Why It’s Time Black People Simply Disengage With White People In Discussing Race

oh no Eric....not at all, that's absolutely not what I was saying....all unnecessary deaths are tragic and I don't subscribe to any of it. I get it....I've lost friends from violence...I've had 3 handguns at my head for 14 dollars and a bag of groceries....there's absolutely nothing sensible about it on any level

 

My point was

To me, all those deaths are equally devastating and tragic....I'm surprised you would respond with that question of my values actually

 

Ummm.......what was your first clue that I didn't get it, Sherlock? The part where I stated that I can't get it? Speaking of not getting it........

 

I'd change the thread title to " Why people don't just disengage from racial divisions completely"

 

Your assumption that I don't care simply because I question whether BLM might be off base in SOME of its assumptions, is ridiculous. I don't deny that there's racial bias in the justice system. I care enough to try to understand the magnitude of the problem. We can discuss where a study like the one I linked might be incorrect in some of its methodology or conclusions, but pretending that anyone who tries to get some sort of handle on the reality of the issues raised by a movement like BLM by looking at facts is somehow uncaring is a rather bizarre way of thinking, IMO.

 

That is basically what you were saying to e_blazers. That's a core part of the problem. Blacks will say they want to have a "conversation about race" but they want that "conversation" to be totally one sided, which is not a conversation at all.

 

Why edit the post? It should be left here for all to see.

 

That's where you fail again. This thread was to tell people like you that I'm DONE having that conversation with people like you...

 

I think it would actually be great if we stopped talking about race. It just whips up needless drama, and I think it generates a lot more racism than it ever solved.

 

Amen. Nicely said.

I saw dviss1 disagree w/this post, but his actions and posts speak otherwise and directly to what you're saying Sinobas. So with that, I tend to agree. It seems very much one sided, and if there is counter opinion or debate, you get a "I give no fucks" & "I'm out! I disengage"

 

Actions speak louder. When you post stats as an answer those are the actions that are speaking. When you talk shit about the media and then take their word when they portray BLM as negative and racist, those are the actions that are speaking. When we're whitesplained to that we need to protest peacefully (even though we already are) then we do protest peacefully in a way that will bring more awareness we're whitesplained to that we're not doing it the right way, those are the actions that are speaking. When the same people who LOVED Ali and Jackie say negative things about Kap's protest, those are the actions that are speaking.

So I don't assume, I go off of your actions.

 

I think this whole whoop-de-doo about racism boils down to this: if you teach any child from the time they are young that society is against them because of x, they'll see it in their life experience even if x is not the actual reason. That's not to say there isn't any racism, but I think over 90% of it is perception.

 

Let's just stop talking about race.

I wish I had this privilege that you still don't understand that you have.

 

The thread title is perfect.

 

The funny thing is, everyone on this forum doesn't give two shits about what color people are, or where they are from, or what race they are.

However, funny enough, is that there are a few posters on this board that are completely ramming their racial opinions down everyone's throat almost daily, and then get offended when people of all walks of life may have a different opinion or take then their own.

 

No, you assume motives in ways that are colored by your own biases and worldview.

Look, I'm a 63 year-old white guy. I've got a lot of mileage in the world and I've seen things get better, slowly and painfully and incompletely, for blacks and gays in this country over the course of my life. We're nowhere near where we have to get to yet, but only a fool would argue that things aren't better than they were in the '60s. We have a black president and a black attorney general. Gay people are out in the open and getting married. Those things would have been unthinkable when I was a kid.

From my perspective, Black Lives Matters is a reasonable response to a bunch of very questionable deaths of black people at the hands of police. It's good to protest and raise questions about these things. I have little doubt that without the raised awareness from the protests of the '60s, little of the positive changes that we've seen in my lifetime would have happened. You get no objection from me to BLMs formation or it pushing things in order to highlight injustice. That said, even well-intentioned people with a righteous cause can overstate their case and misinterpret reality. It's good to step back and examine facts to see where there is truth and where there may be simple misunderstanding. That's my motive in posting the links that I did.

So what are these egregious actions of mine that you're talking about?

I posted a political cartoon about Colin Kaepernick. I didn't say that I was totally in agreement with the cartoon's message, but I threw it out there for discussion's sake. Kap has his reasons for what he's doing and he's willing to accept the heat associated with his protest. I have some issues with what he's doing, but no complaint with his right to protest.

I posted a link to a New York Times column about a study by a black professor at Harvard University that seems to say that the data shows that blacks are not being killed by police in disproportionate numbers. The New York Times and Harvard University are about as respected as it gets when it comes to reporting and researching social issues. The professor is black and he anticipated that his study would confirm racial bias, but he was honest enough to report that the facts did not bear out his original expectations. This study is not the be-all, end-all, answer on this issue. There may be other studies I'm not aware of that can be pointed to that conclude differently, or further research may come to different conclusions. But if you and other people associated with BLM are not willing to look at such a study objectively because it doesn't fit with your view of your world, that's on you. All it says about me is that I took the time to try to find some facts to gage the truth behind this issue.

I also posted a quote from Wikipedia about BLM. I did this in response to Sly's posted link from the BLM website. Wikipedia says, "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity." It relies on the fact that people in common can correct the information on its site and thereby reduce personal or institutional bias. Is it perfect? No, but I think that what it said about BLM would fit with the general perception of the organization's intent. If you have a different idea, you're obviously free to post it.

I'm absolutely willing to admit that my knowledge of what happens in black neighborhoods in regards to interactions with police is extremely limited and colored by what I see in the media. I'm open to hearing other viewpoints and welcome any light that you can shine on this issue. What I'm not willing to do is accept everything that BLM, or anyone else, says as absolute gospel. I'm going to keep reading other sources for more information and other viewpoints. I think that shows that I do care about this issue. If you think differently, that's your right.

 

I understand that Dviss doesn't want to talk about numbers, but I'm curious.

What is an acceptable number of shootings by the police in a year? If you think zero, that's literally impossible. That's not going to happen. People do stupid shit, they shoot at cops, they get killed. This is a byproduct of having guns available to the public. I'm a staunch supporter of the second amendment, but police shootings are one of the obvious negatives of having guns readily available. Guns escalate a situation. Most of the countries with very few police shootings already have guns, for all intents and purposes, outlawed. Places like England, Australia, and Germany. Those countries have very low police fatality rates, but they also don't have many guns.

So in a country with 319 million people and 1.1 million police, as well as 270 million guns in this country, you're going to have armed conflict. There will be people killed. That is inevitable. There were roughly 1,200 people killed by police in 2015.

319 million people
270 million guns
1.1 million cops
1,200 police shootings

I just want someone to explain to me how you're going to reduce that number significantly. If 1,200 is way too much, what are we going to do to drastically lower it? What's an acceptable number of shootings each year? I feel like those are reasonable questions to ask.

 

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16547690-just-the-facts-gun-violence-in-america?lite
According to this article 100,000 people are shot in the US every year...some die, some kill themselves...some survive..avg 289 per day shot...86 die, 53 kill themselves and 1 is killed by a policeman