Blank Versus Blank: Racism in America

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Racism in America

Doug:
NFL football player Colin Kaepernick has taken a lot of heat for his protests. I don't really follow sports, so hadn't ever heard of him. But, I guess, many people have now. According to Wikipedia:

Before a preseason game against the Green Bay Packers on August 26, 2016, Kaepernick sat down, as opposed to the tradition of standing, during the playing of the U.S. national anthem. During a post-game interview he explained his position stating, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder", referencing a series of events that led to the "Black Lives Matter" movement and adding that he would continue to protest until he feels like "[the American flag] represents what it’s supposed to represent”.

David:
You probably won't hear from him for much longer. The NFL requires a player to produce results, or they get canned. Your color, your religion, or your politics don't matter. He's lucky to be still able to sit on somebody's bench as a backup. My guess is he's suddenly got an urge to gain some publicity for himself to keep his name on some NFL team-manager's minds, when the Forty-Niners are ready to trade him.

Doug:
If your politics don't matter, then I guess you are suggesting that he isn't a very good player? And you are suggesting that he is not really interested in oppression, but merely advancing himself? Why would you think that?

David:
Politics don't matter in the NFL. None of this was an issue for him when he was the starter. But now, it is.

Doug:
I don't understand. You are saying that he will be lucky to sit on someone's bench because of his politics, but politics don't matter? It sounds like politics do matter. But don't we want to advocate for being able to have freedom of speech?

David:
He's sitting on their bench because they still need a backup, and at the moment, he's still the best they've got. Maybe you should watch some football now and then. Although, it does involve some physical violence, so you probably will want to ban it.

Doug:
There are a lot of head injuries, I've heard. Even at the high school level. It is a pretty violent sport.

David:
It's the nature of contact sports. And because we live in a great country, we have the freedom to choose to play a sport like football, or not.

Doug:
Yes, we live it a great country because... we have the freedom to bang our heads? I don't mind violence on TV too much. I just just watched 6 seasons of "Game of Thrones." But that violence is all simulated. (The rape scenes are disturbing and unnecessary.) Funny that the fantasy world is just like ours in some ways. But, sure, we have the freedom to play football. (Just don't speak your mind when doing it. I thought we had a great country because of freedom of speech?).

David:
But to the larger issue, how is it, exactly, that this country is "oppressing" black people and people of color? He's a professional quarterback in the NFL, making millions. The President of this "oppressive" country is black. What's Kaepernick talking about?

Doug:

I don't think he is suggesting that he is doing poorly. I think he very much appreciates his position, and he is trying to good with it.

David:

A minute ago, you had never heard of Colin Kaepernick, but now you know what he appreciates, and what his motivations are.

Doug:

I've read about him now. I hadn't heard of him, and now I have. I read about what he is protesting. I have read that he has pledged to donate $1 million to charities that help communities in need. I think anyone could see that he understands that this could potentially harm his football career.

David:

As Donald Trump would say, what has he got to lose?

Doug:

There are many things.

David:

If you did not agree with his protest, I doubt you'd be so generous with your opinions. That's speaking from our blog experiences. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt...

Doug:

Ok. You honestly believe that because we had a black president that there is no more racism in America? It seems that Kaepernick has started a trend, judging from the headlines this week:

And literally hundreds of thousands of similar stories from all over the country. But you claim to not know what this is all about?

David:

I'm asking you to explain to me where there is oppression of blacks and people of color in this country. There have been isolated crimes committed by white officers against blacks, and those have received attention, but where is there a concerted effort in the United States where the country (whom the flag represents) and all of it's citizens is oppressing anyone?

And while there are over 500,000 links to "similar stories" on Google, almost all of them describe the one or two stories you have linked to above. In fact, two (2) of your links describe the same story. Most of the current practice seems to be located in solid-blue Seattle.

Doug:

You've been busy reading "almost all" of 500k links! I don't have that kind of time, but it looked to me that there were high schools in every state of the union that had students similarly protesting. And more every week. Perhaps if you actually read those links you'd see what the protests are about. Perhaps this will be harder for you to dismiss if every school has a Colin?

David:

You're criticizing me for speculating without reading all of the links.....and then you speculate without reading all of the links. Since neither of us read all of the links, let's move on.

Doug:

Or, we could actually look at some of the stories. Here is a story about a Texas high school team that is receiving death threats because they are kneeling. Why would one feel the need to threaten the lives of football players because they won't stand up? Greatest country in the world! What do you have to lose?

On a related note, we got the following in our inbox this week:

Image received in our inboxes this week.

In case you can't read the image, it says: "TOWEL HEADS. Recently I received a warning about the use of this politically incorrect term, so please note: We all need to be more sensitive in our choice of words. I have been informed that the Islamic Terrorist, who hate our guts and want to kill us, do not like to be called 'Towel Heads' since the item they wear on their heads is not actually a towel, but in fact, a small folded folded sheet. Therefore, from this point forward, please refer to them as 'Little Sheet Heads'. Thank you for your support and compliance on this delicate matter."

David:

I can feel the oppression settling in.

Doug:

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

David:

The issue we're discussing is that America is systematically oppressing minorities. As part of your discussion, you've introduced this cartoon. You must feel it is part of the "oppression". I don't see it.

Doug:

You're looking at the cartoon to find oppression? Let's see what is actually going on in the cartoon, and the minds of people in America.

David:

You introduced this particular cartoon to illustrate the oppression that Kaepernick is fighting against. While I don't condone the cartoon in any sense (which should be noted to be a modified version of "Maxine" cartoons, which many have modified into memes, and does not reflect the genuine humor of "Maxine"), even liberal cartoonists often exaggerate and mock those they disagree with. Have you never seen a cartoon about the Tea Party? Everyone is a "red-neck", is considered stupid, ignorant, and, of course, racist, all for wanting to curb government spending.

Doug:

I find that cartoon very funny, if you switch "Perception" with "Reality". People don't like to think of themselves as racist, and even KKK members don't wear their hoods all of the time. I agree that the previous cartoon doesn't "reflect the genuine humor of Maxine." I mean, it may, but we have no evidence that the author of Maxine is racist. But, like you, I want to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, whoever did create this meme is racist, right?

The Maxine faux cartoon is so horrible on so many levels. I really hated putting it in the sunlight, in our blog. But this is the kind of racism that festers and affects people. But I don't even understand who the racism is against... is it Muslims? Or is it against Sikhs? Or maybe the author doesn't even know the difference? We don't use the term "Christian Terrorists" as a catch-all for so-called Christian killers. Why would the term "Islamic Terrorists" be any different?

David:

The cartoon you introduced mocks the politically-correct notion that if you change the words, then somehow you change the underlying meaning or sentiment. If you call a terrorist attack "work-place violence", then everyone is safer.

Michael Richards-unemployed Michael Irvin-ESPN analyst

Doug:

If political correctness is a bad idea, then when people say that they are against "political correctness" you think that they really want to be able to say things like this in public? You think that they should actually call Sikhs names? Political correctness is about respecting people, at least in public. You are free to think whatever you want, but calling anyone "Little Sheet Heads" is racist!

Do you think that the Maxine cartoon is deplorable?

What do you mean when you say "you don't condone the cartoon in any sense"? Do you mean that you would tell whoever you sent it that they should stop?

David:

Are there remnants of racism in the country. Yes. Is there organized oppression of minorities in this country? I'm still waiting for you, or Kaepernick, or anyone else to illustrate it.

Doug:

What would "organized oppression" be? Is that in opposition to "disorganized oppression"? Would any systemic effect against people of color count?

David:

Again, Kaepernick has said that he will sit during the national anthem until the country changes in a way that he feels represents what "it's supposed to represent". That indicates a belief that because of his actions, someone will be able to enact some type of change to the country as a whole. He has stated, and you seem to support the notion, that minorities are "oppressed" in America, by America.

Doug:

I'm pretty sure that Colin Kaepernick considers himself to be an American. But one can also draw attention to the fact that not all Americans are treated equally. Perhaps if enough people notice, then something will change. And then we can all feel like the national anthem represents us.

David:

But that is not what this particular discussion is about. The scattered "national-anthem" protest is about minorities being "oppressed". That's a very strong word, and the fact that he feels the national anthem and the flag are representative of his oppression, indicates that he feels the entire country is racist and oppressive towards minorities. What I'm still asking from you is some evidence of national "oppression". Not individual cartoons from a single individual or an isolated club of racists.

Doug:

You're confused again. I didn't bring up the cartoon as evidence of oppression; that was merely an example of racism that is in your inbox. If you are getting such racist stuff, can you imagine what other people are getting in theirs? And why do you get to determine what this discussion is about?

David:

Kaepernick has indicated the USA, as represented by the flag and the national anthem, is racist and oppressive to minorities. I say he's wrong, and so far, you (and he) have not supported his accusations in any way.

Doug:

I'm not sure who you think you are that I need to prove to you that Colin Kaepernick's protest is worthwhile. I'm exploring "Racism in America". There is a black football player that refuses to stand, and there are a bunch of white people (like you) that seem to have a strong opinion about that. You and I get racist email in our inbox, and I'm disgusted. You claim that you "don't condone it" but you don't say what that means.

David:

Oh, you silly boy. You have framed this discussion about race based on the protest by Colin Kaepernick that makes some rather strong accusations about the country we live in. All I've asked is that you explain his assertions. You can't, because they are not true. The American flag, and the national anthem represent a country where minorities are not oppressed, but have the freedom to reach higher and achieve greater opportunities than the vast majority of countries on Earth. He's free to protest, even though his protest makes no sense. I have not expressed any strong opinion about his protesting. I'm just asking for any example at all of the oppression he's touting. There is none. And, I don't know why you feel that only white people feel strongly in support of the flag.

This is not the 1700's, or the 1860's, or the 1920's, or the 1960's. This country is not the same as it once was, and continues to move in positive directions regarding race relations.

Doug:

That's a nice thought... I'm not sure why you believe it. Have you checked your inbox?

David:

Sigh. I don't know why you don't believe it. You believe we are the same as the 1700's? Because we are a free country, there will be people like David Duke and Louis Farrakhan. But the country is not racist. The tea party is not racist. The Republican Party is not racist. White people are not racist, just because they are white. Kaepernick and Hillary Clinton throw around the word racism too easily, and it hurts the process. America is not oppressive.

Doug:

Hurts the process? I think calling out racist email will help the process. This is a very specific point. You agree that the email is racist? What about the sender? If "political correctness" is the only thing keeping that type of deplorable comment at bay, then political correctness is a good thing, yes?

David:

Freedom of speech and ideas helps the process. Honest dialog helps the process. Calling out racist emails does help the process. I never argued that it didn't. Claiming there is oppression, when there is not, does not help. Calling everyone who disagrees with you "racist" dilutes the argument when real racism is present. Calling people who disagree with you "deplorable" does not help.

You and I disagree on a great many things, and yet we can have this discussion. Perhaps we can inspire some dialogue about race?

Doug:

You are taking credit for what Colin Kaepernick has started. And you have diluted the conversation. Actually it is worse: you say you don't condone such racism, but you will do nothing about it. We could have a deep, honest conversation about what it means when a member of our own family sends us racist cartoons in email. But you choose to find your own cartoons claiming that the national conversation on racism is misguided and useless. You ask for me to prove to you that oppression exists. And we didn't even mention Terence Crutcher. Welcome to racism in America, where you have the freedom to play football! Now, team, stand up and shut up.

David:

In an unprecedented move for Blank Versus Blank, I think this may be a topic worthy of continuing next week.....Stay tuned.

4 comments:

UnknownSeptember 21, 2016 at 8:50 PM
Definition of oppression: "a: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
b : something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power."

Definition of racism:
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Okay, so now that we have that out there, let me just say what I think. Kaepernick is not protesting his own oppression. Clearly, as someone in a semi-powerful position, the power dynamic isn't such that he could be oppressed -- by most people. He is protesting the fact that most black people in this country lack power and therefore find themselves oppressed by a variety of systems they're a part of. For example, there are more black people in prison than white people, not because more black people commit crimes than white people, but because black people are more likely to be stopped than white people, more likely to be charged with a crime than white people, and receive longer sentences for the same crime. This because of bias in the system by the predominantly white people who have power in justice system (cops, lawyers, judges, etc.).

Here's a fact sheet from the NAACP that identifies some of these facts (http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet).

And here's something from the Huffington Post about the same issue, citing a study by a Georgetown University Law School professor (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-rushing/the-reasons-why-so-many-b_b_883310.html).

So many people feel that there is "an unjust or excessive exercise of power" being used against black people when it comes to the criminal justice system.

And that's just scratching the surface. I haven't mentioned discrimination in schooling, the wealth gap, job discrimination, or the many other ways that minorities (and women, often) are experience oppression.

You don't say directly whether or not you believe Kaepernick has a right to protest. You sort of imply that he should be fired for it or humiliated in some way. Which, fine, that's what has happened to many a protester, including Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi. But what the flag and the national anthem represent is Kaepernick's constitutional right (1st amendment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) to protest. Laws or norms that require people to stand for an anthem or salute a flag is a nationalistic, not a democratic, state. Many people have claimed that Kaepernick's protest, because it happens during the National Anthem, is disrespectful. Had it been in another moment, perhaps we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it wouldn't have gotten the attention he intended either. And that's the whole point of protest.
ReplyDelete
Replies
David BlankSeptember 22, 2016 at 12:11 AM
Perhaps you should be joining the blog as a rational voice of discussion.

Based on your definition, satirizing someone's religious garb (towel-head) is not racist, as it doesn't comment on whether they are superior or inferior to the satirizer. By that definition, Doug's cartoon is satirical, but not racist at all, particularly as it deals with religion, and not race. Many political cartoonists will exaggerate physical characteristics of someone within the cartoon. Are they all racist? No.

We may just have to disagree with the statistics. I'm sure that all of the data accumulated by the NAACP is unbiased and unvarnished, and the Huffington Post is fair and balanced in it's reporting.

Here's some info from the FBI:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

This unbiased data indicates that nearly half of homicides in the US are perpetrated by blacks, who make up only 13% of the population. That is a problem.

I don't disagree with the summary of incarceration when blacks commit crimes. There is an imbalance in sentencing. But for the past 8 years, there has been a black person as the top law enforcement officer in this country, under the direction of the first black president, and we have not seen any change in the numbers. I believe there is data and evidence that blacks commit more crimes, including violent crime, than other races, statistically.

If you want to avoid the criminal justice system, and the "oppression" that goes with it, you actually can avoid the criminal justice system. Don't commit crimes. Jesse Jackson has said as much.

The fact that Kaepernick can sit during the national anthem in protest actually negates his argument that somehow he is oppressed. He is free to do whatever he wants. He's likely to get traded because he hasn't produced for the 49ers. I never insinuated that he should be fired, traded, humiliated, or anything else because of his protest. I think he's going to get ousted because the NFL is all about productivity. Period. Neither you nor Doug seem to understand the sporting world. Tim Tebow isn't playing because he wasn't good enough to play. His Christianity had no bearing on his playing career.

Free speech is not protected within the workplace. The government cannot infringe on your speech. The NFL could, if it chose to do so. You cannot do or say anything you want when you are wearing a uniform and representing your employer. The NFL has been remarkably generous in their take on this protest. They are within their bounds to fine or punish, or even fire a player based on their actions, if they fell outside of what the contract lays out as acceptable behavior. The First Amendment is not at play in this discussion.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 22, 2016 at 6:40 AM
To the fact that there is a black person in charge of the criminal justice system. There's not one system. There's a federal system, which currently has at its head a black woman. And there are 50 state systems. The bias can come from the top, but the bias is happening at the street level, at the moment of arrest, at what police sergeants in different precincts tell their cops to do. And it's in judges, who pass on the sentences. Those decisions are made in the moment, and while a person in charge can start to set a better tone, they can't always completely control what happens on the ground. So the argument that a black person is in charge, so therefore the system can't be biased doesn't make sense because one, it's not true at the state level and two, a system is made up of lots of people (who are all biased in different ways). And for the record, the US Attorney General is investigating several (at least two that I know of) police forces for their biased treatment of black men. So she's trying.

On numbers and statistics. Yes, the murder rate among blacks is high. That's not what I'm arguing against. What I'm arguing against is for other crimes, when a white person commits it, they get shorter sentences than when black people commit it. For example, when a white person is caught in possession of drugs, they might not get charged at all, especially if they're a rich white kid. A black person will get a much longer sentence. And that's unfair. Additionally, black people worry about getting abused or shot when stopped for traffic violations and they get pulled over more often than white people in the first place. So it's not entirely true that to avoid the criminal justice system, don't commit crimes.

On the "racism" or not of the cartoon. People are racist, not cartoons. The cartoon is offensive and the person who drew it is being offensive and rude. I have friends who are Muslim and who are Sikh. I have students who practice those religions as well. The cartoon lumps in regular, law-abiding people with people who commit horrible crimes. It's also ignorant because it shows no understanding of those religions at all. If a similar cartoon appeared that denigrated Christian people, I'm sure you'd be offended. The person has a right to draw the cartoon, but I have the right to point out its offenses. It's not politically correct to do so. It's human.
ReplyDelete
Replies
David BlankSeptember 23, 2016 at 9:49 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful discussion points.

For your points to be true, the entire system would need to be racist. The police officers, the prosecutors, the judges, all of them. In Baltimore, more than half of the officers, the Mayor, and the City's attorney are all black. They would need to be racist towards their own race.
Which is more likely: Everyone within the entire system, across all states, including judges, are racist, or, black people commit more crimes? This second option might also be supported by the fact that all of the protests against police abuses have ended up with violent riots and looting. If violent crime is heavily weighted towards blacks, why would you expect that they would not also be responsible for an over-sized proportion, compared to their percentage of the population, for other, lesser crimes?
What is the job of the police? Is it only to react to crimes once they have occurred, or is it also to intervene and prevent crimes? If the majority of crimes in an area are committed by young, black men, wouldn't it make sense for the police to watch people who match that description? It isn't racial profiling if everyone in a neighborhood is the same race.
As to the cartoon, you now have inadvertently opened up an entirely new discussion. Before, we were talking about racism. Now, you're talking about being offended. They are not the same. I'm offended by nearly everything that comes out of Hillary Clinton's mouth, because she parses words and the truth like a lawyer. She lies overtime she opens her mouth, depending on what new emails have been released that show that her last lie was just that, a lie. But there is no Constitutional right to avoid being offended. As we've already established, based on your definition, the cartoon is not racist. But being offended is in the eye of the beholder. There are plenty of cartoons and commentary the denigrates Christians, and offends me. But I get over it. I delete emails, or turn the channel. Trying to outlaw offensive behavior or speech is politically correct, but is anti-Constitutional. You can be ignorant, or racist, or offensive, or educated, or enlightened, or anything else in America. And you can keep pointing out when you are offended.
Dave
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!