Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am using Whitaker's recent experience in a very liberal area of NYC (a block away from Columbia University) to highlight patterns that are very typical of white liberals, to show that their basic thinking with respect to blacks, is really no different than white conservatives.
Many blacks speak out against white conservatives, but most seem to be very comfortable supporting white liberals. I'm perplexed, because both seem to be about the same, in terms of their views and treatment of blacks (in the collective sense).
You are using the bad judgement of a single deli store clerk to stereotype an entire group of people. You ought to be criticizing that clerk and no one else. I don't know that it constitutes a pattern. Now if that sort of thing happened to Whitaker more often, it would be a pattern of discrimination. As it stands, this is a wrongdoing by one person.
I'm from San Francisco, and honestly don't know the political leanings of everyone I encounter... so I can't say if you're right or wrong, also because I haven't seen much blatant discrimination here. Sure, there are racists, and they probably come from both sides of the political fence. So at least on that, we can agree. But are we MORE racist than, say, a small town in Kansas or Alabama? I highly doubt it.
So you can't say the political leanings of the people you do know.
But you have zero problem saying people from Alabama and Kansas (people you don't know) are racist.
Forest Whitaker, an oscar winning (black) actor, was recently accused (by a deli store clerk) of stealing. The clerk proceeded to search him (which is not even legal). After patting him down, the clerk found no stolen merchandise. Once the ordeal was over, Mr. Whitaker simply left the store, humiliated and ashamed. Some people would be shocked to know that this sort of behavior is quite typical in very liberal white cities such as NYC, and San Francisco.
My question is, why are liberal whites thought of as "progressive" and "compassionate," while conservative whites are often all painted as hateful racists?
I'm sure Whitaker is probably rethinking his love fest with liberals?
In my opinion, both ideologies (liberal and conservative) represent two sides of the same coin. Because both groups essentially have the same type of "Good, Racist People."
In an Op-Ed piece about Whitaker's ordeal, columnist Ta-Nehisi Coates states:
It is my sincere hope that blacks move away from the democratic party and look towards a third party system. I'm amazed and confused that so many blacks simply don't get it..
At the end of the day, there's really NO difference between the ideology of conservative and liberal racism.
When it comes to money, politics nor race have anything to do with a person's business, typically. If I owned a store and I suspect a Caucasian stole something, I'd do my best (within legal boundaries) to see if they have stolen anything or not, same applies to African-Americans, Asians, Fijians, or whatever, money is money and if you steal from me you deserve whatever happens.
You think you can walk in my store and steal from me just because you are one race or another or because you're a liberal, conservative, independent, or etc? You have another thing coming, its money that a business owner cares about. And although I'm a liberal and I'm generally against generalizations of people (especially because I'm African-American), if I owned a store and someone regardless of their race, politics, celebrity stature, or etc. looks suspect enough to steal from me, my eyes will be on them.
So you can't say the political leanings of the people you do know.
But you have zero problem saying people from Alabama and Kansas (people you don't know) are racist.
Isn't that swell.
No I didn't... learn to read. And you really think I know everyone in San Francisco?? Again your reading comprehension is lacking, because I clearly referred to "people I encounter" - not people I know.
(and those were literally random states I picked, btw, to make a point you obviously missed)
New York Penal Law, sec. 35.30
"4.A private person acting on his own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense [in his presence] and who in fact has committed such offense; "
For a citizens arrest to be legal the citizen MUST have absolute knowledge the crime did in fact occur. The fact that the store owner effected the arrest, and it turned out there was no crime, the very act of the arrest became a crime...
Notice the "whom he reasonably believes has committed an offense" followed by the "AND who in fact has committed such offense."
That sounds like a crazy law to me. You detain someone for robbing a store you're in, the police come and forget to read the robber his miranda rights, he gets off on the technicality, and now you're guilty for detaining someone who has not been found to have committed the offense.
No I didn't... learn to read. And you really think I know everyone in San Francisco?? Again your reading comprehension is lacking, because I clearly referred to "people I encounter" - not people I know.
(and those were literally random states I picked, btw, to make a point you obviously missed)
Okay, you don't know the political leanings of people you "encounter"
But you just pull 2 states out your arse and say they are more racist than people you live around.
That makes it more valid on your part. Calling a couple million people that you don't know racists based on geography.
That's just peachy.
And then people wonder why folks in "flyover" country think Californians are jerks.
It is my sincere hope that blacks move away from the democratic party and look towards a third party system. I'm amazed and confused that so many blacks simply don't get it..
At the end of the day, there's really NO difference between the ideology of conservative and liberal racism.
Conservatives don't care about blacks.
Liberals don't care about blacks.
Blacks don't care about blacks. If they did they would tell their kids do their homework and to stop getting pregnant at 15. And then blaming their shortcomings on white folk in the suburbs.
Okay, you don't know the political leanings of people you "encounter"
But you just pull 2 states out your arse and say they are more racist than people you live around.
That makes it more valid on your part. Calling a couple million people that you don't know racists based on geography.
That's just peachy.
Nope, you missed my point again! I never said those states were "full" of racists, just that I doubt SF & NYC are overall more racist than "some small (note I said SMALL) town in *insert state*." Yes, I see how that is speculating to some degree, but that's why I said DOUBT - as opposed to KNOW. If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I still doubt SF is more racist overall than most small towns in any state.
I've lived here a long time now, and have rarely witnessed blatant intolerance. Why do you think so many people move here from other states? Almost everyone I know is a non-native, myself included, and in some cases they specifically came to SF/CA to escape bigotry.
And then people wonder why folks in "flyover" country think Californians are jerks.
Btw, nice (read: stupid) addition to your post... I'm a jerk for saying SF isn't a racist area, as the OP is trying to say? Or am I a jerk for pointing out that other places are more known for intolerance? I'm not a native Californian, anyway, and find your attitude more "jerky" than mine (especially given your past posts). So to be called that by the likes of you is actually a compliment.
I don't know what it means to characterize these people as conservative or liberal. A lot of them are from the middle east or India where the way they cast their vote don't match up with their stances on social issues, foreign policy, or economic issues.
But one interesting thing that can be discussed is why the most heavily Democrat cities (Detroit, NYC, Chicago) are also the most heavily segregated.
I think because Democrats don't actually help minorities. I don't think it's intentional, but I think it's the practical effect. It's the societal effect of a whole series of policies from welfare to attitudes on sex to education. They enable people to stay poor more comfortably. They don't help people get out of poverty. I believe it is the old "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". All their social spending and emphasis on tolerance of irresponsible behavior amounts to passing out fish and not teaching people to fish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
