Garner, from what we know, seems to be a man who did nothing seriously wrong during his encounter with the police. It is quite disturbing that this encounter resulted in his death. It's not even clear that he should have been having an encounter with the police in the first place.
We can look at Garner, and see that a great injustice happened to him.
Compare to Brown. The police had a very good reason to stop him (walking in the middle of the street, matches description of person who had just robbed a nearby store and assaulted the shop keeper), and he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun. The only thing it appears that the police officer did wrong was letting Brown approach the car while the officer was inside with his gun still holstered, which allowed Brown into a position to attack.
Looking at Brown, we see a man who did something really stupid, and suffered pretty much the same outcome that we'd expect for anyone in that situation.
Lumping Garner and Brown together, like these protestors are doing, seems to me to be an insult to the memory of Eric Garner.
There would not be blood inside the police car if Brown hadn't been reaching into the car. In what scenario was it reasonable for Brown to reach inside the police car? Are people seriously suggesting that Brown was casually leaning into the cruiser, and the officer pulled out his gun and shot him? Why is there blood inside the car if Brown wasn't wrestling for his gun?
But, no, we can't let a little thing like evidence and due process stop us. Why people have chosen to make a violent individual who just robbed a store into a martyr is beyond me. That store he robbed has now been looted, by the way.
They all were killed because police had the right and executed it at will, not because it was necessary. That execution being allowed by the law to go unpunished is what infuriates people. If somebody is guilty of minor offense, to use it as an excuse to execute them that is what infuriates. Remember video of Oskar Grant executed in cold blood? Minor excuse - oy! I thought it was taser - allowed to avoid murder charge clearly due there.
But it's not an execution when you attack a police officer. The word "execution" has been brought into the debate solely to rile people up and make them forget that fact.
Let's put it this way. Now, I'm not saying this version of events happened. I'm saying, please bear with me and seriously consider the question: You're a cop. You have a gun and nothing else. Someone has just leaned through the window of your cruiser and tried to grab your gun while beating your face. Adrenaline is pumping through you as a natural consequence of this. You defend yourself. He runs. You run after him to apprehend him, because it's your job and your duty to the community to apprehend someone brazen enough to attack a police officer. If they're willing to attack you, an officer, then obviously they're willing to attack anyone else in the community.
As you run after him and catch up, he turns around and charges towards you. The gun is in play, now. You know it, he knows it. You've seen videos of how this has ended for other officers, where other criminals have grabbed the officer's gun and murdered them with it. You have two seconds to decide what to do.
How would you react? What would you do? I don't know what I would do. I wouldn't want to be in that situation. But the officer certainly didn't either.
Would you run away? Would you let him come up to you and try to punch him, and risk him wrestling the gun from you? Would you try to aim for his legs, even though every hour of gun range training in your life has always hammered into your instincts to aim for the center of mass, and never to point your gun at anything you're not willing to kill? What do you do in that scenario?
My only point here is that the above scenario is the one which physical evidence has most closely corroborated. In particular, the bullets did not enter Brown from behind.
Obviously, it was a huge failure of the police department on two counts. One, that every officer wasn't armed with a taser and pepper spray. Two, that every cruiser wasn't equipped with an audio and video recording system which was turned on at all times. That happened because the Ferguson police department is seriously under-funded. Other police incidents have experienced intentional coverups or other malicious intent, like destroying evidence or erasing video/audio tapes, but this wasn't one of them. The lack of equipment was a factor of funding. No one wanted a video more than that officer, whose life as he knew it is now essentially over. He has to live in secrecy the rest of his life, along with his family, friends, everyone he knew. He has to either cut ties with them or swear them to secrecy about his new identity and location.
The officer was equipped with a P229 Sig Sauer, which loads with either 9mm or .40S&W rounds. I've been unable to find whether the autopsy indicated 9mm or .40 rounds, but if it's 9mm, it's most certainly not true that a single round would stop someone who's charging towards you and is flooded with more adrenaline than they've ever experienced in their life. This phenomenon has been documented time and time again, as counterintuitive as it sounds.
In fatal stabbing incidents, people often comment about how they had no clue how bad the stab really was. That's because adrenaline disables your normal systems which tell your brain that anything is wrong.
Officers aren't trained for Hollywood-style precision shots to the leg. They are trained never to point their guns at anything they're not willing to kill, and if you are forced into a situation where you must use your weapon, to aim for center of mass and continue shooting until the threat is neutralized.
If we disagree with officer training policy, we should try to change it. But we can't go back now and say they shouldn't have followed their training.
pure BS. That fat kid could have been stopped by a punch, let a one shot from 9mm. And that even if he was attacking the officer, which he wasn't to start with.
Again, there wasn't need to kill, yet there was a right to do it - kid stupidly resisted harassment and even tried to move away ("run" in official language as he couldn't really run due to the fat) - and officer executed his right as they usually do to send the message that even minor disobedience will be severely punished.
Police are trained only to shoot to kill because pulling the trigger needs to be a big event. If you think that "shoot to wound" is an option, then of course you're going to pull the trigger more often. You'll become more comfortable shooting people and, presumably, you'll also end up killing people more often.
Other reasons for "shoot to kill" relate to effectiveness: in the energy of the situation if you aim to wound you may either kill by accident, or not hit at all.
As I understand it, police are generally taught specifically to shoot center of mass because aiming there is the most effective way to reliably and quickly end the immediate physical threat. This also ends up pretty close to maximizing the killing effectiveness of shots, but is not the primary focus.
The reason is that you are more likely to hit the target rather than what some propose, that they should just wound him in the kneecap, an almost impossibility.
He charged the officer and was shot once. Then he charged again and was shot again. Then, he came within 10 feet to tackle the officer and that was when he was killed. This was not 10 (or so) consecutive shots. If the first shots didn't stop him, why would you believe the second grouping would? Or the next?
What was Brown's intent once he reached the officer?
Brown didn't attack or charged the officer. That's a lie by the officer. Ever watched "Chicago"? "They both reached for the gun".
Prosecutor, just accidentally, a clerical error mind you, withheld witness' transcripts from the grand jury in the Brown's case.
We all know what happened - Brown was executed for angering the officer, for not demonstrating full submission from the moment the officer started harassing Brown for jaywalking, ie. instead of just writing the ticket for jaywalking, the officer went on power trip ...
I forgot the count but it was between 10 and 20 eyewitness accounts and direct interviews by the grand jury state Brown charged at the officer. It's obvious you didn't look at any of the documents or read any of the online articles or television by news organizations who did read the documents and state the same thing.
One of the biggest lies told, in all this, is that Brown had his hands up and said, "Don't shoot!". Never happened but I'm betting you believe that, too.
> and he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun
This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. Other testimony indicates that Wilson may have instigated conflict when making the stop.
> Looking at Brown, we see a man who did something really stupid, and suffered pretty much the same outcome that we'd expect for anyone in that situation.
This is not at all the case. Wilson shot Brown when we was a significant distance from the car (100+ feet) and Brown was not armed in any way. We do not expect someone who commits a petty theft to be executed by the police when Wilson had a variety of other options at his disposal. Doing something stupid isn't and should not be a death sentence.
> Lumping Garner and Brown together, like these protestors are doing, seems to me to be an insult to the memory of Eric Garner.
These deaths are wholly related to the racism of police practice in the United States. Presenting disputed testimony as the truth is extremely misleading.
> Wilson shot Brown when we was a significant distance from the car (100+ feet)
Distance from the car is not relevant. Distance from Wilson is what is relevant. All shots were fired when Wilson was near Brown.
There were two shots fired at or near the car (shown by two spent casings near the car), and there is blood there showing Brown was hit. Hence Wilson was near Brown when these shots were fired.
The remaining 10 shots were all taken near were Brown's body ended up, a smidgen over 150 feet from the car. The spent casings for those 10 shots are all within 20 feet of the body. The pattern of the casings, and the location of blood stains that are not with the body, show that Brown was moving toward Wilson at this time. There is not enough evidence to ascertain his velocity.
> These deaths are wholly related to the racism of police practice in the United States
Do you really think that if a white man hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun, and then gets shot, and then runs away with the officer in pursuit, and then turns and runs toward the officer, he would not get shot several more times?
> Presenting disputed testimony as the truth is extremely misleading.
I presented no disputed testimony. Witness testimony in this case is contradictory. That's why I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence.
I presented no disputed testimony...I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence.
Yes you did. hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. ...and then turns and runs toward the officer.. This also is not an objective fact. You disputed this yourself in stating that Browns velocity could not be determined. It just as plausible that he was tired, shot, and giving up. Your cognitive biases are giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt. Your statements are not pure "fact".
In the commonly-believed version of events, Brown would not have been able to injure Wilson's face like that, since he was supposedly running away. But since the officer's face was in fact injured, we can believe Brown must have hit it. And if he was hitting Wilson, he must have been leaning into the cruiser when he was doing it, since there was no other opportunity.
Another objective fact is that Brown was a violent individual who had just robbed a store.
I don't think anyone disagrees that there was an altercation at the car where Wilson sustained a blow to the face.
The disputed versions of events see to me to be
1. How Wilson first addresses Brown (nice as Wilsons testimony or aggressive)
2. How the altercation at the car started (Brown slams door on Wilson vs wilson slamming door into brown and then who grabbed who first)
3. Brown charging Wilson vs trying to surrender.
Wilsons version of events isn't all that believable if you've had any experience with police. But I withhold judgement. The problem is we'll never know how things actually went down...though I have deep suspicions that Brown was trying to surrender after being fired upon as he ran away.
What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force?
And that's just the event itself. How the event was handled in the aftermath is even more troubling at a systematic level. The conflicts of interest that exist between a district attorney and the police force he or she has to work with every day vis a vis trying one of those officers is just too great.
I'm not naive enough to think that a not guilty verdict wouldn't have led to riots, but at the very least we should have a trial to better determine what happened there irregardless of the result.
What actually bothers me about the event was that after the physical altercation ended in the car the life of Wilson was no longer threatened. But then he got out of his vehicle and chased Brown down, apparently while shooting at him. How is that a legitimate use of force?
Basically, if they're willing to attack an officer, they're definitely willing to attack anyone else in the community. Their motive isn't exactly clear, so maybe they don't pose an immediate danger to the community, but their willingness to commit physical violence is very clear at that point. So it's very important to apprehend them. Plus, if the offender later turned out to be a murder suspect, the officer would rightly get into deep trouble if they'd been attacked by them and didn't go chase them down immediately, especially if they escape and go into hiding.
What sucks is that the police department only gave him a gun and nothing else. Pepper spray or a taser would have avoided all of this madness. Or a working videocamera with audio pickups.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuupBHUGbYo#t=1m02s goes to pretty great lengths to explain all of the painstaking process the jury went through to analyze the physical evidence and every piece of witness testimony. I wholeheartedly recommend anyone who's interested in all of this or considering joining the Brown protests to watch that whole video. It seems difficult to think that the physical evidence is unreliable or that conflicts of interests may have caused the jury to ignore parts of the physical evidence. Though I suppose anything is possible.
But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself?
Dorian Johnson's story is that Wilson almost ran them over, slammed his door into them, and then grabbed Brown and pulled him through the window. IF Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee.
And this is why the situation is so troubling. The witness testimony is all over the place and unreliable (as it usually is), and it leaves open huge variations in how the events transpired.
Yes, Wilson was struck somehow. But we don't know who initiated the conflict and that has a huge bearing on what happens next.
Yes, Brown was shot in the car. But we have no idea if he actually got ahold of the gun in Wilsons hand and was aiming it at Wilson. Wilson could have simply pulled the gun out and started firing.
Yes, we know that Brown ran away and was chased.
Yes, we know he was shot facing Wilson. But we don't know if he was standing still surrendering or charging.
I've read a huge chunk of the grand jury testimony and looked at a lot of the evidence and the only reasonable conclusion that you can come to is "I don't know what happened".
two other things. First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge.
Second, police tend to escalate situations way beyond what is necessary and my gut says the Ferguson event is a perfect example if you hedge against Wilsons whitewashed version.
One more thing...police need to be evaluated on a different metric then simply arrests. Killing a fleeing suspect should almost always be an intolerable event inside the police department. Letting the guy get away is almost always the better alternative (almost being the key word). But, as you said, that would get the officer in trouble. Which is just dumb.
A lot of your post is you just saying things you think with no evidence, what your "gut" tells you, etc. Not going to respond to those, because they are not very interesting. Let me share one of my personal opinions with no basis in fact: cake is superior to pie, there I said it!
> But what if Brown wasn't attacking the officer but defending himself?
We actually got into a bit of a debate at dinner discussing if you have the right to defend yourself against an unjust arrest -- short version: "nope". In 1900 there was a case that went that way, but since then it was been reversed... and even more specifically overruled in various state ordinances. Even if you did have the right to physical resist (again, you don't, so don't resist arrest) an "unjust arrest" ... you aren't informed of the reason you are being arrested at the time of arrest, you don't have enough information to even claim it is unjust.
> If Michael Brown is struggling to get free after being unnecessarily assaulted by Wilson and then sees Wilson draw his gun then of course he is going to strike the officer trying to flee.
This is put forth as factual "of course". But, it isn't the common case -- most people when assaulted (justified or not) by a police officer surrender, and if it escalates to having a gun drawn... they... you guessed it, surrender. The vast majority of police officers make it to retirement without firing their weapon while on duty.
> First, I'm sure most people believe that if a police officer tells you to do something you do it. That might be really good advice, especially if you have brown skin, but I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests just because the person has a badge.
You can think what you want, but you have NO RIGHT to EVER resist arrest, that is the simple fact, there is no law on your side, and it will end horribly for you. You submit, you get arrested, you offer NO resistance and then you take action AFTER the fact (sue, try to get them fired, take it to the press, whatever).
All of my points are based on the parts of the event that have no clarity. They are open to interpretation. That's why I'm offering plausible and reasonable alternative explanations. Because how those events unfolded directly relate to whether it was a just shooting or not.
As to your last line. I realize that legally you are correct, but I just can accept that you have to be compliant because of a badge...especially when we live in a society that has a horrible track record of justice when people with brown complexion are involved. Action after the fact, especially with the rate of discipline and conviction of police officers, is just not a very realistic option.
Totally agreed about the pie. About the other part, though...
I'm really interested to know what you could mean. Isn't it, well, kind of mistaken to feel like we shouldn't cooperate with officers? The power asymmetry is just too great, on a practical level. But beyond the cold facts, it seems like the basis of a functional society is to cooperate. In a situation where there's an injustice, the media might be able to help if you write up a compelling story, though it's true that'd be a remediation after the problem occurred. It just seems like not cooperating will cause more problems than it could possibly solve, in every possible case. So it's interesting to me, and I'd love to get your perspective on some situation where it could be helpful.
I don't really know where it would be helpful. I just find it "show me your papers" totally morally repugnant. I mean, I don't want to disrespect police officers (my closest friend is one), but you don't get to be a total authoritarian asshole just because you have a badge.
In a society where the citizens respect the police and the police respect the citizens then the Ferguson issue probably doesn't happen. And that's the issue I have. It's an us against them mentality on both sides. Cops are hated, so they don't get out in their communities to meet people, so they are viewed as "invading", they only show up to take your loved ones and their friends away, so they are hated, etc.
So yeah, the power asymmetry is too great, and it doesn't need to be for officers to be effective. In fact, I think it's doing the opposite. It's making their jobs harder.
Could we not be so aggressive? It's an important issue, and the best way to close people's minds is to belittle them. Besides, malyk's concerns are legitimate, and they've spent time researching this issue. We should be the ones willing to listen to all points of view. I know passions are high about this, but progress requires patience and a willingness to explore all the ideas.
Aggressive? My post was mellow except my response to
> I think it's not reasonable to blindly obey over-aggressive and unfounded requests
which is a perspective that will LITERALLY get someone killed if they believe it. That is why I used uppercase, because it is actually really important, not everyone takes the time to properly research what rights they have (and don't have).
He probably meant grabbed him by the arm or neck through the window. Dorian Johnson stated he grabbed his neck through the window. He obviously didnt mean "pulled his whole body through the window".
With likelihood in mind, how likely is it that a person believes they can grab a holstered gun from a cop, get shot, decide to run at least 150 feet from fear of getting shot again, and then turn into a 'demon' with no fear of gunfire anymore and charge the source of gunfire?
With that and some other odd aspects of his behavior which Johnson claimed was out of character (eg starting an alterction and stealing in the store), I wonder if he was suffering from Toxoplasmosis or some similar condition. Toxoplasmosis is thought to dramatically affect an individual's appetite for risky behavior. Preliminary research suggests that as you'd expect there 's a higher seroprevalance in prison populations, but much more work needs to be done to verify this.
aswanson has the right interpretation. Wilson is in an SUV, so he's sitting up near Browns upper torso/neck/head. It's pretty easy to manipulate someone from the back of your neck...those muscles aren't really strong...and Wilson is also the same size as Brown. So it's not hard to see wilson reaching out, grabbing Brown by the neck, and pulling his head in through the window. Especially if Brown was taken by surprise.
I didn't mean he pulled his whole body in through the window. That would be very difficult to do!
There is no commonly believed version of events. There is a lot of inconsistency and disagreement about statements and testimony involved in the grand jury decision, you are attempting to paint a version of events you buy into as more valid.
> Another objective fact is that Brown was a violent individual who had just robbed a store.
When first interviewed after the shooting Wilson indicated he had no knowledge that Brown had anything to do with the store robbery. He did not make any indication over police radio about this when he encountered Brown. He changed this part of the story later on. The circumstances and eye witness testimony of the shooting after the altercation at the police car is very fuzzy and it is not clear that Brown did charge or attack Wilson a second time.
Moreover, whether Brown was aggressive or not does not imply that the police officer has a right to execute him.
No, you're being sneaky here. "Hit's the officers face AND tries to take his gun"...There was some redness on his face which was probably the result of the struggle. I'll grant that, even though it's possible Wilson self-injured, or got an officer to do that for him, but that's too speculative for argument. But, again, there is not undisputed FACT that he reached for his gun. You are conflating the redness on Wilsons face into "fact" that he reached for his gun. Again, there is no objective account of this and there is no "commonly agreed version of events".
This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't.
I didn't downvote (I think there's entirely too much of that on HN) but Brown's blood was inside the police car. There is no scenario that Brown's blood could have wound up inside the car unless he was reaching in through the window for some reason. Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? I'd love to be persuaded.
We have to look at the physical evidence, not at what people said.
Can anyone think of any reason other than "reaching for the Officer's gun," even if we give Brown every possible benefit of the doubt? Seriously, I'd love to be persuaded.
Ok. How about the cop grabs and yanks a teen that's near his window starting off the struggle. Teen struggles, pushes and or punches cop to break free as cop grabs gun and lets off shot or two while Brown continues to punch/struggle/push to break free, in the course of which Wilson suffers horrible injury that looks like a razor bump. Breaking free, Brown runs approximately 100 feet. Wilson, enraged that he was not immediately obeyed as ordered, starts firing, chasing brown and hits brown in some way. He fires 11 more shots as he fears for his life even though he is armed and pursued him for at least 150. Brown finally turns around, shot at least twice already. He faces a hail of bullets from Wilson, fatally struck on the top of the skull and dies. Wilson, knowing that officers always get the benefit of the doubt with the law and there is no objective evidence of the encounter and that dead people cant testify is somewhat assured his version of events are going to be believed. And he is right. Plausible, if not convinced?
You understand pretty much any testimony can be - and usually is - "disputed" and it doesn't mean it is wrong? "Disputed" just means somebody said "no, it is not so". Anybody can say that - just as anybody could have said they saw the police officer shooting Brown in the back, despite the autopsy finding no trace of that. Some did. That doesn't mean the officer actually shot Brown in the back with vanishing bullets.
>>> Brown was not armed in any way
I think it's time to lay that "not armed in any way" to rest. Most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown's physical build - are "armed" to cause serious physical harm, up to lethal, to many other people. People regularly harm and murder other people with their bare hands (or feet, etc.) - over 800 cases happen even year[1], btw about the same as rifles and shotguns taken together. Does it mean police is justified to shoot any male? Of course not, since means to do something not equals to doing something. But it does not mean that if somebody is not wielding a shotgun, he is automatically harmless. There are a lot of ways to cause harm to people, and some of them require nothing more but the will to do it and a bit of strength.
Edit: I used the word "complexion" instead of "physical appearance" meaning: "General character, aspect, or appearance:" but it looks like people took it to mean "skin color". Of course I did not mean to refer to color of his skin, it's completely irrelevant, but rather to his physical build - i.e. height, weight and fitness. Looking at the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complexion) my meaning appears to be old one, and now it is used as "skin color". It didn't help that in my native tongue the same word also means "physical appearance". I certainly did not mean it that way, so sorry for misleading.
(1) You would correct "Brown" to "Brown's" -- it is possessive, and as written its not clear if you omitted the possessive or if you mistakenly capitalized "brown", the color, and
(2) You would be even more explicit with what feature you were referring to and said "build" rather than "physical appearance" (which -- especially with the issue with "Brown" -- could still quite easily, without the extended explanation at the end of your post, be viewed as a veiled comment about race.)
Thanks, corrected as suggested. I suspect my unfortunate slip has derailed the discussion anyway, but in case there's still hope I have made the edits.
Are you serious? The color of your complexion is the same as being "armed" to cause serious physical harm?
Really look at that and think about it: a pale John Boehner turns into a lethal John Boehner just by adding a bit of spray tan. I put on too much bronzer and suddenly I'm a killer (perhaps a killer clown). My multiracial husband is more physically harmful after mowing the lawn in the summer, maybe even more "lethal". (The complexion change is dramatic, certainly.) Hm. The things I never knew.
There's a reason blacklivesmatter is a hashtag that resonates, and that reason is illustrated by your comment. Better go get my bronzer so I can prepare for the fight for justice.
Please see the edit - I did not mean "complexion" as color, but as "physical appearance". Looks like I used the word which has different meanings one of which is completely wrong for my point.
Is English your native language? I also interpreted your "complexion" as build/constitution because the word for "complexion" in my native language is "compleição" and can be translated as complexion/build/constitution.
Indeed, English is not my native language, and in my native language the same word means exactly as in Portuguese - build/constitution/physical appearance. It looks like English one also has this meaning, but the "skin color" meaning seems to be most frequent, which I did not realize. I probably would if I thought about it specifically, and usually I am aware of the words which mean different things in different languages, but in this case looks like it slipped my attention and completely derailed the discussion. May it be a lesson for me to be more attentive.
uh... "most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown complexion - are armed to cause serious physical harm"
It's a good idea to rephrase that.
edit - yes, a lot of black athletes have lower body fat than whites, hispanics, and asians. No, they're not "especially" armed to cause serious physical harm.
It has nothing to do with Brown being black. It has everything to do with him being 193 cm male weighting 95 kg. It is fascinating how discussion of something having zero to do with race suddenly turns into discussing "black athletes" vs. "whites, hispanics, and asians".
While I generally agree that Brown was responsible, Wilson did do something wrong. He pulled up squealing tires and yelled for Brown to get the F* out of the street.
This type of verbal hostility is probably what got Wilson attacked in the first place. He set the fight button off. Not saying Brown was right.. he wasn't right, and he was stupid. Once he let his temper get the better of him, his shooting was all but inevitable.
But I think this is what people are protesting against as much as anything. Not shootings necessarily, but the general dickish, hostile attitude of police. Especially against certain groups.
That's my understanding. I'm guessing you might already be aware this is probably what happened, but in case not, I trust you will investigate.
There is a reason people are so angry. And I think it's more than a kid (who even the most sympathetic must secretly understand brought it upon himself) getting shot. People in some communities are sick of being treating with lack of respect at nearly all turns by law enforcement. I can't say I blame them.
(edited after thanks and upvote. apologies if content was changed substantially.)
Anecdotal evidence and all that, but from a foreigners perspective, it seems America still has to deal with racial bias and a police force that is all too happy to escalate situations.
If anything, that justifies to me why tasers aren't good enough. They had a right to shoot him if he was punching an officer in the head while forcing the officer into a corner.
I am not sure why this is being downvoted...
People are asking above "What, however, can the man of good will do to combat this deeply rooted prejudice?". One prong of this prejudice is the structure of our justice system, and participating in these marches can help that.
It's downvoted because it's currently the most serious and rational post on actually solving oppression. Rather than musing abstractly about some dead white scientist talking about blacks. (While taking a break from making money for investors/bosses.)
Speaking of prominent white activist intellectuals, here's Chomsky's view on Einstein: "Compare Russell and Einstein, two leading figures, roughly the same generation. They agreed on the grave dangers facing humanity, but chose different ways to respond. Einstein responded by living a very comfortable life in Princeton and dedicating himself to research that he loved, taking a few moments for an occasional oracular statement. Russell responded by leading demonstrations and getting himself dragged off by the cops, writing extensively on the problems of the day, organizing war crimes trials, etc. The result? Russell was and is reviled and condemned, Einstein is admired as a saint. Should that surprise us? Not at all."
This old thing. It is wrong and has always been wrong. Quoth:
"Race is a social concept used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical (i.e. phenotypical) traits." [0]
But more importantly, they are an ethnoreligious group, defined by shared ethnicity and religion. [1]
So, not all Jews are Jews, and not all Jews are Jews. But the classification is not always religious.
Please describe the difference between racial and religious discrimination. In practice, how does it differ? It's all the same; some group doesn't like you because of who and what you are.
Religions can be rely evil and bad. They often are.
You choose whether to follow an evil religion.
You can't choose what colour of skin you are born with or the facial bone structure.
You /can/ change those things later but it is expensive, requires surgery or bad chemicals and is really unpleasant.
Discriminating against religions is a completely different (and much more defensible) matter than discriminating against "race" or ethnicity.
The vast majority of people follow the dominant religion of the area they are born and/or their parents. In practice this makes it interchangeable with racism in most cases.
Many would disagree. I'd call it both. Can you further explain?
Probably not the best source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
Edit: down votes weren't mine.
Well, by the John Birchers and the like, but he also won the Nobel (in literature, of all things) and was quite influential among people who would not have understood the Principia Mathematica. I think Chomsky is way off base here.
I think the assumption is that Chomsky is villifying Einstein for not doing enough, when in fact he's villifying a culture (both in and out of academia) that punishes those who go too far afield with radical ideas.
Hence, why this seems hypocritical: Chomsky made his trade-off, and continues to enjoy a comfortable professor's life. I think it's fair to say that Chomsky has done far more political activism in his life than Einstein, but far less than Russell.
I share deep concern about police militarization and police brutality. These problems have been raised for years, particularly in the context of War on Drugs, but also in larger context of alienation of population from the government, and were largely ignored by the wide public, happy to be "tough on crime" and laughing at those libertarian idiots with their obviously exaggerated concerns. It is good thing that the topic finally starts to enter the public conscience and that people start to realize there should be strict limits to government power in general and the police power as the most frequently encountered one in particular. I share the sentiment expressed here: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6557 about the deep problems that exist and I think it's good people start to realize these problems exist. I think also here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/03/framing-for-light-inste... it outlines some of the problems people need to be aware of when looking for solutions.
But when I read recent reports about arson, looting, windows smashed, trash cans overturned and lit on fire, businesses destroyed, police officers assaulted with rocks, explosives and firebombs, millions of damages caused, when I read about "burn that bitch down" - I think maybe this particular instance is not what I want to be part of at all. Maybe associating with this wouldn't do as much to combat either public perception of police needing to be tough or any particular prejudices.
> But when I read recent reports about arson, looting, windows smashed, trash cans overturned and lit on fire, businesses destroyed, police officers assaulted with rocks, explosives and firebombs, millions of damages caused, when I read about "burn that bitch down" - I think maybe this particular instance is not what I want to be part of at all. Maybe associating with this wouldn't do as much to combat either public perception of police needing to be tough or any particular prejudices.
If you really were deeply concerned about police brutality and its disproportionate application against black people, then you would wholly understand that and outburst of anger and violence is a likely reaction when people are pushed to their limit.
The current wave of protests are not those riots, they are organized action to protest this reality. Moreover, your approval means nothing while those lives are still destroyed and dominated by unjust systems and institutions.
Maybe understand - as I can to some measure understand somebody who was abused as a child, grew up as a violent adult and finally when insulted by somebody strikes out and kills him - but certainly not excuse or support. Even this understanding is somewhat strained - so the problem is police thinks they should be extremely tough to citizens and always suspect they are violent and up to no good - and to prove them wrong, lets burn our city down, destroy local businesses and pelt the police with rocks and firebombs? Then, surely, they'd know the errors of their ways and learn to treat us as responsible non-violent law-abiding citizens that we are. Does it sound like something that makes sense to you?
>>> The current wave of protests are not those riots
I have doubts the same people have changed in a week and would be completely benign now.
>>> Moreover, your approval means nothing while those lives are still destroyed and dominated by unjust systems and institutions.
It is true, that my approval means nothing to them. I'm just explaining why myself - and I suspect, many others - while supporting the overall goal of lowering police brutality - and actually having been supporting it way before current events - would not take part in these protests, as the top comment suggested. I think it is still relevant to the discussion.
>>> while those lives are still destroyed and dominated by unjust systems and institutions.
If you want to convince the silent majority the police is going too far and ends up hurting innocent people (or hurting not-so-innocent people way more than it is acceptable), making their TV show them pictures of fires, destruction and general mayhem may be not the most effective way to achieve it.
First, it's not like there has been widespread looting and chaos at these marches. Yes, there has been some, for sure, but the vast vast majority of these protests and protestors are peaceful. It only takes one person to break windows and light fires.
Second, even if there is looting and destruction it's generally not a rational thought process that leads people to it. These are angry, hopeless, beat down, etc people who feel like they never get any justice.
I don't condone the violence, but I certainly understand it.
>>> it's not like there has been widespread looting and chaos at these marches
I'm not sure which exactly "these". I've heard a real lot of reports about the mayhem recently. Maybe if you count the number of perpetrators and divide it by the number of participants in all events everywhere, the result comes out low, I don't know. But I see how much damage was done[1], and I think there is enough of them to spoil it.
>>> It only takes one person to break windows and light fires.
Unfortunately, the size of the rioting and destruction does not look like it's done by "one person" or even negligible number of persons. If it would be so, they would be easily stopped by the people around them, or by the police with the help of the former. I've seen peaceful demonstrations, and I've seen riots (the latter, fortunately, only in recording) and there's a difference that can be seen.
>>> even if there is looting and destruction it's generally not a rational thought process that leads people to it.
I appreciate it. But since I am lucky enough to still possess the capability of rational thought and not be in a situation where I no longer have this luxury - maybe I should use it and ask myself "is this the best way?"And maybe call others who also have not abandoned the rational thought to do the same.
>>> I don't condone the violence, but I certainly understand it.
"Understand" is such a pliable word. Do I understand why some people may strap explosives to their bodies and explode them in the middle of a crowded market? Yes, I do, I am not stupid and there are tons of literature written on various ways of propaganda, brainwashing, misery, hopelessness and suffering. I can intellectually follow it without excusing the heinous actions in any way. And yet, when I read "I can understand it", it still somehow has a smell of excusing it to some measure. Is my perception wrong here? Same with rioting - I can follow the genesis of what happened, intellectually, but I can not see how what is happening is in any way makes it any better and do not think it should be excused.
re: "these", I was primarily talking about Oakland/Berkeley because that's where I live and am most familiar with. Yes, the first night in Ferguson was bad, for sure, but since that night the protests that I'm most closely aware of (east bay) have been very minor.
As to the rest...I just can't get worked up over some broken windows and stolen beer (again, bay area) when people are being killed in the streets and nothing is being done. Intellectually I know it hurts some small businesses, and is a pain to deal with, and the helicopters keep me up at night, etc., but it's really hard to compare that to the situation with black, brown, and poor america.
When you are disproportionately targeted by police for everything under the sun, the state takes your young males (some studies suggest 1 in 3 black men are arrested in their life), the state doesn't provide basic services or support, doesn't care about your education, there are no jobs and very little hope, and then on top of that the police are gunning down "your people" in the streets with no consequences what-so-ever...breaking windows just doesn't move the needle for me at all. Something needs to happen to address the situation and the status quo hasn't helped at all. Maybe some rabble rousing will make something happen. Or not. But at least these people are trying to do /something/!
Listen, I'm privileged whitey mcwhiterson software engineer. I live in Oakland. I see a lot of this in my community, though I don't claim to have any understanding of the personal impact being in that situation is. But it's undeniable that we've left an entire generation (or two, or three) of the black community behind and it pisses me off that we as society just don't seem to care. Good for them, and their allies, for getting up off the couch.
>>> I just can't get worked up over some broken windows and stolen beer (again, bay area) when people are being killed in the streets and nothing is being done.
That's a fallacious logic. From this logic it follows that as long as there are bad crimes, any lesser crimes are OK. Breaking windows and stealing beer is not helping to make the police (or anything else) better - if anything, it proves to the silent majority that the police is not harsh enough - evidently, as soon as it turns the other way, there's window breaking and beer stealing going on. So it only goes to prove that the police should put the boot down for those window breakers and beer stealers. To counter this argument, it should be shown that window breaking and beer stealing does not represent the normal behavior and is not what the protest is about. And to make that clear, yes, you should "get worked up" about it, otherwise people who don't know you would assume you do consider it to be OK, and make their conclusions. And you may not like them at all.
>>> but it's really hard to compare that to the situation with black, brown, and poor america.
First of all, most of the people hurt are black, brown and (relatively) poor America. The rioters don't go to riot in Beverley Hills and don't trash Larry Ellison's private island. They riot next door to where they live and trash and set on fire the local grocery store. Which is owned by their neighbor who is only marginally richer than they are, who worked his ass off his whole life to become that and who is now broke and needs to figure out how the hell he's going to pay his bills next month.
But second - what exactly that trashing and burning does to make the situation better (I don't consider couple of looters getting drunk for free a real improvement)? Exactly nothing except now they don't have a local grocery store (so also guys who worked there are out of work. Also not exactly billionaires they were, right?).
>> Maybe some rabble rousing will make something happen
Or maybe it would convince the other people that the problem is not that the police is too harsh but that it is not harsh enough. I've heard the questions about "why National Guard was not deployed immediately" all over the TV and radio as soon as the riots hit the streets. National Guard, as you know, is basically military. So people start asking why the government is not setting the military - with tanks, fighter jets and other power tools - on their citizens, because the police with mere handguns, shotguns and armored cars looks too weak for them. Is that what rabble rousing was supposed to achieve? If so, good job then. If not, well, not so good job.
>>> we've left an entire generation (or two, or three) of the black community behind and it pisses me off that we as society just don't seem to care.
The society cares a lot - just turn on the TV and listen to any politician, they talk day and night about it for the last 50 years. Has it helped? Not really, as it looks. Does trashing and burning help? Not likely. So maybe it's time to do something that does help instead. And for that, some though is required as to what would help, instead of just breaking windows and stealing beer. Stealing beer is easy, but would not solve the problem, unfortunately.
That picture illustrates somebody putting water not on "all" houses but on one house - that does not appear to be burning (while attributing to the imaginary opponent the exceptionally stupid strawman argument of "we should always care about everything equally", which nobody ever has made) The implication to the current situation would be that somebody claims only non-black lives matter while the problem - I take the problem to be police brutality in general, or underlying causes of it, whatever you consider them be, since in the specific instances it is too late to do anything to prevent it, and as such can not be represented as "putting water on the fire" - does not happen exactly to such people. I do not think this is an adequate representation of the issue (see ESR link for more on that). But, the exclusivity is not the largest problem - I get the event-reaction pattern and the fact that specific instance can represent larger issue (even though I disagree with what exactly the large issue is). The violence is what I have the most problem with.
Every time there is a legitimate concern about a possible current/future problem, it seems something happens to either dismiss - or divide those against it.
It's really an interesting phenomenon. Most people believe truth is relative though, so I guess it's not logically surprising that there is no consensus.
I'm not sure what "the truth is relative" means. Do you claim that some event may have happened or not happened depending on your point of view - I mean, really happened or not happened, not just our knowledge of it could be possibly wrong or incomplete? I'd say "citation needed" on the claim that most people believe in such thing.
This is really fascinating. This part particularly struck me:
"[Americans'] sense of equality and human dignity is mainly limited to men of white skins. Even among these there are prejudices of which I as a Jew am clearly conscious"
As a non-black person of color, this has been my access point to issues of race and oppression. Thinking about the (relatively) minor prejudices and indignities I've experienced made me a lot more receptive to the idea that things just aren't right for a lot of people. That oppression is real. And it's also made me aware of the privilege that I do enjoy as a college-educated male who's the son of college educated parents.
This is a very prescient and relevant piece by Einstein. I'm glad it's on HN!
Couldn't agree more that the opposition is real. I have witnessed much of it living in a divided city like Chicago. The most difficult question about it is what we can do to shift government attention and resources? Not in the form of police cameras, squad cars, or militarization, but in the form of education and infrastructure projects. This is only a small part of the question, however. A bigger issue is not where the government spends money, but zoning laws, tax incentives to move to certain areas, and other laws that have been built up and influenced over time to create the situation we have today.
People have been noticing this and pointing it out for a long, long time. Surely Einstein would observe similar treatments as well, particularly because of his fresh perspective.
One of the biggest peaceful protests on this issue is happening today, across the nation, but you wouldn't know it from the Hacker News frontpage.
It's been troubling seeing any links about the Ferguson and Eric Garner protests wiped from Hacker News before they attract very many upvotes. The issues being debated encompass government action, fundamental technology and privacy rights, as well as race, but they're being ignored here for the most part and I don't understand exactly why.
The intent of Hacker News is to be news of particular interest to the "hacker" (defined in a somewhat unclear and unusually broad way, but still) community, not particularly news of general interests that is of interest to members of that community for generally the same reason and to the same extent as of the more general community.
There are plenty of other forums with different intended purposes where such discussions are less ephemeral than on HN.
I argue that a good hacker would be interested in these things.
First, hackers care a lot about issues of justice, power and bias. Here people are being strangled on camera and their murderers are getting away with it. And, even the 'body cameras on all cops' idea we were clamoring for didn't help. That's a conversation we have to have: bodycams won't be helpful if America keeps on working this way.
Plus, how can we talk about wanting to have a 'diverse' Silicon Valley and ignore black people getting killed in the streets?
Previous discussions about why not to discuss current issues in politics in HN have included the conclusions a) they are off topic and b) usually result in low quality discussion, sadly.
> And it's also made me aware of the privilege that I do enjoy as a college-educated male who's the son of college educated parents.
What's scary about privilege is that it's usually invisible.
I think it's fair to say that the majority of humans experience both prejudice and privelege, albeit of radically different quantities and qualities. But while we can't help but be keenly aware of the former, the latter tends to hide itself in our definitions of "normal".
That's a really good point. To me privilege and oppression are two sides of the same coin though. To recognize one is to, by deduction, recognize the other.
To me privilege and oppression are two sides of the same coin though.
No, they're not. A child may benefit from the privileges of parents' favoritism, it doesn't imply that her siblings are oppressed.
Privilege and Oppression are 2 distinct coins with 2 faces each. There's privilege (+1) and lack thereof (0), and there's oppression (-1) and lack thereof (0).
Being well aware of your privileges won't necessarily make you see people in "the norm" as victims, but it may give you pause when trying to form a hasty opinion of them.
Unfortunately, as stated, it's much harder to recognize one's own privileges, than it is to identify a form of oppression. So people keep presuming to know what everybody else should be, should do, should think, should eat, etc, because they presume that the apparent lack of prejudice signals a levelled playing field.
The thing I like is the reference to Aristotle. Today, there are some people who are too quick to brand anyone who disagrees with their enlightened views as a "moron" or worse. There's no winning hearts and minds that way. It's better to gently point out the mistakes of those who are otherwise worthy of respect, in the hopes that this will spur others towards self-reflection, than to castigate and put people on the defensive. We could use more of that.
I don't think Einstein was being that nice, he was essentially saying that intelligence and education were not guarantees against bigotry and bias.
Aristotle proposed in Book 1 of Politics that certain human beings were natural slaves, as different from the free citizens of Athens as human beings were from beasts. He argued that barbarians deserved enslavement because they lacked souls.
While much of the debate was around the notion that Spain had the right to conquer the Americas, a major part of Bartolomé de las Casas' debate with Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda centred on the rights of Native Americans. Both men were humanist theologians and well versed in classical works, so Aristotle's idea of Natural Slavery was central to their cases.
De las Casas argued that native Americans were worthy of the same rights as European Christians because they were rational human beings with souls, not natural slaves. Years later, De las Casas expanded this idea to a universal statement that no human being regardless of race deserved slavery.
Sepúlveda took Aristotle on face value and argued that Native Americans were natural slaves and as such didn't deserve to be treated as rational human beings, he made the odious argument that enslaving them was a paternal response which improved their lives.
It's important to note that the debate on the shared humanity of the races and their human rights is an argument that is at least half a millennium old.
I have some hope that in 500 years time we will look back at todays debates and have similar thoughts of how terribly out of touch with reality the debaters seemed to be and how obvious their biases and self-serving arguments were. Thank you for restoring some of my faith in humanity.
Einstein wrote: "It is clear that [Aristotle] was enmeshed in a traditional prejudice from which, despite his extraordinary intellect, he could not free himself." And your comment on that is that "he was essentially saying that intelligence and education were not guarantees against bigotry and bias." I don't see how any of that conflicts with what I've said.
It's human nature -- even for people who realize they're no Einstein or Aristotle -- to believe that they know what they're talking about; and it's also human nature to get defensive, since their self-image is often wrapped up in their outlook. If you invoke Aristotle, you give a person an "out." You allow a person the freedom to examine his beliefs while shielding his fragile self-image from coming apart. He can conclude, "I was wrong, but that's okay. Even Aristotle was wrong."
Aristotle and Einstein aside, what I'm getting at is this "Fox News vs MSNBC" divide that we have in this country is not doing any of us any good. We can either appeal to people's sympathies, or brand people as self-satisfied, socially irresponsible, head-in-the-sand enablers of the status quo. I think the first is the better strategy. I also think the tone of Einstein's letter is much, much nearer the first than the second.
Great point, even considering that Einstein seems to be taking Aristotle and ancient Greek dogma totally out of context. Perhaps, as was and is a tradition in academic circles, he was advocating that contemporary scientists were in fact better and more enlightened than the Greeks. Or, maybe it was a reaction against Hitler's fascination with the ancient Greeks.
Yet, Aristotle did not present a clear belief system on slavery, especially considering that even Socrates dialogue Meno, he makes the case for the equality and infinite capacity of all humankind.
Plato wrote Meno and Aristotle presented a very clear belief system on slavery in Book I, Chapters 3 through 7 of The Politics and in Book 7 of the Nicomachean Ethics.
"But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?"
"There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule."
edit - mind you, he also had a tendency to write stuff like: "If a woman looks at a highly polished mirror during the menstrual period, the surface of the mirror becomes like a blood shot cloud", so it isn't as though the slavery thing is a small unfortunate oversight in some otherwise wise philosophy. If you forget for a minute that you are dealing with Aristotle, he is consistently quite considerably bonkers, and seemingly just winging it through a lot of his writing, though there is plenty of genius in there as well.
It'd be funnier if views like this one weren't well-represented in the modern day:
> Such are the power given to women in their families in the hope that they will inform against their husbands, and the license which is allowed to slaves in order that they may betray their masters; for slaves and women do not conspire against tyrants; and they are of course friendly to tyrannies and also to democracies, since under them they have a good time.
Yes, Plato is the author of the Dialogues of Socrates. My bad if my last sentence was written unclearly to seems as if Aristotle was a student of Socrates.
Yet, I suggest going back to that same link you posted and read all of Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics where Aristotle defines courage and what is the only real justification for war. After reading Book II, by the time you get to Book VII, you may not think Aristotle believed people deserved to be slaves.
Also, if Aristotle is bonkers, I'd be glad to know who you think the real man/woman of science is. And I hope the answer isn't Einstein.
Well, I don't care if it is the same tired old response that everyone gives. It is always good to spread the word about the godhead and its holy genitalia, which in both quantity and variety are innumerable in even the largest of Cantor's series of infinite sets.
"The reason why snakes are limbless is first that nature makes nothing without purpose, but always regards what is the best possible for each individual, preserving the peculiar essence of each and its intended character, and secondly the principle we laid down above that no Sanguineous creature can move itself at more than four points. Granting this it is evident that Sanguineous animals like snakes, whose length is out of proportion to the rest of their dimensions, cannot possibly have limbs; for they cannot have more than four (or they would be bloodless), and if they had two or four they would be practically stationary; so slow and unprofitable would their movement necessarily be. "
Could you elaborate why you choose this particular bit?
Aristotle's production is full of enumerations of the observable phenomena but the science as we know it today got going only after people started to figure out they actually should test the conclusions they drew from their observations and found out that Aristotle was in several places in fact not correct but merely blowing so much hot air to impress his audiences.
I was not questioning the cultural merits of his legacy, but merely the practical. His political and pedagogic writings are far more interesting, IMO, as studies of the human condition.
While the roots of science have several offshoots buried in greece soil the tree started to seriously bear any fruit only after Baconian inquiry was accepted by the european intelligentzia.
He insists that specifically a mayfly, which does walk on only four of its legs, only ever using the other two to grip during mating, only has four legs, while discussing the locomotion of walking. Which seems fair. If legs are for walking, mayfly do only have four legs.
Socrates' dialogues were documented/written by Plato, not Aristotle. While there was certainly a conception of universal potential in ancient Greek philosophy, I think there was also the comfortable assumption that enslaved peoples were inferior insofar as they had allowed themselves to be enslaved in the first place. You could draw a parallel with the relatively limited role of women in Greek society. I think it's this sort of confirmation bias Einstein was taking aim at.
I think the Aristotle point is a very bad one. People captured in war are flat out inferior to people who won the war or battle. They lost and were enslaved after all. It immediately makes the person arguing for equality have to start falling back on, well, they are really equal in ability it is just they had poor circumstances or luck, trust me even though they lost they are equal!
If we had everyone in the country run a race and the fastest were forced to move to the west coast and the slowest forced to move to the east coast and we waited a generation, people would start saying west coast people are fast in general. And they wouldn't be incorrect. So I don't see anything wrong with Aristotle saying the group of people who end up slaves are inferior, they provably are because they've been tested and selected for failure.
Saying Greeks are superior to Iranians or some other general pronouncement about ethnicity and attributes may not be correct, the DNA of the human race is mostly the same between ethnicities anyway, but saying Greeks are superior to the group of people they defeated in battle and enslaved in person is a tautology.
This is a fallacy of composition. Luck plays an important role in military success - Napoleon famously said he was less concerned about a general's skill than whether he was lucky - presumably meaning opportunist enough to seize an advantage when one unexpectedly presented itself. Likewise, numbers matter; a sufficiently large army will overwhelm many smaller ones not because of any inferiority of fighting spirit among the defeated, but just by being hopelessly outnumbered. Where small forces has famously resisted larger ones, such as Leonidas' 300 Spartans or the British Army at Rorke's drift, it did so because of the ability to exploit geographical or technological advantages
Your mistake here is to confuse a temporary strategic superiority that confers success in battle or even in war with some sort of moral or intellectual superiority. Back in World War 2 Hitler undoubtedly displayed strategic superiority at first (although the roots of German success go back to the late stages of WW1, when German generals 'banked' some of their military technology within newly Communist Russia, an arrangement which evolved into the non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin). But Hitler, like many conquerors before, fell victim to hubris and overreached when he should have consolidated. Despite being a political and military genius, his misplaced assumption of innate racial and cultural superiority (largely adopted from Prussian Kultur) proved to be a strategic weakness.
funnily enough, Aristotle said people captured in war as slaves were not true slaves, had the legal right to sue for freedom and that slaves were born slaves. He was completely against might makes right.
edit - also, his views on slavery somewhat stretch the definition of what we and most of his contemporaries would necessarily regard as slavery. This being Aristotle.
He is still really just excusing the slavery of his time however.
He states: "all are not either slaves by nature or freemen by nature, and also that there is in some cases a marked distinction between the two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters: the one practicing obedience, the others exercising the authority and lordship which nature intended them to have. The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence, where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests merely on law and force the reverse is true."
and also:
"And again, no one would ever say he is a slave who is unworthy to be a slave."
This would suggest that the easiest way to not be Aristotle's slave would be to tell him to sod off and do his own cleaning, though I suspect the reality may have been different.
I don't think one side losing in a war means anything at all about the individuals who participated. An army could have the best soldiers and lose due to the general (not to mention resources among other things including being on an off-day, or just mistakes).. I don't think what you're suggesting is anything but sophism. The same kind Aristotle was using.
That said, I do think Aristotle was insightful enough to realize this. Just a guess, but many times when people say stupid things there were social pressures to make these declarations in support of the existing society.
What you said, could easily be used in attempt to say American slavery was justified. Most people realize taking advantage of people is in no way a demonstration of superiority.
Have you ever made a mistake? Do you crush every mortal that crosses your path? I don't think so.
>"So I don't see anything wrong with Aristotle saying the group of people who end up slaves are inferior, they provably are because they've been tested and selected for failure."
It's a very complicated question/topic. One that I think people are very uncomfortable discussing honestly, precisely because it makes us question preconceived notions about race. Then again, that's usually the case with social concepts.
Many a sincere person will answer: "Our attitude towards Negroes is the result of unfavorable experiences which we have had by living side by side with Negroes in this country. They are not our equals in intelligence, sense of responsibility, reliability."
I am firmly convinced that whoever believes this suffers from a fatal misconception.
Although it has clear political implications, the last part of the quote-within-a-quote ("They are not our equals…") is a scientific hypothesis. Does it strike you that people who take the opposite view of Einstein's—or who even consider its possibility—are treated as merely mistaken? As suffering from a misconception? No—they are treated with opprobrium, condemned with epithets (racist, fascist, etc.), and purged from civil society.
No reasonable person denies that the ancestors of slaves were mistreated, but as an explanation for group differences this is not mutually exclusive with cultural or biological factors that may have nothing to do with past oppression. Unfortunately, this subject is not treated as a scientific matter—it has become a political fight. Einstein appears to be "ahead of his time" not because of the triumph of his scientific arguments but because his political allies have been consistently advancing.
>Although it has clear political implications, the last part of the quote-within-a-quote ("They are not our equals…") is a scientific hypothesis. Does it strike you that people who take the opposite view of Einstein's—or who even consider its possibility—are treated as merely mistaken? As suffering from a misconception? No—they are treated with opprobrium, condemned with epithets (racist, fascist, etc.), and purged from civil society.
People who continue to advance a hypothesis long after the data falsifies it, in order to support political views that are, subject to the true facts, immoral, should in fact be purged from civil society.
No, black people are not innately inferior in any physical, intellectual, or moral sense.
No, women are not innately inferior in any physical, intellectual, or moral sense.
No, Jews are not conspiring to take over the world.
Yes, you are a racist, and yes, you should leave the public eye right now. Nobody will miss you, as you've done nothing but attempt to muddy waters that were long-since cleared up.
The facts cannot speak, and thus, alas, cannot repeat themselves until you actually bother to listen, but I for one am tired of your like.
That's what happens when you end up neighbors with the great great grandson of the bloke your great great granddaddy paid to have kidnapped and shipped to the country as a piece of equipment.
Sure you can argue over the details about what their family have been like to be around in the intervening time, but don't be surprised if the conversation gets back around to the question of who exactly kidnapped who in the first place.
Is pretty pointless to winge about it being political.
Plenty of people in my family emigrated to the US 1840-1890. They didn't bring any slaves over from Africa. Lots of people emigrated from Scandinavia and Germany/German states in that period.
Don't overestimate the original sin of current white Americans.
I'm not, it was Americans with Europeans with Africans, against the Africans, Irish and Scottish concerned. Besides, the original sin of white Americans is probably either cannibalism, or hanging Quakers. But even after slavery was agreed as wrong, the idea that the freed slaves and their descendent's were actually real people with equal political rights took a very long time to take hold, and has still only had a limited spread.
What, however, can the man of good will do to combat this deeply rooted prejudice?
More diversity (in neighborhoods, in workplaces, in schools) would certainly help -- the transition from "us" and "them" to a unified "us." And yet, it's disappointing how segregated America still is today. One fairly in-depth study [1] offers an example of how "today" came to be. (This report is not about any current events, but rather a detailed account of city zoning over a few decades.)
An increase in diversity is a goal, it's not a course of action. We should be trying to root out whatever the underlying causes are that lead us to segregate ourselves into the groups that we end up in. Forced de-segregation (as in the case of bussing kids around in public school districts) is only temporary, as the people who want to be in their groups will take action to achieve that end.
For whatever it is worth, I think income inequality (between rich and poor, all races) is probably the biggest inhibitor to this problem. Motivated-yet-poor people cannot easily break out of their groups, with no money for college and (alot of times) a criminal record preventing them from enlisting in the service. If you have resources you have choices, and the poor have very little in the way of choice. And the affluent who do have a choice will almost always make the choice to not live among those who have nothing to lose, whatever their color may be.
> An increase in diversity is a goal, it's not a course of action.
Yes, actually, it is. It's fine to say you disagree with the course of action because you believe it is immoral or ineffective, but it is absolutely a course of action.
> We should be trying to root out whatever the underlying causes are that lead us to segregate ourselves into the groups that we end up in.
One of these causes is "that's how it has always been". How would you propose to root out this one?
Why not both? I think we can work to address both the symptoms and the disease in tandem. Treat the symptom of segregation by implementing programs or initiatives that actively promote diversity. Also, root out the underlying cause by.... doing lots of various things over the course of generations to convince/teach people that racism is wrong.
Treating the symptom helps alleviate the problems experienced by people of color who are alive today. Addressing the cause could take a long, long time.
"More diversity (in neighborhoods, in workplaces, in schools) would certainly help"
I'm not so sure. I went to a very diverse and large high school in NJ and what ends up happening is self segregation. All the ethnic groups would mostly end up hanging out with their own types.
I also went to a very diverse highschool (recently; class of 2012), and saw the same self-segregation. However, when I saw the census dotmap that was on here a while ago[1], it was obvious that even though the school district was diverse, each of the neighborhoods was clearly a "${race} neighborhood". I'm willing to believe that the self segregation in-school reflected the segregation outside of school; that more diverse schools and neighborhoods might solve this.
It's worth reading the link here: the point is taht people have a tendency to segregate even for entirely arbitrary reasons, eg when they are playing members of different groups in a make-believe story for film. I've seen similar behavior on lots of film sets; if there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in the cast, they'll gravitate to each other at mealtimes, and likewise cast and crew tend to self-segregate as numbers increase.
I went to a diverse high school as well, and the county I live in now is about 45% white, 40% black, and 15% Hispanic. High School was segregated, Churches are segregated, even stores are segregated to a degree.
I don't know if there is a way to change this. The cultures are very different between white, black, and Hispanic. We even speak different dialects.
Unless you want to start forcing one culture to conform to another, de facto segregation is the likely outcome.
Yeah, I think it has more to do with how you're taught to think about people than what you're exposed to.
I grew up in Spokane, WA -- 87% white by demographic survey, 98% people who look white if all you know about race is what you learned in Social Studies in elementary school. :) But what I was dominantly taught about who 'my people' were came from Christianity -- Christ died for everyone. My tribe is humanity. I was not raised to think race was important, and I didn't. That upbringing is with me to this day. I didn't reflexively categorize people by race, and I still don't. It's not something I even notice unless attention is called to it somehow.
Other people from the region were raised differently. The inland pacific northwest is a region that white supremacists like, and we had them.
Growing up in a racial monoculture, you could wind up totally innocent and clueless (like me) or totally racist (like some people I knew of), and probably a lot of other things. It really depended on what you were taught.
The same can happen in diverse cultures, too.
When I moved to Seattle, there was a lot more racial diversity. It still didn't mean anything to me, but it clearly meant things to others, and some people made quite a big deal out of it. I had an amusing conversation with a fellow visiting from the UK about it:
Him: So . . . what is *with* your black people?
Me: Excuse me?
Him: Well, back home, we have black people, too.
But . . . they're just regular people.
The racial diversity in Seattle and in the UK did not result in the same attitudes! Of course, there are other 'tribes' over on that side of the world that do matter. But they aren't the same ones as matter over here.
All in all, I think it's not what you're exposed to. It's how you think about it. If you see race, or gender, or religion, or age, or profession, or interests, or lifestyle as what makes someone 'your people', you can't help but have loyalties and opinions about what it means to be in or out of that circle. It doesn't matter if you meet foreigners (by your definition) every day, or once or twice a lifetime.
Your quote is really ambiguous, I can't figure it out at all. Is there something wrong with Seattle black people? Surely not, but then just what exactly does that mean?
He means that the difference between white and black in america is magnified in comparison to the uk.
Whether you think it is true or not, I see the USA as much more segregated than Europe, and so the culture differences are exacerbated between the races.
Many black Americans participate in a different subculture than white Americans. They speak a different dialect, enjoy different entertainment, and have different traditions and values. This is largely due to centuries of segregation, and ends up reinforcing itself.
That definately happens but is an underlying cause. I'm not sure what it is. I've lived in other countries where this natural segregation does not happen.
There's a fascinating example in computational studies that partly explains this: if you have people of different groups moving around randomly on a lattice, even a very slight preference (51%/49%) for being next to people in the same group as oneself ends up leading to a self-segregated pattern.
It's far from certain. For example, Harvard social scientist Robert Putnam has (tentatively and, I think, somewhat reluctantly) suggested the opposite. Here's an interview he did for National Public Radio:
Social scientist Robert Putnam, probably best known for his work "Bowling Alone," on the decline of civic engagement, wanted to know does diversity have an impact on our sense of community? His recent finding suggest that diversity might not make us stronger. In fact, it might just be the opposite. It might make us less inclined to participate in civic life, at least in the short term.
If I were to ask, "what can a man of good will do to combat tornado calamities", would you respond with a "more air temperature homogeneity would certainly help"?
We can't reasonably engineer or create "neighborhood diversity". There are some policies that have tried to accomplish this, and they fail miserably. The "diversity" ends up artificial and hollow, and does nothing for prejudice. In some cases it seems to amplify it.
> the transition from "us" and "them" to a unified "us."
There can never be an "us" when we're talking about the 300 million people in the United States. There can't even be an "us" if you're talking about the 8 million in New York City, or the 500,000 in Atlanta.
Human beings are limited in their ability to form an "us", and it's in the low hundreds.
Yes. But, due to powerful cultural influences, humans will tend to want to group together for comfort purposes. Diversity implies fractured culture. Humans are loathe to fracture their sense of community through shared culture.
I'm going with good, fair, and free mass education. All the way to college. If everyone gets the same level of education then no one will FEEL out of place in any culture as they will be aware of common cultural differences through education.
Not really true, at least if physics/chemistry intuition can be trusted. Absent a segregating force (e.g. dipole attraction, what causes oil to separate from water), one expects two fluids to eventually become well mixed.
Conversely, if you mix two fluids which have a segregating force, you don't expect them to stay mixed. Intrinsic properties of the fluids drive the level of segregation - anything else is just temporary.
But maybe I'm just a physicist overreaching beyond my field. Why do you believe initial condition is important?
>No white person in their right mind would honestly prefer to live in a half-black community over an all-white community.
Well, some do. In their right minds et all. And could not care less about such racist BS. Except if you mean that the black neighborhood is poorer and less developed, so they might prefer the richer one.
Here's a well known example:
[Johny Otis] grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood in Berkeley, California, where his father owned a neighborhood grocery store. Otis became well known for his choice to live his professional and personal life as a member of the African-American community. He wrote, "As a kid I decided that if our society dictated that one had to be black or white, I would be black.
What's unfortunate is this attitude of "just face it, everybody stays away from (poor|black|stupid|ugly|martian) people, anybody who denies it is a hypocrite". Speak for yourself, own up to your prejudices, don't project them on others.
I've lived in "half-black" (wtf?? more like just "black") neighborhoods in Brooklyn, and Oakland CA. I prefer it to lily-white neighborhoods. Got carjacked once, have bars on my windows currently, projects are nearby. There's also a vibrancy to the neighborhood, in the music, the clothes, the attitude, that is precious. There are cultural differences, if you talk to folks on the street it's best to be sensitive and aware of nuances of communication. The reward is fresh perspectives, genuine encounters with different people. It's just plain stimulating. And no Starbucks either.
Sure, my ideal neighborhood would be less impacted by poverty, but I would slit my wrists if I lived in Park Slope or the Upper West Side.
> No white person in their right mind would honestly prefer to live in a half-black community over an all-white community.
I think the problem here is that you confusing "who shares my personal preferences" with "in the right mind". The two concepts are radically different.
I think you need to take a look at crime statistics again. They're income-based, not race-based. In the United States, poor often also means minority, but it's not race that makes inner cities violent. It's destitution, and the desperation it causes.
I'm not remotely defending his thesis (and my life choices contradict his claims pretty well) but you are simply wrong about the crime stats. To choose one category of crime, blacks make up about half of of murderers. However, there are twice as many poor whites as there are poor blacks.
Further, international comparisons suggest you are wrong about American-style "destitution" causing crime. I know many professionals (I live in India) who are far more "destitute" than any poor American (at least in terms of goods and services they can afford). Strangely they don't turn to crime at anywhere near the rates Americans (of any race) do.
>To choose one category of crime, blacks make up about half of of murderers. However, there are twice as many poor whites as there are poor blacks.
Those whites don't have the same heritage of poverty, bad education and racism against them though. Nor are over-represented by a huge margin in incarceration rates.
>Further, international comparisons suggest you are wrong about American-style "destitution" causing crime. I know many professionals (I live in India) who are far more "destitute" than any poor American (at least in terms of goods and services they can afford). Strangely they don't turn to crime at anywhere near the rates Americans (of any race) do.
"American style" is not just about being poor / destitute and not being able to afford things.
It's about the particular flavor of being that, in the context of the general societies attitude, prevalent climate, ways to deal with it, etc. So people in India being "far more destitute" doesn't mean they share the "American-style "destitution"".
Moron4hire stated a very clear theory: the disparity in crime rates is caused by income/poverty. That particular theory is wrong.
Now you seem to be claiming that the disparity in crime rates is caused by some complex combination of things. Can you clearly state what that combination is and what evidence would prove your views wrong? Or are your views not even wrong?
>Now you seem to be claiming that the disparity in crime rates is caused by some complex combination of things.
Not just me. Sociologists also.
>Can you clearly state what that combination is
* Emphasis on extreme individualism (everyone for himself, or at best, his family) that destroys community bonds (that in other places serve to provide assistance to the individual, guidance etc).
* Extremely materialistic societal views, where the official national "dream" is about making loads of money.
(to prevent easy rebuttals: almost everywhere people would like to make loads of money, the difference is in how is this accepted / embedded in the collective psyche. E.g. in Japan, for an example, collaboration and being a part of something bigger is prioritized instead of "making it", whereas in some European countries an overt desire for money would be considered tacky).
In the US this also goes with the idea that those that didn't made it are "losers" -- and that they also only have themselves to blame ("didn't try enough" etc), something that's not the sentiment in other countries.
* People that have a history of little over a century of being "free" from slavery (with all that means for their chances of inheriting family fortune accrued over the years, access to good education etc), and little over 50 years of not being officially seggregated, while still being unoficially and covertly seggregated, denied jobs, targeted by police etc because of they color.
* Lack of "safety nets", a bad social services system, and a widespread contempt about the people making use of what exists (coupons, etc).
* Lack of proper education and cultural awareness in inner city schools. Those kids are mostly left to fail.
And other things besides.
>and what evidence would prove your views wrong?
Observing places with the same general conditions as described above which do not have elevated crime levels.
For example France's example with the "banlieues" is a similar case, with similar output.
>Or are your views not even wrong?*
I find this uncalled for, not to mention insulting.
India has the same general conditions as described above, and to a far greater extent than the US or France. Rather than individualism it's "every family for itself", but apart from that your description fits India better than the US.
Crime, apart from sex crime, is far lower. On many occasions I've walked around at night and been in no danger.
I'm not even sure if black Americans satisfy your criteria, actually. The US has a huge safety net - most of the bottom ventile are supported by the government. And my general impression is that black communities are far more collectivist than the rest of the nation. Do you have data on this?
Something really weird. On the one hand, the minute I heard your theory, I immediately thought "wow, this has to be overfitting". Then it took only a few minutes to realize these conditions are actually quite common and probably describe everything besides Scandinavia. And even those Scandinavian nations have subgroups with far higher crime than income levels would predict.
I'm sorry you found my question insulting. I'm simply attempting to determine if there is a real theory here; many people expressing similar mood affiliation to you have none, and I'm trying to avoid getting into a long debate about mood. My apologies.
And, yes, we in Scandinavia have plenty of crime committed by our ever so wonderful freshly imported Muslims -- and it is NOT because they live in poverty.
> To choose one category of crime, blacks make up about half of of murderers.
They may make up half of all people convicted of murder, but then its been widely observed across many different categories of crime that, on similar fact patterns, blacks are more likely to be charged with a crime and are likely to be charged with a more serious crime than whites.
The NCVS, for obvious reasons [0], doesn't even track homicide (nor, from looking through the questionnaires it uses, does it appear to gather information on perpetrator race), much less corrobate the conviction stats presented for murder (and, in any case, as victims of crime often rely on law enforcement to identify the perpetrator, wouldn't really be an independent check, even for those kinds of crime it does address, on the UCR for perpetrator demographics, though it can be, for those crimes that both address, for crime incidence and victim demographics.)
[0] "In the last six months, have you been murdered?" is not a particularly viable question.
I think the point tsax meant to make is that the NCVS tracks most crimes besides homicide. For crimes besides homicide and burglary, the victimization surveys agree well with the arrest rates.
I suppose this data doesn't rule out the possibility that the UCR is not very biased for robbery/rape/assault, but is biased for murder.
Or maybe self-righteous Zionists like Einstein could try diversifying their own promised land before proscribing said diversity to others?
As it stands, today Palestinian's are in camps, today Ethiopian Jews are deported, and all the while the past sins of the gentiles are ever decried on the airwaves.
I assume, before you posted this angry message, that you refreshed yourself on the differences between Labor Zionism and the right wing flavor in power in the state of Israel? And took into account that this was written in 1946?
The poster of the dead comment that is a sibling to this one is totally invited to tell me how I committed a no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
While he's at it, though, I really hope he's going to explain how I'm wrong, and not just blow his whistle, scream about fallacies, and say it's a five yard penalty, still second down.
Mathematical models can be used to argue for a wide range of viewpoints.
You could also write a model where people have different innate preferences over the lifestyle they want to lead, and so self-sorting is an unambiguously good thing.
I understand that everyone wants "math" to be on their side, but it's not really mathematics that is doing the work here, it's your assumptions.
The maths does not favour a "side" here. The maths demonstrates the consequences of different distribution of attitudes. Dependent on your views, different parameters will lead to good or bad results.
What the model does demonstrate is that the set and distribution of viewpoints that will lead to desegrated neighbourhoods is far smaller than people tend to think. It is much easier to end up with segregation than most people would expect, even with predominantly mostly benign views in most of the population.
>The maths demonstrates the consequences of different distribution of attitudes.
It demonstrates the consequences of a modeling different distributions of attitudes in a particular way.
>What the model does demonstrate is that the set and distribution of viewpoints that will lead to desegrated neighbourhoods is far smaller than people tend to think. It is much easier to end up with segregation than most people would expect, even with predominantly mostly benign views in most of the population.
It does not demonstrate this, because the parameters and details of the model have no relation to reality. In order for your claim to be true, there would have to be some mapping from real world conditions, to the parameters of the model.
All this model demonstrates is that for some parameters, individual preference for similarity of neighbors dominates over preference for diversity of the community. Which is (to me) obvious anyway.
> It demonstrates the consequences of a modeling different distributions of attitudes in a particular way.
The model is defined in terms of the attitudes.
If the model does not match the stated definition of the attitudes, then that is a bug in the code, not being creative about how to model those attitudes.
> It does not demonstrate this, because the parameters and details of the model have no relation to reality.
You say that, yet you go on to contradict yourself:
> All this model demonstrates is that for some parameters, individual preference for similarity of neighbors dominates over preference for diversity of the community. Which is (to me) obvious anyway.
The model shows that you can assemble a wide range of attitudes that most people wouldn't dream of considering racist, yet that still contributes to make segregation worse.
That's certainly not been the prevailing attitude. A lot of people that are strongly in favour of desegregation have been assuming that relatively small steps (e.g. getting people to be fina about moving into mixed areas) would be sufficient to over time lead to desegregation.
Yet the model blows that idea out of the water.
That there are other factors is largely irrelevant to addressing this attitude.
Yes I am. I don't think they are a useful way to think about the world.
One model in isolation can appear compelling, as some other posts in this thread indicate. But you can't view them in isolation, because all the model shows is that a simulation with certain properties exists. The problem is that:
1. There are a huge number of ways to model the same process. There are many details of the model that could be changed or tweaked, each giving different results. This is a bigger problem for agent based simulations than traditional game-theoretic/economic models (although it's a pretty big problem in both cases).
2. Even if you know that your model is the "right" one for the process you're interesting, in the real world all kinds of processes are interlinked. E.g. racial segregation is highly linked with Southern vs Northern, rural vs urban and wealthy vs poor. It's possible that there things swamp the process that the simulation is modeling. Even if they don't they can make the data so messy that it's impossible to test the model empirically (not that there was any attempt in this case).
Did you play with it at all? It's somewhat flawed--for example, boosting the "prejudice" level to > 85% often leads to diverse, if not stable, communities. But I think it demonstrates the concept well. If a community starts out segregated, it takes being actively displeased with the lack of diversity to get it to change, because people, without a reason to move, won't move.
No I didn't. My point was that when you expand or change the model, you open up a whole new range of possibilities. I'm not particularly interested in how the model is parametrized or what parameters lead to what result.
If the point is the story, what purpose does the model/simulation serve? In this case, the best that the model does is prove that the story is internally consistent. It doesn't prove that the story has any relationship to reality, because there are hundreds of other stories about segregation that you could tell, each with their own model.
It serves the point of illustrating that a common belief about how segregation and level of racism in the population does not hold together: More segregation can occur even with beliefs we would not consider racist; all else being equal, reducing, or even preventing the increase of, segregation takes far more than absence of racism.
What do you make of this map, then? It shows scores on an Implicit Association Test, measuring subconscious racism by white people against black people.
There is a liberal-conservative correlation on the map, a but far stronger correlation is the racial makeup of the state. The "deep roots" of racism don't seem to go away with exposure. Other empirical data, such as Robert Putnam's work mentioned in another comment, suggest just the opposite.
I think Einstein's very next sentence, "He must have the courage to set an example by word and deed, and must watch lest his children become influenced by this racial bias." is great advice.
The faster we demonstrate to our younger generations that our erroneous tradition must be corrected, the faster the goals of more diversity and elimination of racial bias can be achieved.
I believe a greater benefit would occur were we to have more mixed race couples, and with it the offspring that would tend to be produced by those relationships.
absolutely. More generally you could say that people from different races need to have something in common to get along with each other. Or even more general: People need to have something in common to have a healthy relationship.
I think the main problem is that most people lack a true passion for anything. Even many people of the same race don't get along well because they have no real interest in anything. If they don't even share the same race (i.e. have even more different properties), shit is about to get real.
Based on that theory I would guess that you see less racism amongst hackers, musicians, athletes etc.
Humans may have made great progress technologically. But having neat digital watches didn't help society as a whole to grow intellectually to the same extend.
Although, this sort of integration was encouraged and took place in Brazil and the mixed-race Brazilian offspring of today still seemingly and disproportionately prefer to be categorized as 'white' based on year-to-year census results.
Forced integration is a terrible idea that is proven to not work. It is the equivalent of locking enemies in a room and hoping they work it all out peacefully.
I hope what I have to say is not as controversial as I fear, but I don't think that individual racist beliefs are as big a problem as we have been told. To look at somebody and consciously judge them to be inferior based on their skin color is so outdated and obsolete, that those who do so are fringe members of society who are typically elderly and either changing their mindset or dying out. We elected a black president in a landslide victory for God's sake. Twice!
No, what is harmful is the vindictive, hyper-vigilant collectivist attitude that persists in a ham-handed attempt at "leveling the playing field." The idea that certain groups of people (blacks, women, gays, etc) need compulsory protection at the expense of other groups (white males), induces a sort of resentment as a response to what is perceived to be a witch hunt. For example, certain events - such as the destruction of Paula Dean for admitting to saying the word "nigger" in the past, or Brendan Eich's dismissal as CEO for his donations against gay marriage - and certain policies - such as affirmative action or the greatly lopsided outcomes of most child custody battles - evoke an understandable, but completely irrational, feeling of resentment towards those groups as a backlash for perceived unfair treatment. It's this "us vs. them" victim mentality that's the problem in mainstream America. That's where the real racist attitudes come from, not some sort of widespread, conscious conclusion that certain groups are intrinsically inferior to others.
The answer is not collectivist protections or more anti-racism vigilance, it is to look beyond our superficial differences and to consider all people as individuals with an equal capacity to love and to be loved. Racism is an outdated idea. Let it die on its own.
Equality of opportunity is a good thing - equality of outcomes is exactly the sort of creeping socialism that our Founding Fathers warned us against.
A lot of the cultural Marxist agendas being promoted in recent years are based on bad data and slanted measurements (e.g. the "pay gap" between men and women, which disappears when you control for hours worked, age, and other important variables). Such agendas are explicitly aimed at going well beyond mere "fairness" (i.e. equality of opportunity) and are aimed at seizing power from disfavored groups, and reallocating it to favored groups.
By "cultural marxist", I'm referring to the pastiche of identity politics, political correctness, and emergent legislation that has been driving a lot of the social change in recent years. Driving out the Judeo-Christian roots of Western society and replacing it with a pastiche of socialism and enforced multiculturalism.
A cultural Marxist is a person who supports such developments.
> By "cultural marxist", I'm referring to the pastiche of identity politics, political correctness, and emergent legislation that has been driving a lot of the social change in recent years. Driving out the Judeo-Christian roots of Western society and replacing it with a pastiche of socialism and enforced multiculturalism.
Now I'm going to need to see a lot of sources about this, because multiple societies have been announcing that multiculturalism Just Doesn't Work for them, and there has not been even a pastiche of socialism around since the '90s or so.
The term is really just a shorthand reference to the kind of social, political, and ideological ideas that a "progressive" university student absorbs (or is expected to absorb) during the course of his or her 4+ years in a contemporary American university.
I explicitly asked for sources that are not on the far-right. The thing about the far-right versus academia is that I've got a fairly decent prior on the far-right rationalizing its ideological views, and a fairly decent prior on academia publishing things based on epistemic rigor rather than ideology.
And no, the Frankfurt School are not "cultural Marxists". This is a term nobody has ever applied to himself.
You aren't going to find that term used by the people to whom it's typically applied. They will probably use a more specific term like "Critical Race Theory", or "radical feminism", or "social justice".
But there's a continuum of thought between these otherwise distinct concepts, which is where the "cultural Marxism" name comes in, as a unifying tag.
Racism may be an outdated 'idea', but in practice and many people's daily lives, it is reality. The American society is built on systemized racism (colonialism and slavery), and the existence and lack thereof of privilege within different groups of people is a direct result of this, and it needs to be changed, because the playing field is not level. Recommended reading:
Racism's trajectory is such that it is quickly disappearing. That is the case even in the deep south where I'm from (this is fairly profound considering our civil war defeat is still a big deal in the minds of many), but rather the racism you do encounter is in response to perceived injustices such as those I listed. Thus the hyper-vigilance perpetuated by the media does more to harm racism's disappearance than to hasten it's natural death.
Edit: Also, because racism is illogical. Irrational ideas tend to be replaced by good ones in the "free market" of ideas. There is no reason to beat tolerance into people, simply show show them the compassion and unity that equality leads to, and contrast that with the ridiculous KKK guys in goofy white cone hats and piss-stained bed sheets and let them make up their own mind.
I would laugh if this wasn't such dangerous, self-serving sophistry. I guess it's easy for a certain type of person to say racism is over, let's not worry about it, while all through Europe, and even here in the UK, far right-wing, racist anti-immigration parties gather even more support.
Racism isn't close to being over. Maybe go talk to some people who aren't white and see what they think?
I don't believe you are giving nearly enough credit to the civil rights movement or its ongoing efforts. Racism existed in various forms for hundreds (thousands, if we go back to Aristotle) of years. It is a human institution, like slavery or marriage, both of which have taken concerted effort and time to end or change.
The "free market of ideas" only works if you assume everyone is a rational actor judging ideas on their direct merits. That simply is not the case.
Also, because racism is illogical. Irrational ideas tend to be replaced by good ones in the "free market" of ideas.
This is a rather optimistic statement. It's actually quite hard to get people thinking critically, and to push rationalist and scientific points of view in the public mind.
I disagree with your argument. Here are my thoughts why.
We have been 'looking beyond our superficial differences' for a while and it hasn't done anything. I actually think 'not seeing race' is itself a form of racism, because a lot of our racism is subconscious, or cultural.
We don't have a racism of segregation anymore. It's a racism of omission. Instead there are pay gaps, unfair justice, stereotypes and erasure. EG: It's not that we censor out black music on the radio, we just prefer it when a white person sings it (macklemore, iggy azalea, eminem, miley, etc).
It works the same way as telling woman: "oh I don't see you as a woman in the workplace. I don't expect you to get pregnant or have health issues different from men. I expect you to have someone at home who takes care of your kids (like a wife would). And then I will subconsciously expect you to be more caring and nice than your male coworkers (if you disagree with anything I say I will call you a frigid bitch)". The roles we put women in are gendered, like EG: we don't expect a secretary to be a woman but if she is, she'll get very different treatment from a male secretary (who is more likely to be called Operations, won't have to pick up everybody's laundry and order lunch, etc. This happens for real).
Back to racism. Racism is still a _big_ problem for a lot of people. Police can strangle black people _on camera_ and get away without even a trial. Cops drove up to a black child with a toy gun, shot him, then did not even call an ambulance or provide emergency CPR.
Police officers barged into a house and shot a 7 year old black girl while she was sleeping. (They said they had the wrong house). No repercussions. Not a settlement, not an apology, no reaction.
Young black men are 21 more times more likely to be shot by a police officer than their white counterparts.
When you tell someone 'I don't see you black' what you are saying is "I am ignoring the struggles you face on a daily basis and also will continue to subconsciously treat you negatively". Ask a black person how many times they get called Bro, homie, or 'my nigga' by people 'who don't see them as black'. And in the public consciousness, black people are seen as demons, monsters, thugs.
(further reading: the blue eye brown eye experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZKWkhnSb5k)
> The idea that certain groups of people (blacks, women, gays, etc) need compulsory protection at the expense of other groups (white males), induces a sort of resentment as a response to what is perceived to be a witch hunt.
White males have been oppressing these marginalized groups for millennia. White male culture is homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, and racist too. If you would like examples I can give plenty. If you want stats I can give those too.
Brendan Eich's dismissal isn't irrational. A group of people decided that they didn't want a homophobic CEO.
I think the reason these events might seen incoherent is because they look like small, one time things that bring up a large public reaction, one person's slip-up here or a wrong sentence uttered here. But:
1) The things said reflect a deep hatred of the group they are against. You have really hate black people to nigger like Paula Dean did. Eich is clearly homophobic if he donates to anti gay marriage groups.
2) They might seem like one group is targeted out of the blue, but to the oppressed group these events are another thing on the long list of violence done against them. For example, if you were a woman at a tech conference and heard a thousand different dongle jokes, POSIX forking references, images of naked women, etc, on the thousand and oneth dongle joke you might get angry too. That might be seen as irrational, because hey, it's just a joke... It's not. Culture is the sum total of our collective experiences, it's made of a gajillion little things put together. People have the right to complain about these little things, like t-shirts that don't fit women at conferences. If everywhere you looked you found 'little' examples of people like you getting the short end of the stick, you wouldn't be too happy either.
3) Sometimes these things might seem out of the blue because of the way collective consciousness works. Recently twitter directed a lot of attention at a company called Strange Fruit PR. The words Strange Fruit refer to a song about lynchings, where trees in the South 'bear strange fruit', aka dead black men. If we saw a PR company called Holocaust PR or something like "arbeit macht frei" PR (a common sign posted in nazi concentration camps that said "work makes you free") we'd also freak out. Strange Fruit is two years old and it just came to twitter's attention, so it seems out of the blue, but it's just happened now because a critical mass of people found out about it recently. Sometimes it takes a while to build the political momentum to have a conversation on something.
> It's this "us vs. them" victim mentality that's the problem in mainstream America.
Black people in the US have as a group been enslaved, raped, economically enslaved, lynched, raped, denied votes, denied education, denied space in the community, denied housing, denied loans (see redlining), ignored, shot by the police, etc for the entire history of America (those where random examples). I don't think it's very human to tell them to ignore the past (and ongoing racism) and that there is no longer a 'us' and a 'them'.
If you disagree I would like to know why you don't think the above applies.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree that human history is filled with all sorts of atrocities, and slavery and race-influenced violence is among the worst. However, within the past couple decades, we are finally reaching a point where "true" equality is attainable, and I think that the only way we're going to get there is to see people first and foremost as human beings, not as part of some arbitrary collective (race/gender/sexual orientation/etc). We can appreciate those superficial differences, but when we let those differences define us then human nature is to qualitatively favor/disfavor certain groups.
As for the justice system, yes it is heavily skewed towards punishing minorities, particularly because of the drug war. I don't know how we fix that, but I do think ending the war on drugs would go a long way.
Your post can be summarized as believing we have not made as much progress as I think we have, but I am a bit more optimistic, and we need to begin converging on a permanent state of affairs, being carful not to over correct, lest we increase racial tension and regress. The only way towards true equality is to learn from our history, but at the same time look to the future while being careful not to make the same mistakes. This means that modern individuals belonging to historically disenfranchised groups should not receive preferential treatment just because their ancestors were mistreated. We need a healing process, not pay-back. It's the quickest, most painless way we're going to eventually reach true harmony as a species.
The reason I don't want to think of everyone as human beings first is this:
Everyone is part of an arbitrary collective of traits (most of us here are white, male, American, etc) and each trait affects how we see each other. For example, women are seen as more caring, or bitchy if they have power, whatever. Those stereotypes are bad, and we can't ignore that they still happen.
The way we get rid of these biases things is by recognizing that when we think a woman is being bitchy (or, say a black man angry) it's likely to be our ingrained sexism (/racism). Seeing people as human beings first erases their identities and _removes the opportunity to fix our prejudices_. You and I are both prejudiced, we have to recognize that, and work to remove it from our minds.
Then, on the optimism/pessimism thing. Just keep on investigating the experiences of black people and I think you might become less optimistic about where we are.
It's sometimes tough to see how other people could be disadvantaged (that's called privilege). But when this list of benefits white people have over black people http://amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html#daily doesn't hold any more, _then_ we can get rid of black history month.
We can't overcorrect yet, because, broadly, our institutions themselves are still racist. (See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s... or http://femmagazine.com/reverse-racism-and-reverse-sexism-don...) You don't punch someone in the face then repent with "I'm sorry that happened to you, but it's in the past, you need to heal". That's not true equality. True equality is you apologize, pay for their hospital bills and help them get their life back and recover from what was done to them in the past. That's a true "healing process". Some people see affirmative action as getting punched back, but it's not. Marginalized people's ancestors being mistreated puts them where they are now and we are _continuing_ to mistreat them by not helping them recover from that.
> The idea that certain groups of people (blacks, women, gays, etc) need compulsory protection at the expense of other groups (white males), induces a sort of resentment as a response to what is perceived to be a witch hunt.
The difference between this and a "witch hunt" is that real witch hunts didn't find a bunch of witches.
"It would be foolish to despise tradition. But with our growing self-consciousness and increasing intelligence we must begin to control tradition and assume a critical attitude toward it, if human relations are ever to change for the better. We must try to recognize what in our accepted tradition is damaging to our fate and dignity—and shape our lives accordingly."
Key takeaway, in my opinion, and this extends beyond racial prejudices.
What you quoted above gives credence that another quote attributed to Einstein actually is his. I can even recognise the tone in the segment about Aristotle and his views about slavery.
The quote in question? "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein
Even if it was misattributed, it's still one hell of a motto to live by.
Racism will continue to be a problem as long as it serves as a useful distraction for the people to prevent us from really scrutinizing the ruling class and the complete disparity between the goals of the super-rich people and the needs of the rest of us who are just trying to get by.
Racism, sexism, homophobia, drugs, guns, taxes, war, spying, all of it are just distractions because whether the issue goes left or right won't matter to most people. What really matters is whether or not people can feed their children, have a roof over their heads, have something meaningful to do with their time, be warm in the winter, be free from violence. These are the things that matter, but we're all caught up in bikeshedding over how to get there.
And in the process, a very small group of people get to come in and unilaterally take action to fill their own pockets. Everything else that happens is the rest of us playing Lord of the Flies.
Isms will end when the majority takes up the cause of the minority, because in actuality, it's their/our cause, too.
Totally agree with your view of how things work on a higher scale.
Isms will always exist because not all of us are equal and we will never be; and I'm not saying that with a discriminating tone, what I mean is that you have to be completely retarded (excuse me, but it's true) to actually believe and state that we are all the same. We all like different stuff, we all have different ways to achieve our goals, we even have (VERY) different moral foundations to asses whether something should be right or wrong.
On the other hand, most of us are used to live under the terrible premise to puts oneself (and thus, its kind) before others. Put these two facts together and everything that has happened (and will continue to happen) throughout our history becomes obvious.
While Einstein only fully stopped eating animals shortly before his death, there is some indication he also felt uneasy accepting the general attitude on animals as food for some time before that. This is prejudice that that most of us have yet to shake still.
Do you feel that it would be wrong to kill a healthy dog for food? While I get that morality is subjective, I think people would have said similar things about black people back when Einstein wrote this.
He supported Labor Zionism. Like other Labor Zionists, he opposed the right wing of Zionism. Also, like other so-called cultural Zionists, he was more concerned with establishing a homeland where Jews could express their culture, but was less concerned with having a sovereign state. Indeed at that time, the land was a "mandate" under British rule, neither Jewish nor Arab. (In those days, many lands were ruled by European empires. The notion that each non-European nation needed its own state only solidified later, partially under Israel's example.)
Interesting that his views on race in America are now mainstream, while his views on Zionism are rarely voiced outside the far left or far right. It seems to me that his views are based on a consistent application of principals, while American politics isn't.
Most mainstream Americans' political principles are variations on "defend your side at all costs." An ideology without a (real) problem to solve is a very dangerous thing.
Viewing the US from the outside, it really is puzzling that in that land of freedom - where the ability of the individual to express themself is prized above all others - happens to be a place where people are pigeonholed by which one of two political parties they vote for, and it's frequently considered to be all you need to know to know everything about a person's opinions. "Well he would say that, he's a Democrat" kind of thing.
What? He was a Zionist according to the classical "definition" and principles of the time. The varying uses of the word "Zionist" are confusing, yet nonetheless Einstein supported self-determination of the Jews in Mandatory Palestine.
What makes this discussion so much more frustrating today is that the racial biases are inherent in the system. While the laws are structured to be. Entrap, their application is decidedly not. While I, a white male, choose to do as Einstein here suggests and live a life of example, and teach my children the destructiveness of racism, my actions do not directly help those in my country who are suffering from official and unofficial forms of discrimination.
I want to do more, but... "What can men do in the face of such reckless hate?"
Sowell has some interesting things to say but it's mixed in with the heavy portion of nonsensical wharrgarbl.. He spends a lot of time calling for the bombing of Iran (so that the US doesn't surrender to them after they nuke us of course), claiming that Obama hates America (going so far as to compare to him to Hitler for creating an oil spill fund), advocating bizarre Federal Reserve conspiracy theories, and all sorts of other strange ideas.
It's hard to take the rest of what he says seriously with all that baggage..
The first chapter gives a very good rationale for where hatred and subjugation of the 'other' comes from and the book traces how this kind of socialized violence evolved over the ages.
Such self-fondling pabulum around here. If Aristotle can be wrong, so can Einstein. See: IQ data.
I bet at least the number of people who posted want to say the same thing, but have refrained from posting. I bet frikkin' Paul Graham thinks the same thing (maybe gentler) - he's alluded to 'inexpressible ideas about race' (paraphrase) in one essay.
Einstein's simplification of this situation, even though it was made in a time where political correctness wasn't common, is a fresh view that reminds me how important it is to stop pronouncing racism and instead to each do our part in extinguishing it by action.
In any discussion about racism, the stratified-by-race-IQ-chart invariably gets brought up (crtl-f for "itjustdontwork" for its latest rendition in this thread). Jane Elliott's video helped me to find a new perspective on the IQ chart data.
"A large part of our attitude toward things is conditioned by opinions and emotions which we unconsciously absorb as children from our environment. In other words, it is tradition—besides inherited aptitudes and qualities—which makes us what we are. We but rarely reflect how relatively small as compared with the powerful influence of tradition is the influence of our conscious thought upon our conduct and convictions"
just wow. This gives me alot to reflect on and goes much deeper than racial prejudices. This can be applied to alot of areas in my life. I was one of the top in my high school class for math, and skated through college pretty easily. Came out being kind of cocky then learned pretty quickly how little I actually knew. The past few years have really really given me perspective. Speaking for myself, I seem to grow much faster when I humble myself and acknowledge my areas that need improvement.
> The ancient Greeks also had slaves. They were not Negroes but white men who had been taken captive in war. There could be no talk of racial differences.
As Slavic I find this inaccurate and bit offensive :-)
Most people in America would consider a Slavic person white.
There is no scientific definition of "white", it is a social construct that has changed to be more inclusive as various groups integrated into American society.
What is weird from my perspective is how the races as concepts still are accepted and used, even though they are ambiguous and deeply problematic. For example those that have the "pleasure" of hearing "but you are white" will understand that there is a scale of whiteness and you've just been graded on that scale.
Unless and until our recent era of mass global travel results in a highly genetically uniform species, we will continue to have population groups that share allele groupings differently than other population groups which share different allele groupings.
I don't know the history of it, but it seems likely that Greece waged a lot of war with the (slavic) countries north of it, so their slaves would be predominantly of slavic descent. Slavic people also have a pretty easily discernable look to them, at least many do, so it's not hard to imagine they could be subject to racial discrimination in Greece.
There's a lot of data on this subject; if you're actually interested in evaluating it as a scientific hypothesis (rather than dismissing it as heresy), this should get you started:
The study in question involves the SAT, not formal IQ tests, but the two are highly correlated. [1] You'll also see that the original claim isn't quite supported, as the poorest group of whites scored slightly worse than the richest group of blacks, but the study does broadly support the conclusion that the poorest whites outscore all but the richest blacks.
These aren't the citations you're asking for, but they are interesting (and the comment you responded to got killed).
It's a fact that while second-generation Chinese-Americans score quite well on tests and get a lot of bachelor's degrees, their children score even less well, and by the third generation they're as dumb as Americans. Wait, they are Americans. Right. See table 2 in [1]. So, the point is that according to census data people who come to the US from Asia get dumber, people who come to the US from Eastern Europe get dumber, and people who come here from Africa continue doing very well if they are Nigerian [2] and improve in educational attainment if they came from a refugee camp in Somalia. Hm. Apparently American society makes a lot of people dumber, although it does help out people coming from refugee camps. Since white people from Europe get dumber the longer they stay in the US, we've got to admit that it's the water, or our environmental regulations, or something else affecting their genetics, right? It's only fair. It couldn't be culture.
Open a comment's 'link' page and if you have above X karma, you can see a 'flag' link. Collect a couple of those, and you get flagged.
Likely that comment was flagkilled because it's a standard bigoted statement, known to be controversial. If you're going to make statements like that, then you really need to back them up with data. Using 'everyone knows this' and similar are some standard weasel-words that bigots use. Likewise, it was a brand new account created just for a few flamebait comments. It's not exactly honest debating.
Basically, if you are going to make an academic comment on a sensitive topic, you should take more care in how you present it.
I took a brief look at your second link and found this:
"There's no sensible reason to expect that, because all humans faced nearly identical selective pressures until the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago, and there hasn't been enough time for much evolution since."
The first part is very, very, very likely wrong, the second part is completely known to be wrong.
He also starts out by committing Lewontin's Fallacy.
In a comment he shows himself to be a Lamarckian:
"Oh, the Ashkenazi intelligence thing. Good childrearing! Generations of educating kids well, because of putting a very high value on education, both because of religious requirements and because of the economic niche they got slotted into by European nobility. If there are a set of alleles Ashkenazim have that the rest of humanity doesn't that are plausibly linked to intelligence, I've never heard of them."
"Anonymous" also has an answer (1 May 2013) that is much better.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you believe that Comintern - an organization that was dissolved in 1943 - is still "funding and driving" civil rights struggles.
As someone who used to be active in a party that used to be a part of the Comintern, and that spent a lot of time during my youth to try to build support for re-establishing an International, and who learned in the process there are about a dozen "Fourth Internationals" (Comintern was the Third), a few Fifths, and at least a couple of Sixths, none of which acknowledge each other, all of which are ludicrously impotent tiny little groups, the idea of some shadowy remnant of the Third actually still existing and having the power and will to do something good for a change is some world class tin foil hattery.
I also love how you try to pretend that it was a secret that Einstein was left wing, yet at the same time try to push the idea that the supposedly left wing US press (... as a European, the very idea of a left wing US press is comedy gold) were exaggerating his worth as a physicist because of his secret left wing views.
By all means, keep on going. It's exactly this over the top lunacy that have changed US attitudes to socialism - the rate of change the last 20 years have been astounding. Maybe in another 20 your political landscape will start to approach the European.
any one of Einstein's contributions in his miracle year would have put him in the history books. to say his contributions to science have been exaggerated is incorrect. he really was that good, whether you like that fact or not.
Bottom line, then and now, to be a racist you need either be stupid or have serious psychological issues or a combination of both.
On a side note, I always admired Einstein for his tremendous ability to abstract problems. I believe he is the co-inventor of the "thought experiment" with Mach.
You can always feel this ability in his writings.
SF: https://www.facebook.com/events/675598982556580/
Oakland: https://www.facebook.com/events/858052834217501/
NYC: https://www.facebook.com/events/959630214065046/
Boston: https://www.facebook.com/events/1559794327598726/
(and I'm sure there's one near where you live as well)