Am i in the wrong? (Racism debate)

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

Some real ignorance in this thread.

 

Not necessarily OP. As someone else has said, unless you spend time really getting to know people of other races or cultures, you don't know. And it isn't always possible to really get to know others.

 

However, I am reading some wilful and deliberate ignorance on here.

 

Yes, "boy" is a loaded term in many parts of the US, and can be considered racist in many circumstances.

What a pointless post. Why mention the ignorance if you're not prepared to point it out and explain why it's ignorant.

[The Floyd]

12 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

Some real ignorance in this thread.

 

Not necessarily OP. As someone else has said, unless you spend time really getting to know people of other races or cultures, you don't know. And it isn't always possible to really get to know others.

 

However, I am reading some wilful and deliberate ignorance on here.

 

Yes, "boy" is a loaded term in many parts of the US, and can be considered racist in many circumstances.

The person in question was Hispanic and despite how well cultured someone perceives them self to be, it would be incorrect to call it racism. At worst it is patronising. 

 

Also, labelling someone as 'boy' isn't exclusive to minorities.

[MPH]

6 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I can see where you are trying to go with this but your logic is wrong. Yes both dinosaurs and racism existed, there is evidence for that. In order to determine whether institutional racism still exists in western societies such as the UK, there would need to be some institutional racism occurring. Given that the state makes laws and enforces them, there would need to be laws that are discriminatory or the way laws are enforced would need to be discriminatory in order for us to claim the state is racist. Given that there are over 100,000 pieces of legislation and statutory instruments in force today it would be nigh on impossible for me to list them all and explain why each is not discriminatory therefore the burden is on he who proclaims the state is racist to provide the law to which backs this up.

"14 reasons why institutional racism exists in the justice system" - this  this article was on a news website which im allowed access to...... no fly by night cookie trying to whip up a storm to justify his own opinion...

 

 

Quote

 

The biggest crime in the U.S. criminal justice system is that it is a race-based institution where African-Americans are directly targeted and punished in a much more aggressive way than white people.

Saying the US criminal system is racist may be politically controversial in some circles. But the facts are overwhelming. No real debate about that. Below I set out numerous examples of these facts.

The question is - are these facts the mistakes of an otherwise good system, or are they evidence that the racist criminal justice system is working exactly as intended? Is the US criminal justice system operated to marginalize and control millions of African Americans?

Information on race is available for each step of the criminal justice system - from the use of drugs, police stops, arrests, getting out on bail, legal representation, jury selection, trial, sentencing, prison, parole and freedom. Look what these facts show.

One. The US has seen a surge in arrests and putting people in jail over the last four decades. Most of the reason is the war on drugs. Yet whites and blacks engage in drug offenses, possession and sales, at roughly comparable rates - according to a report on race and drug enforcement published by Human Rights Watch in May 2008. While African Americans comprise 13% of the US population and 14% of monthly drug users they are 37% of the people arrested for drug offenses - according to 2009 Congressional testimony by Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project.

Two. The police stop blacks and Latinos at rates that are much higher than whites. In New York City, where people of color make up about half of the population, 80% of the NYPD stops were of blacks and Latinos. When whites were stopped, only 8% were frisked. When blacks and Latinos are stopped 85% were frisked according to information provided by the NYPD. The same is true most other places as well. In a California study, the ACLU found blacks are three times more likely to be stopped than whites.

Three. Since 1970, drug arrests have skyrocketed rising from 320,000 to close to 1.6 million according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
African Americans are arrested for drug offenses at rates 2 to 11 times higher than the rate for whites - according to a May 2009 report on disparity in drug arrests by Human Rights Watch.

Four. Once arrested, blacks are more likely to remain in prison awaiting trial than whites. For example, the New York state division of criminal justice did a 1995 review of disparities in processing felony arrests and found that in some parts of New York blacks are 33% more likely to be detained awaiting felony trials than whites facing felony trials.

Five. Once arrested, 80% of the people in the criminal justice system get a public defender for their lawyer. Race plays a big role here as well. Stop in any urban courtroom and look a the color of the people who are waiting for public defenders. Despite often heroic efforts by public defenders the system gives them much more work and much less money than the prosecution. The American Bar Association, not a radical bunch, reviewed the US public defender system in 2004 and concluded “All too often, defendants plead guilty, even if they are innocent, without really understanding their legal rights or what is occurring...The fundamental right to a lawyer that America assumes applies to everyone accused of criminal conduct effectively does not exist in practice for countless people across the US.”

Six. African Americans are frequently illegally excluded from criminal jury service according to a June 2010 study released by the Equal Justice Initiative. For example in Houston County, Alabama, 8 out of 10 African Americans qualified for jury service have been struck by prosecutors from serving on death penalty cases.

Seven. Trials are rare. Only 3 to 5 percent of criminal cases go to trial - the rest are plea bargained. Most African Americans defendants never get a trial. Most plea bargains consist of promise of a longer sentence if a person exercises their constitutional right to trial. As a result, people caught up in the system, as the American Bar Association points out, plead guilty even when innocent. Why? As one young man told me recently, “Who wouldn’t rather do three years for a crime they didn’t commit than risk twenty-five years for a crime they didn’t do?”

Eight. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in March 2010 that in the federal system black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crimes. Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project reports African Americans are 21% more likely to receive mandatory minimum sentences than white defendants and 20% more like to be sentenced to prison than white drug defendants.

Nine. The longer the sentence, the more likely it is that non-white people will be the ones getting it. A July 2009 report by the Sentencing Project found that two-thirds of the people in the US with life sentences are non-white. In New York, it is 83%.

Ten. As a result, African Americans, who are 13% of the population and 14% of drug users, are not only 37% of the people arrested for drugs but 56% of the people in state prisons for drug offenses. Marc Mauer May 2009 Congressional Testimony for The Sentencing Project.

Eleven. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics concludes that the chance of a black male born in 2001 of going to jail is 32% or 1 in three. Latino males have a 17% chance and white males have a 6% chance. Thus black boys are five times and Latino boys nearly three times as likely as white boys to go to jail.

Twelve. So, while African American juvenile youth is but 16% of the population, they are 28% of juvenile arrests, 37% of the youth in juvenile jails and 58% of the youth sent to adult prisons. 2009 Criminal Justice Primer, The Sentencing Project.

Thirteen. Remember that the US leads the world in putting our own people into jail and prison. The New York Times reported in 2008 that the US has five percent of the world’s population but a quarter of the world’s prisoners, over 2.3 million people behind bars, dwarfing other nations. The US rate of incarceration is five to eight times higher than other highly developed countries and black males are the largest percentage of inmates according to ABC News.

Fourteen. Even when released from prison, race continues to dominate. A study by Professor Devah Pager of the University of Wisconsin found that 17% of white job applicants with criminal records received call backs from employers while only 5% of black job applicants with criminal records received call backs. Race is so prominent in that study that whites with criminal records actually received better treatment than blacks without criminal records!

So, what conclusions do these facts lead to? The criminal justice system, from start to finish, is seriously racist.

Professor Michelle Alexander concludes that it is no coincidence that the criminal justice system ramped up its processing of African Americans just as the Jim Crow laws enforced since the age of slavery ended. Her book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness sees these facts as evidence of the new way the US has decided to control African Americans - a racialized system of social control. The stigma of criminality functions in much the same way as Jim Crow - creating legal boundaries between them and us, allowing legal discrimination against them, removing the right to vote from millions, and essentially warehousing a disposable population of unwanted people. She calls it a new caste system.

Poor whites and people of other ethnicity are also subjected to this system of social control. Because if poor whites or others get out of line, they will be given the worst possible treatment, they will be treated just like poor blacks.

Other critics like Professor Dylan Rodriguez see the criminal justice system as a key part of what he calls the domestic war on the marginalized. Because of globalization, he argues in his book Forced Passages, there is an excess of people in the US and elsewhere. “These people”, whether they are in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or US jails and prisons, are not productive, are not needed, are not wanted and are not really entitled to the same human rights as the productive ones. They must be controlled and dominated for the safety of the productive. They must be intimidated into accepting their inferiority or they must be removed from the society of the productive.

This domestic war relies on the same technology that the US uses internationally. More and more we see the militarization of this country’s police. Likewise, the goals of the US justice system are the same as the US war on terror - domination and control by capture, immobilization, punishment and liquidation.

What to do?

Martin Luther King Jr., said we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.
A radical approach to the US criminal justice system means we must go to the root of the problem. Not reform. Not better beds in better prisons. We are not called to only trim the leaves or prune the branches, but rip up this unjust system by its roots.

We are all entitled to safety. That is a human right everyone has a right to expect. But do we really think that continuing with a deeply racist system leading the world in incarcerating our children is making us safer?

It is time for every person interested in justice and safety to join in and dismantle this racist system. Should the US decriminalize drugs like marijuana? Should prisons be abolished? Should we expand the use of restorative justice? Can we create fair educational, medical and employment systems? All these questions and many more have to be seriously explored. Join a group like INCITE, Critical Resistance, the Center for Community Alternatives, Thousand Kites, or the California Prison Moratorium and work on it. As Professor Alexander says “Nothing short of a major social movement can dismantle this new caste system.” 

 

 

 

 

Bill QuigleyLaw Professor, Loyola University New Orleans

[Merging Cultures]

In America, and also colonial Africa, Blacks were not only considered to have lower social status, but they were considered mentally inferior. The term 'boy' was used by White Slave owners (in America, and Colonialists in Africa), but not just the adult men it was also used by the children, to adult Slaves to enforce the 'Master/Slave' power dynamic, and the misconception that Blacks are mentally inferior.

 

So now, to call an adult Black male 'boy' is considered a derogatory term and is predicated on the historical basis that Whites considered Blacks an inferior race. Hence the term 'boy' is a loaded term and can be considered racist in certain circumstances.

 

This has probably been translated across to any ethnic power dynamic with Whites, and Hispanics are currently in a state of flux in the US, so I can see how it can be taken as 'racist'. It is certainly beyond patronising given the History of the US.

[Merging Cultures]

24 minutes ago, Benguin said:

What a pointless post. Why mention the ignorance if you're not prepared to point it out and explain why it's ignorant.

Others already have. Perhaps you should read their posts.

[Benguin]

 

13 minutes ago, MPH said:

"14 reasons why institutional racism exists in the justice system" - this  this article was on a news website which im allowed access to...... no fly by night cookie trying to whip up a storm to justify his own opinion...

 

 

 

Bill QuigleyLaw Professor, Loyola University New Orleans

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/fourteen-examples-of-raci_b_658947.html yeah I had read this before a year or so back. Most of the stats are actually misinterpreted i.e not accounting for variables or simply not true when you actually go onto the reports and crime statistics. Not to mention outdated.

[Benguin]

Was surprised to see he was a Law professor. Then again Lawyers are good at making things that go against their argument seem as if they support them.

 

[Nick]

2 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Was surprised to see he was a Law professor. Then again Lawyers are good at making things that go against their argument seem as if they support them.

 

It must be weird for you when educated specialists don't see your points.

[Merging Cultures]

4 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Was surprised to see he was a Law professor. Then again Lawyers are good at making things that go against their argument seem as if they support them.

 

So how long have you been a lawyer?

[yorkie1999]

It's about time someone actually came up with a list of racist terms or words, that just might solve a lot of these types of arguments instead of having to read up on the history of the united states slave trade in order to stop yourself putting your foot in it.

[MPH]

12 minutes ago, Benguin said:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-quigley/fourteen-examples-of-raci_b_658947.html yeah I had read this before a year or so back. Most of the stats are actually misinterpreted i.e not accounting for variables or simply not true when you actually go onto the reports and crime statistics. Not to mention outdated.

 

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Was surprised to see he was a Law professor. Then again Lawyers are good at making things that go against their argument seem as if they support them.

 

 

 

 

not meaning to be rude but in what way do you feel justified in ignoring a law professor's detailed evidence about the law/ judiciary system? what are your reasons for not believing him?

[Benguin]

4 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

So how long have you been a lawyer?

the relevance being?

 

22 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

Others already have. Perhaps you should read their posts.

I've already refuted them.

 

7 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

It must be weird for you when educated specialists don't see your points.

Educated specialist constantly refute each others findings, we as readers have the job of weighing the arguments from both sides and deciding which is the most convincing.

[The Floyd]

27 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

In America, and also colonial Africa, Blacks were not only considered to have lower social status, but they were considered mentally inferior. The term 'boy' was used by White Slave owners (in America, and Colonialists in Africa), but not just the adult men it was also used by the children, to adult Slaves to enforce the 'Master/Slave' power dynamic, and the misconception that Blacks are mentally inferior.

 

So now, to call an adult Black male 'boy' is considered a derogatory term and is predicated on the historical basis that Whites considered Blacks an inferior race. Hence the term 'boy' is a loaded term and can be considered racist in certain circumstances.

 

This has probably been translated across to any ethnic power dynamic with Whites, and Hispanics are currently in a state of flux in the US, so I can see how it can be taken as 'racist'. It is certainly beyond patronising given the History of the US.

The misconception here is that the term 'boy' has been used exclusively by white people to degrade black people. That is simply not true. Fathers and teachers commonly used to refer to their sons and students as 'boy' with the intention to patronise them or to show authority. 

 

The evidence you give to suggest that your already loose argument can be applied to Hispanics is 'this has probably been translated to any ethnic power dynamic with Whites'. Show evidence that supports the idea that Hispanics have historically been labelled as 'boy' in a racist demeanour. 

 

[Merging Cultures]

4 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

It's about time someone actually came up with a list of racist terms or words, that just might solve a lot of these types of arguments instead of having to read up on the history of the united states slave trade in order to stop yourself putting your foot in it.

You really don't need a list, or to read up on history, the best way to learn about other races, ethnic groups or cultures is to make friends with people from outside your own circle. Friends will allow you to make mistakes and call them something offensive, but will gently point out why it is offensive and probably ask you not to say it again.

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, MPH said:

 

 

 

 

not meaning to be rude but in what way do you feel justified in ignoring a law professor's detailed evidence about the law/ judiciary system? what are your reasons for not believing him?

I study Law at a university full of professors who have different viewpoints. It is not a question of ignoring at all but it's one side of the argument. A lawyer always uses evidence to their means and it's often the case that the opposing lawyer will use the same evidence to a different means. Statistics are meaningless without variables and thus each lawyer will argue the variables in their favour.

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

You really don't need a list, or to read up on history, the best way to learn about other races, ethnic groups or cultures is to make friends with people from outside your own circle. Friends will allow you to make mistakes and call them something offensive, but will gently point out why it is offensive and probably ask you not to say it again.

But that's my point,  OP's made a remark that is considered racist by some, he's probably not going to know any hispanic americans, so he's going to upset someone without knowing it. And why can't we have a list? I'll tell you why, because all of a sudden racist name calling is black and white and everyone knows where they stand, exactly the same as being told what words are swear words and won't be tolerated  when your'e young at school.

[MPH]

11 minutes ago, Benguin said:

I study Law at a university full of professors who have different viewpoints. It is not a question of ignoring at all but it's one side of the argument. A lawyer always uses evidence to their means and it's often the case that the opposing lawyer will use the same evidence to a different means. Statistics are meaningless without variables and thus each lawyer will argue the variables in their favour.

 

 

So in this instance what is it you are saying that he has got wrong? You asked for evidence, i have supplied the evidence ( by someone who has an intimate knowledge of the american judiciary system) so im wanting to know what it is he has got wrong?

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, The Floyd said:

The misconception here is that the term 'boy' has been used exclusively by white people to degrade black people. That is simply not true. Fathers and teachers commonly used to refer to their sons and students as 'boy' with the intention to patronise them or to show authority. 

 

The evidence you give to suggest that your already loose argument can be applied to Hispanics is 'this has probably been translated to any ethnic power dynamic with Whites'. Show evidence that supports the idea that Hispanics have historically been labelled as 'boy' in a racist demeanour. 

 

 

I don't think anyone (on here anyway) is making the point that the guy who did this definitely and definitively used 'boy' as a racist term, but rather that the possibility shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and that perhaps such incidents are a sign that race relations in the US aren't exactly solved.

[Merging Cultures]

17 minutes ago, The Floyd said:

The misconception here is that the term 'boy' has been used exclusively by white people to degrade black people. That is simply not true. Fathers and teachers commonly used to refer to their sons and students as 'boy' with the intention to patronise them or to show authority. 

 

The evidence you give to suggest that your already loose argument can be applied to Hispanics is 'this has probably been translated to any ethnic power dynamic with Whites'. Show evidence that supports the idea that Hispanics have historically been labelled as 'boy' in a racist demeanour. 

 

 

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I don't think anyone (on here anyway) is making the point that the guy who did this definitely and definitively used 'boy' as a racist term, but rather that the possibility shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and that perhaps such incidents are a sign that race relations in the US aren't exactly solved.

Exactly what Mac says. Read my posts, they have been careful to say I can reasonably see why people, especially Americans, could see the use of the phrase as racist, and how it could be received as racist even if not delivered with any racist intent at all.

 

It doesn't mean we need to tip-toe around and we "can't say anything anymore" we just need to consider other people and get to know people, learn and grow.

[The Floyd]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I don't think anyone (on here anyway) is making the point that the guy who did this definitely and definitively used 'boy' as a racist term, but rather that the possibility shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and that perhaps such incidents are a sign that race relations in the US aren't exactly solved.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was just pointing out that 'boy' isn't or wasn't a derogatory term aimed exclusively at black people. 

 

I am also sure that there is far more compelling evidence to show that race relations in the US aren't completely solved than a Mayor calling a young Hispanic male 'boy'.

 

For the record, I'm not saying he shouldn't feel offended or patronised, just that it evidently wasn't intended as a racist jibe. 

[Merging Cultures]

15 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

But that's my point,  OP's made a remark that is considered racist by some, he's probably not going to know any hispanic americans, so he's going to upset someone without knowing it. And why can't we have a list? I'll tell you why, because all of a sudden racist name calling is black and white and everyone knows where they stand, exactly the same as being told what words are swear words and won't be tolerated  when your'e young at school.

He might not know any Hispanic Americans, but he has asked a fair enough question on here, and a number of people have give him an answer saying "yes, it could potentially be construed as racist". I actually think it is great the guy asked the question, I think it came from a place of really wanting to find out more information.

 

I don't think anyone sat me down and said, don't say x, y, z at school as they are swear words. It certainly wasn't all of a sudden. I think as you hear words, you might test them out, see the reaction and know when is appropriate to use them and when isn't. But that might just be me. I am sure some children, and I am sure there are adults like it too, who don't understand nuance and how to behave in certain situations, but they certainly wouldn't be the majority (I'd imagine).

[Merging Cultures]

2 minutes ago, The Floyd said:

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was just pointing out that 'boy' isn't or wasn't a derogatory term aimed exclusively at black people. 

 

I am also sure that there is far more compelling evidence to show that race relations in the US aren't completely solved than a Mayor calling a young Hispanic male 'boy'.

 

For the record, I'm not saying he shouldn't feel offended or patronised, just that it evidently wasn't intended as a racist jibe. 

All on the same page then by the sounds of it!

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, The Floyd said:

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was just pointing out that 'boy' isn't or wasn't a derogatory term aimed exclusively at black people. 

 

I am also sure that there is far more compelling evidence to show that race relations in the US aren't completely solved than a Mayor calling a young Hispanic male 'boy'.

 

For the record, I'm not saying he shouldn't feel offended or patronised, just that it evidently wasn't intended as a racist jibe. 

 

That's true enough.

 

FWIW I think it's ambiguous and the only person who's going to really know the intent was the guy who said it.

[The Floyd]

10 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

 

Exactly what Mac says. Read my posts, they have been careful to say I can reasonably see why people, especially Americans, could see the use of the phrase as racist, and how it could be received as racist even if not delivered with any racist intent at all.

 

It doesn't mean we need to tip-toe around and we "can't say anything anymore" we just need to consider other people and get to know people, learn and grow.

Surely pondering on whether it is racist to label a member of another race as 'boy' is the very definition of tiptoeing around?

[Benguin]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

"14 reasons why institutional racism exists in the justice system" - this  this article was on a news website which im allowed access to...... no fly by night cookie trying to whip up a storm to justify his own opinion...

 

 

1. Obviously. If 13% of the population commits an equal amount of drug offences as over 70% of the population then simple maths dictates that a higher percent of blacks will be arrested.  A lawyers job isn't to give you the full story, only the part that builds his case.

2.. Given that blacks make up the minority of the population but commit the majority of offences, it stands to reason that not only will they be pulled over more often for actual crimes but also it will be more often that police have reasonable suspicion to pull over. A lawyers job isn't to give you the full story, only the part that builds his case.

3. Firstly Bill are you suggesting America is more racist today than the 70's? Surely not? No didn't think so, it just makes a compelling argument and masks the fact that the same statistics source shows that it's because that's the rate they're committing the offence! A lawyers job isn't to give you the full story, only the part that builds his case.

4. In some parts of New York? Bill that's ironclad hey! 1we'll assume that this certain part of New York is representative of the whole of America shall we? Not to mention the fact that,whites according to sources you have quoted, are far more likely to comply with police than black people. I suppose when your on a minor drug charge a bit of compliance might help your case for bail or probation/suspended sentencing hey Bill, didn't mention that. A lawyers job isn't to give you the full story, only the part that builds his case.

5. Well done Bill you're getting somewhere. That is a problem with the American Justice system. Not a discriminatory one according to the evidence so kind of pointless here but yes, defence for the penniless is piss poor for whites and blacks.

6. I can't find the source for this but even if one court in Alabama did this there may have been reasons other than discrimination and as I've said a lot of times already, I have never denied there are isolated incidents.

7. You're doing it again Bill, there is no disparity between blacks and whites locked away on a plea bargain. It's a problem with the justice system sure but not a discriminatory problem. And even if it was you're not considering that the single biggest issue with law enforcement in black communities is people being unwilling to come forward and give evidence etc. A lawyers job isn't to give you the full story, only the part that builds his case.

 

TBC - after my tea

Bill QuigleyLaw Professor, Loyola University New Orleans