands on his show that charges be made (waiting for the evidence to show cause is apparently irrelevant).I'm still waiting for the official story to come out, preferably backed by evidence. I've heard enough variants to give me pause. I'm still willing to hear something to show me the officer is guilty, I have to wonder how many in Ferguson will accept a showing of it being a "good shoot".
Zimmerman was not "on duty" as he was not an officer, just someone who lived in the area who was patrolling for crime because apparently the local police were not doing enough in his mind to stop the home robberies that had been going on.
I'm not sure what happens to the money. It would be nice to see an accounting one way or the other. According to the fund raising sight, Wilson's funding will go toward "potential legal fees, relocation, and living expenses" for him and his immediate family. Let's face it, even if his name is "cleared" he might be encouraged to move on as he and his family will no doubt be under threat. And while Wilson has a gun, I'm not so certain his family members do.
And there happen to be funds set up by/for Michael Brown's family. One for "expenses while seeking justice" and another to put his siblings
through college. Over $288K raised so far.
When the case was first brought to my attention I was told the officer was black. Later he was referred to as a "person of color" and finally a name was brought to my attention by you. I did not happen to dwell on the incident after it came to my attention as I figured sooner or later the full story would come out.
As to protests, nothing in the Utah incident even approaches the events that have taken in Ferguson. A peaceful protest is not the same as the riots lead with evangelical furor followed by mini crime sprees that we are urged to ignore.
As to tension. What causes it? Well, someone commits a crime, the police respond, and instead of cooperation there is confrontation. This leads to a negative feedback loop that is unlikely to get better as long as individuals use it to establish a power base.
As to the election, it JUST happened. I assumed that you would not need the prompting since, after all, almost everyone knows that Obama was a Senator for a while before running for President. I already spend enough time typing to be accused of being a bit didactic, but if I must be more verbose to get my point across I will endeavor to do so.
"Dropped charges do not in anyway make it clear that someone is innocent
it only means there is insufficient evidence to charge them, by
destroying the main witness in the case they ensured their was no case,
that is very simple."
There was an actual declaration of innocence issued which means the court was convinced that the evidence in fact showed that no crime was committed and the charges fraudulently based. When you have a "victim" claim to have been raped and inseminated and upon examination the dna to be solely that of her boyfriend, there is a problem.
Assaulting a police officer is not a "lark".
If all he had done was steal the cigars and intimidate the clerk, the officers actions would be murder.
The story, as it has been delivered to me, is that he first struggled with the officer attempting to seize his gun through the window of the car with the gun eventually going off.
The sheer insanity of the action makes you wonder what in the world was going through his head.
The situation ended with him charging the officer and the officer shooting him repeatedly as he was doing so, resulting in his death.
If this is what happened, its a good shoot as it is self defense.
If Brown was standing still and surrendering, then the shooting is not an "execution" which is lawful killing after a court determination of guilt, but rather it is murder. Period.
Deadly force is acceptable only when used in self defense of oneself or to prevent harm to another. To a lesser extent it may be used to protect property when it can be shown that recovery of that property can not achieved by any other method or that such an attempt would result in great bodily harm.
So, if someone was robbing you, you pulled out a gun, they refused to return your property, you can shoot them. But, if they put down your property, you can't, unless you have an honest belief that they will be putting someone else's life in danger, etc. That said, its a limited defense for regular folk in most cases unless you are in your home.
I'm not on the grand jury, I've seen no evidence, I've heard a number of witnesses discredited because their statements don't fit the physical evidence, and I'm waiting for the truth
to come out, whatever it may be. And I hope when all the evidence comes to light, justice will be done.
I will say this, if the justice department can't even muster
the evidence needed to charge, let alone convict him, then
likely the evidence just is not there, and the burden of proof for such a charge is far lower.
I'm not sure how Darren Wilson is supposed to be getting rich.
I don't believe Zimmerman has done so, likely because of the very expensive lawyer bills.
And people are angry, in part, because they are being told they would be right to be so. If you are being told something terrible is going on, you get angry. Sadly, they don't angry at the people that tell them this when the evidence supporting it does not happen to exist. Consider the Tawana Brawley case where the lies spread by Sharpton where so without foundation that he was sued for them, and Sharpton lost.
Since when was Illinois part of the South?
There have been a total of 9 Black US Senators, the first 3
were Republican, the next 5 Democrats, the most recent
again a Republican. None of the Democrats were elected
in the South. Booker, the most recent Democrat Senator, is there by appointment rather than being elected.
I noted specifically that Love was the first Black Republican woman and made no claim she was the first overall.
I will happily provide you the link to where I got my information, claiming to be tired is a cop out.
Family is not just about marriage, but it again ties in with
money. It has to do with the theoretical support base to help
keep a person clean and sober. Individuals that can show such a support base are more likely to get diversion programs and not repeat.
As to the Duke incident,
"On April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper
dropped all charges and declared the three players innocent. Cooper
stated that the charged players – Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and
David Evans – were victims of a "tragic rush to accuse." The initial prosecutor, Durham County's District Attorney
Mike Nifong, labeled a "rogue prosecutor" by Cooper, withdrew from the
case in January 2007 after the North Carolina State Bar filed ethics
charges against him. That June, Nifong was disbarred
for "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation", making him the
first prosecutor in North Carolina debarred for trial conduct. Nifong
served one day in jail for lying about sharing DNA tests (criminal contempt), although the lab director says it's a misunderstanding and Nifong says it's weak memory. Mangum faced no charges for her false accusations as Cooper declined to prosecute her."
There is a big difference between being found "not guilty"
and a declaration of innocence. One merely indicates an
inability to prove guilt, the other is the statement that it
is proven that they did not commit the crime.
Please understand that I believe there are real abuses going on out there, including rape. I don't believe Police are saints or anything equally stupid.
The Oklahoma case is not one I'm familiar with, though I am familiar with similar cases in California, and at least one case in the US where a cop was stupid enough to take a video of him getting "paid off" by a porn star rather than writing her a ticket.
Please produce links to reputable sources regarding your stats. I would expect that there would be at least one government report at the federal level that backs you up if your assertions are correct.
Regarding Selma, if we were really still like it there would be no way that you would be having the number of representatives in high office be Black, including Tim Scott, first black senator elected in the South since Reconstruction
(Tim Scott won in South Carolina, becoming the first African-American
since Reconstruction to be elected to the U.S. Senate and elected to a
statewide office.) and Mia Love, the first black Republican woman elected to Congress. Scott is also a Republican. Odd that the GOP can add a Black Senator but the Democrats can't. *shrug*
I'm not sure what crimes in particular blacks are serving in prison for. I do know that often the crime that someone agrees to serve time for is a lesser crime than one they risk harsher sentences for. 93% of prison sentences come from plea bargains.
I also believe that drug laws need to be seriously reformed.
I've never cared what a person did to their own body, but people don't go to prison for smoking weed unless it happens
to be a probation violation.
Part of the reason why there are more black folk in prison is simply money and family. They are more willing to allow probation if you have a family support system and money always helps keep people out of jail if it is at all possible.
As to Michael Brown, it is said that he initially struggled with the officer while in his car attempting to take the gun, resulting in the gun going off inside the car. From the public release of the autopsy by his family, all the shots were fired at his front, traversing up his right side bottom to top. Given the nature of his wounds, I can't see how any of them could have occurred on his arms if he had had his arms up. Every bit of evidence revealed so far continues to make this appear to be a good shoot, which is why despite the noise, Holder never charged the officer with a violation of Brown's rights.
The people are angry because they have been a story that would give them reason to be angry. If you have people lie and say they witnessed a kid being shot while standing still with his hands up, one could expect no less.
I remember the fury that was aimed at the Duke Lacrosse team. It took time, but eventually it was shown that lies were told and the truth eventually came out.
@satay31 @Hunter345 @richardstarr @Propecia Washington
Facts are good.
The point I was addressing was that the roles were reversed and a non-white officer killed an unarmed white kid with none of the usual suspects crying about it. But, given the cop was not black I guess Sharpton and Jackson see no profit defending him either. I've not seen any tape from the event and I hope you are making statements based on your viewing it rather than second hand.
I try to judge each event on its own.
The sad truth is, black people have a disproportionate amount of interaction with the justice system. Both as criminals and as victims of crime. There are literally over half a million cops/sheriffs in the U.S. And typically over 100 lose their lives on the job every year.
Line of Duty Deaths: 105
9/11 related illness: 1Aircraft accident: 1Automobile accident: 25Boating accident: 1Bomb: 1Drowned: 2Duty related illness: 1Electrocuted: 1Fall: 4Fire: 1Gunfire: 30Gunfire (Accidental): 2Heart attack: 10Motorcycle accident: 4Stabbed: 2Struck by vehicle: 8Training accident: 2Vehicle pursuit: 4Vehicular assault: 5
Even if we concentrate on just the obvious deliberate killings, that's not an insignificant number.
Pretty much every black person killed by a cop gets national attention. That's because its relatively rare, especially given the number of cops out there and even more so when compared to black deaths caused by criminals. Thing is, no one can make a buck screaming about a black kid killing another black kid.
This is not to say that we should not thoroughly investigate every instance where a cop involved shooting occurs, just that things must always be looked at individually if there is going to be justice in any form.
As to Micheal Brown, he 18, but he was also 6'3 and over 300 lbs and evidence has been leaked that he assaulted the cop and there is supposedly over a dozen black witnesses to the event that back it up. It's a shame that body cameras are not standard equipment on all cops, it would increase the odds that justice would prevail and put the hucksters pretending that it's still Selma in the 60's out of business.
@Hunter345 @Propecia Washington Except no one is getting shot simply because to their skin color.
Now I will grant you, cops might hesitate a bit more about shooting a white guy doing something weird, but it still happens. Sometimes by black cops. Look at the unarmed white kid in Utah.
3 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119912/black-female-journalist-quits-media-decries-newsroom-racism
@Romare @richardstarr @ErinErin @JonDaly Yes, and if they were in a place they were not known they might not have been served appropriately.
Oprah is recognizable by pretty much everyone in the US.
In France? Not so much.
@vonettadevo Yes, white people too. I've seen middle class types snubbed at high end car places because the salespeople don't think they can afford it.
The bag was priced at over $40,000 and the sales girl did not want to risk the bag being hurt on a person that did not appear to have the means to purchase it. I've been in places and steered towards lower priced items because the clerk did not think I could afford what I was looking at. No, I'm not rich, but I could easily afford it. *shrug*
@ErinErin @JonDaly The Oprah story is an extreme situation.
1) She was in a foreign country, France, and not recognized.
2) She was dressed "comfortably", not high fashion.
3) She asked to see a bag that costs more than the clerk of the store earns
in close to a year, a $40,000 Hermes bag. If the bag had been damaged or stolen, the clerk would have lost their job.
It was not about race, it was about money. Few people of any race could afford
such a bag or be crazy enough to waste that kind of money on one.
Had she gone there dressed to the nines with her entourage she would have been treated as "Oprah".
@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr I've always considered it stupid of companies to hire anyone but the best candidate for a job.
@ElizabethTownzend @richardstarr Words have "Definitions" not "interpretations". Attempting to rewrite the language to better fit what you would "like" the words to mean, especially given historical usage, is very Orwellian.
As to "dating" myself, I'm a child of the 70's, but I'm not ignorant of the sins of mine or previous generations.
Women, are NOT a minority given they are 51% of the population.
The term "the 1%" ring a bell? Race happens to also be a social construct.
People are people. Race is an invented term used to justify the mistreatment
of a group of people, its not a accurate biological term. I suppose you could use the term breed to refer to certain physical traits like they do with horses, cats, dogs, etc. But like those creature, we can breed with each other, as opposed to a cat and a horse which being truly different races cannot.
I have no blinders on, I just refuse to see something that is not there now.
I will not allow group think to override common sense.
But have a nice day anyway.
@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr OK, or you could have sued. If you have the ability to do the work well and you are the most qualified candidate you should get the job.
About the only time a woman is not qualified is maybe for an acting job where the character is male, though I imagine some jobs requiring great strength may limit the candidates.
@pointguard @richardstarr @Mr_Brett @theduderino
And I stated, I want the best people to get in.
And there are a lot of movies out there, I tend to take it with a grain of salt. I just go by the stories of family and how they and their friends were treated at the time.
I have no idea of what is causing the near identical percentages.
Considering they make up roughly 5% of the population their may indeed be a "cap", which is a limit, rather than a "quota" which is a minimum.
@pointguard @richardstarr @Mr_Brett @theduderino Funny how you bring up California. It's illegal here to use race as a factor. Recently, some in the legislature attempted to allow it be used again, but protests from Asian groups thankfully killed it.
And Ivy league did not have "quotas" for Jews, they simply put up roadblocks that acted to prevent all but from the best from qualifying. Kind of like the nonsense they did in the South where Black folks were required to pass a "test" and white folk were grandfathered in and did not need to do so.
What may exist in some circles is the idea that since Asians are generally successful, there is no need to act to ensure that a minimum amount of them are enrolled. *shrug*
Frankly, I just want to the people who are the best to get in, regardless of race.
@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr Nope. I can't recall a single instance in my life where someone was given something over me due to their race. I've had positive and negative encounters with most groups, enough to know that people are people, some are a-holes others are awesome.
Likely because I'm fortunate enough to be in a field based on science and deal with facts. Every time a non-white person has been awarded something over me its because they merited it and I'm honest enough to see that they did.
@PlayerPage @richardstarr @Mr_Brett @theduderino
Stop being "amazed" read what I actually wrote.
In a nut shell, they were mistreated, but they were not slaves.
If you can't grasp the distinction that not being a slave is better ....
@ElizabethTownzend @richardstarr @JenAdamo
Nonsense, that's just the attempt to redefine the word to justify racist behavior that originates from a minority group. The rich are very much a minority among us, but no one could say with a straight face that they can not be racist.
Racism is not about "research" its a word. Racism is the belief about a group of people that is not justified by fact. This belief can be positive or negative.
Bigotry is ignoring facts and mistreating people of a group based on ones own prejudices.
And "privilege" is yet a whole other subject.
Racial privilege died with Jim Crow, individual privilege lives based on ones own circumstances. No one with half a brain would consider the kids of Tiger Woods worse off than a child of homeless woman who just happens to be white.
@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr No, I used logic.
I'm not assuming he is "right" I'm assuming she is making an honest observation of the event.
Hostile = Anger
Anger implies a BELIEF that there is a cause
That cause, given his statements, is his BELIEF that she is being given
an assignment because of her race. It is thus his belief that racism is
in play here, one that is acting to his detriment.
Please demonstrate why this is not a valid logical conclusion.
@CeceliaHolland @richardstarr I'm not saying he was "justified" just that he believed that she was using race. She stated he was "hostile" which implies anger which implies he felt he had a reason to be angry. Based on her statements its fair to assume that she or someone else had previously been assigned a black personality and that it appeared to him that this was done because of her race. I'm treating her observations as being accurate and my conclusions are therefore reasonable in this context.
But do you know why that is so?
There was a time, not so long ago, where discrimination was rampant against Jewish people.
Road blocks were put up at schools that prevented all but the absolute best from making it.
The result was, those that did make it were among the best and eventually the reputation of
a "Jewish" doctor/lawyer/account as top notch made them desirable, and eventually the stigma faded to a great extent. Wish success comes money, which allows one to send children to the best schools or open their own..
Then there is Hollywood. In the past being an actor was a disreputable profession. As such, they were open to people from all backgrounds. Well, some Jewish families lucked out and were in prominent positions when Hollywood bloomed. Kind of like nerds of today being "hip" vs per-internet days. Money gives instant credibility, power, and influence.
As for Asians, they did not have quite the same hurdles as black people. While many were mistreated, they were never actually enslaved here. And, like the Jews, they worked to overcome their circumstances by being the best. When you are the best, people can't risk letting the other "team"get a hold of you. Think post Jackie Robinson. Once one team used black people, the others followed suit or fell behind.
As always, success breeds the chance for further success.
This is not to say all Jews or Asians are successful, were not, but we are all molded by our history and circumstances.
Racism still does exist today, but its not the racism of the past.
There is no Jim Crow laws on the books nor are property contracts forbidding the sale of homes to Jews or Blacks legal anymore. But, you also have individuals that have been raised being told that everything is about race and because they believe it, are negatively effected by it and see every instance as evidence that it is the norm rather than the exception. And of course there are those who profit from racism, the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would not have any where near the wealth and influence they have if they did not continue to push the idea that "they" were still needed as if the days of Jim Crow and Selma were still with us.
@JenAdamo @richardstarr Exactly what assumptions do you think I'm making here?
I'm basing everything on the author's statements.
The author's statements are racist, period.
There is a belief that using white people to report on a "black" event is wrong.
I state that she appears to have been hired for her race because she alludes to it multiple times.
The only "attitude" I'm displaying is my willingness to call it out.
I'm not saying that she is not experiencing people that are racist,merely that she happens to be racist herself. The type of racism she has experienced was of the "progressive" sort for the most part from which she might well have benefited and she makes the assumption that anything that does not fit her world view as "racist".
And, given your last statement, I'm guessing your racism follows the same lines as hers or those she worked with. Believe it.
I'm not surprised. Some people will always frame things around race. The white entertainment reporter no doubt had experienced people using their race as a tool to get what they want and was unhappy enough to let the truth bluntly slip out. The question is, did the author actually have an expectation that she would have and advantage because of her race?
Regarding the artist on the rise, just take out the word black. Unless you are of the belief that black people are going to support that artist more because of her race, which would be by definition racist, it should not be relevant to the argument. Not every performer on the "rise" gets anywhere nor is every entertainer within a particular community going to be adopted at some point by the whole of society. Every artist needs to be judged on their own merits.
"..having white journalists write the main features on a new black news
venture sent the wrong message to the black online community. "
This certainly appears to be racist in nature. If the readership judges the content based on the skin color of the author, how is it not?
Seems to me that the author appears to have been frequently hired for her skin color, and is surprised that those people who performed that racist act, would perform other acts that were similarly racist. It's ironic that she can't see that her own work is dripping with her own racist ideals.
I believe that what the Japanese pay is a pittance compared to what the signing bonus would likely be.
The 3 year ban is nothing compared to the potential gain in increased pay if he signed with a MLB team.
The insanity of paying a team millions to let him go and the player is given NOTHING for it is immoral,
especially if he is not under contract. You would have the Japanese teams paying to get this kid for the
sole purpose of getting the transfer fee down the road.
As long as this kid is not represented by Scott Boras, I'd think he would be worth a gamble on.
They might be able to "draft" him against his will or some such, but I don't think that they can do that
if he does not "declare" to do so. Now whether or not he could later somehow get signed by a major
league team is an interesting question. Perhaps if he were to get a scholarship to a state side school
some of this wierdness could go away?
2 years, 3 months ago on Report: Dodgers Interested in Japanese High Schooler Shohei Otani
With all due respect, you really need to take a second look at David Anderson.
While I will agree he is not a superstar, he is far above average. It's like blaming
Jeremy Lin for his getting released by those other teams before the Knicks; if you
don't make use of the player, you don't get the benefits of that player.
(Yes, that was a bigger mistake, David is never going to be Calvin Johnson)
You have a guy with just 1, one! career fumble.
You have a guy who averages 11 yards/carry.
You have a guy who gets along well with his team mates.
You don't see the big mouth, the drugs, or any of those issues with him.
Frankly speaking, he knows the system, has a great humble attitude, and
he is a very inexpensive insurance policy for the injuries every team suffers.
I believe if they expanded his role, you would be surprised at the results.
People tend to forget that in college Anderson was number one on the Colorado State Rams all time receiving lists for career yards (3,634) and career receptions (223).
2 years, 11 months ago on Previewing the 2012 Redskins: Offense, part 2