(05-30-2020, 10:44 PM)Bullseye Wrote:

(05-29-2020, 06:00 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: No.  I'm not going to deny that there are in fact still people that hold racist beliefs.  However, I would estimate that the percentage is VERY small.  I know people around my age (mid 50's) that have learned that racist ideas were wrong.  Their elders (parents, relatives, etc.) might not have.  I know that my great aunt used to call black people "coloreds" until the day that she died.  There was no changing a 90 year old woman's mind about that.

I would guess that most people age 60 or less don't believe or look at race/color the way that they did pre-1970 or so.

As far as "racial injustice", I don't think that it's a real "problem" today.  Everyone has the same opportunity to achieve (or not) whatever they want to achieve.  A poor black kid growing up poor in a ghetto has the ability to become an award winning neurosurgeon. - Ben Carson

A black woman who grew up in Birmingham, Alabama when segregation was still a thing became Secretary of State. - Condoleezza Rice.

A poor black man grew up to become the CEO of a major food chain. - Herman Cain

People need to get rid of the whole "victim" deal, especially with regards to race.

Since I answered your question why not answer what I have been asking?  Regarding this whole case, why did the officers take the suspect down to the ground and why were they restraining him the way that they were (as shown in the publicly released videos/pictures)?  Why is that part left out of any video clips or pictures?

I would put money on it that the reason they did that wasn't because of his race or skin color.  There had to be a reason.

And before anyone says that I'm justifying or condoning the actions that the officers took, I am not.  I'm just questioning why they did what they did and what led up to it.  That part hasn't been presented yet in the court of public opinion.

Your take is nave at best, disingenuous at worst, and in very little sense acquainted with reality.

You seem to think that since the passage of various civil rights legislation, racism in its various permutations has disappeared.  That is complete nonsense.

There have been laws on the books prohibiting any number of things from the beginning of time.  Every single state has laws against murder.  Have those laws stopped all murder?  No.
There have been laws against speeding since the automobile.  Does that stop people from exceeding the speed limits?  Anyone who drives can tell you that is a definite no.

Those laws, along with myriad others, carry  reasonably well known, well expected set of sanctions associated with them.  If you speed, you get a ticket, fine, points on your insurance and possible suspension/revocation of your license in more extreme instances.

Murder carries prison time, and possibly the death penalty.

Can anyone NOT a lawyer explain the specific penalties associated with the various Civil rights laws without looking them up or without engaging in hyperbole? 

Yet despite this, you think "racial injustice," however you defined it, somehow magically stopped witht he passage of the passage of Civil Rights era laws (many of which were weakened by conservative congressmen/justices)?

I am not going to waste my time showing all of the ways race based discrimination persists to this day.  Not only would it take years to research all of the case law and post an analysis here, most of you on the right would disregard it anyway (see Confederate motivations).

However I will offer you this article as a small example of how "racial injustice" persists in sentencing.

http://projects.heraldtribune.com/bias/sentencing/

Your premise is troubling on any number of levels.  It presumes that because it can't readily be proven on a message board without the benefit of discovery, cross examination, etc., it didn't happen.  If a sign on a business says there are job openings, I respond to the sign and make a face to inquiry, and the clerk lies, denying there are job openings available based solely or even partially on my race, without employing testers to confirm that or filing a suit compelling discovery, I've no way to prove that here.   More to the point, your attitude assigns almost a "Simon says" or "Mother may I" standard to proving racial discrimination.  The KKK could burn a cross in my yard, but because it didn't expressly state "[BLEEP] go away," standing alone, it still does not prove racist intent.  It also seemingly presumes, since tied to the passing of the Civil Rights legislation, that because discriminatory actions did not materially affect a right protected by law, it has no adverse effect on the recipient.  I assure you that is far from the truth.

But accepting, at face value your ludicrous assertion that most racism ended circa 1970 with the passage of the Civil Rights laws, it doesn't address the lingering effect that pre 1970 discrimination has.  A key to wealth accumulation is the acquisition of real property.  With redlining, the ability of African Americans to have access to loans to start businesses and acquire houses was constrained.  Furthermore, to the extent African Americans could obtain mortgages, their options were limited to areas with suppressed property values.  That limited generational wealth.   Furthermore the fact that it took a series of comprehensive federal legislation and Supreme Court decisions (Not traditional notions of common human decency or Christian values) to eliminate racism from the country speaks volumes.

Considering it's been only 50 years since the passage of those laws (using your 1970 estimate), and this country will be 244 years old as of July 4, the overwhelming portion of this country's history shows comprehensive racial animus against POC.  If anything, racist antipathy is the default-if rebuttable- presumption.  

Have things improved over the years?  Absolutely.  Has racism been completely eradicated from this country?  Absolutely NOT.

First off I'll say once again that you are one of the most respected posters on this board.

I think you missed my point entirely.  I never said "racial injustice" was gone nor did I say that "racism has been completely eradicated from this country".  I also never said that "since the passage of various civil rights legislation, racism in its various permutations has disappeared".  On the contrary I said that "I am not going to deny that there are in fact still people that hold racist beliefs".  I personally feel that is a true statement.  Call me naive or disingenuous all you want.  All I am expressing is my own personal opinion and observation(s) in daily life.

Regarding my thoughts in this thread as it relates to the case, I have never condoned the action(s) of any of the police officers and have openly said that at least one of them should be properly charged.  However, I nor anyone else in the general public has seen all of the evidence nor do we know exactly what was going on.  I simply raised the question as to why the man was taken to the ground and being restrained.  That portion has been left out of the "court of public opinion" which like you has already condemned the police officers as having done it for racial reasons.  There are simply no facts to back that theory up, yet we have people who believe just as you do burning down private businesses and destroying public property thinking that those retaliatory actions are justified.

Yes, racism still exists, but it's not near the level that it was 40 or 50 years ago.

To me people that scream "racism" or blame it for their misfortunes are pretty much "copping out".

---