There’s only so far the “it’s a class problem” can be taken. When a demographic is specifically singled out for disenfranchisement, to the point where it is 51% more likely for violent felons of another demographic to get a job as opposed to those without a record in the first demographic, you can’t balme it solely on class. When black congressmen are stopped by Capitol Police and suspected of stealing the cars they own, you can’t say that class is the issue. Socio-economics isn’t the sole drive for why Poland is trying to rewrite their own history to exclude the influence of Jewish people.
I remember a news story of a black man acting as a caretaker for a severely mentally handicapped white man who had a toy car, which was mistaken as a gun by an onlooker who called the police, and thought the white man was about to commit suicide. The caretaker laid down on the ground, hands in his air, and tried his best to shout calmly at the police – who were about one hundred meters away, and had set up a sniper rifle – that neither him nor the man who he was caring for were dangerous.
Sorry to say, but to not accept the fact that there is rampant and systemic racism within the US government and police force is delusional. Black individuals and other minorities are gunned down for little or no reason at all by the hundreds every year, with very little or no punishment at all for the murderous cops.
Hell, half the time they’re given vacation time as a reward, AKA paid leave. And, as Rachel mentioned, there’s the fact that our government locks up millions of people for petty crimes so they can use them as slaves.
I’m glad you didn’t try mind-reading me on this! I don’t think anyone is inherently deserving of being incarcerated more (or less) due to their race. As far as the gap goes, it is improving as a whole, and incarceration is at it’s lowest it’s been in 20 years.
Of course it’s not where it should be, and if it’s true that black men are serving upwards to double the sentence for the exact same crime then that’s a real, racial issue. Judges making this sort of sentencing should get a ton of scrutiny, and there needs to be actual accountability.
Prisoners doing penal labor is legal only in the US as punishment for committing a crime. You don’t put black men into labor camps, you put criminals into labor camps. Do you see the difference? Now if they were put there due to their race and not due to their crimes, then that’s absolutely slavery. But if they are there because they’re a criminal, then the color of their skin doesn’t matter. These men hold the identity of ‘criminal’ ahead of ‘black’ and ‘male’.
This is a difference in identity that I think passionate anti-racists don’t understand. They’re thinking of race so much that they can’t de-prioritize it, and I’ll give you an example: many passionate anti-racists find patriotism to be conflated with white nationalism, but that’s because they can’t put ‘American’ as a priority over white, or black, or latino or so forth.
There absolutely are patriotic men and women of all races, many of which would put being an American as their identity over their race and gender. They literally see other people and themselves in different layers than passionate non-racists do. This explains a lot of the differences we’re talking about here.
I think Trump is or at least was racist. Do I think it’s affected his administration’s policies? Maybe, but those job numbers (that he can’t stop talking about) are actually a huge help when it comes to fixing racial tension.
I think gerrymandering is all about votes, and both parties are guilty. As minorities tend to vote Democrat, both parties make use of this knowledge and adjust districts accordingly. I think forcing people to pay to vote is probably illegal. Ethnic cleansing is obviously racist (and genocidal), and I think your bias has applied these stances to the Party that you dislike.
All of us (including me) do this: we have an opinion and we justify it afterwards. Reigning in bias is very difficult, but watching out for extremes is always a good idea. If you think ethnic cleansing is some part of the Republican platform, then I’m going to go ahead and say you’re being manipulated by your own bias.
This video highlights a lot of passionate anti-racists, trying to explain how voter ID is supposedly racist. Their arguments they make rely on the same racial mental associations that a straight-up racist would have. That blacks are somehow too poor, or idiotic (underprivileged) to have and be able to use a voter ID like the rest of modern world uses in their elections.
It is absolute lunacy.
This is the result of the far-left subjective reality world I mentioned earlier. It’s only loosely based on objective reality, and is in fact rooted in those same racial mental associations that those in the far-right use for their world. That’s not good company to keep!
I’ve stated my approach before on how I try to see the world as close to objective reality as I can. And I do it by not making implications, by only judging people based on hard evidence. If there’s room for emotion in my judgement, then that means I’m at the mercy of my bias.
The thing is, voter ID laws are discriminatory. I work five days a week and don’t get time off for any holiday except Christmas Day. The DMV is miles away, I don’t have a car, and the bus system – while far more fair and robust than my previous town – still have problems like occasionally not even stopping in spite of there being 5+ people at a bus stop. Combine that with the fact that most places around my house no longer offer cash back and the nearest ATM only works roughly half the time, and I basically have to plan about a week in advance any time I want to take the bus. And I’m relatively blessed by having a job, an ATM, and a bus stop within comfortable walking distance, while many people don’t even have that much. When you factor in the fact that you’re also asking for $25-50 (depending on the state- Florida is 25) for a square of plastic that’s only really useful every two years and still requires you to schedule off a Tuesday you likely would otherwise be earning income on in order to utilize it, there’s another factor at play.
Also, I noticed that video was carefully edited, with things like jump cutting in the middle of sentences, and didn’t showcase a few facts: in order to get an ID online, you have to have access to a scanner, and often a printer, things that you would have to prioritize over (say) food, electricity, etc if you have a limited budget to work with (which we have established, is the case). And in Florida at least, you have to actually go to an office to recieve an ID card anyway, so getting voter ID online isn’t a universal thing in the slightest.
So, to be clear, you are fine with black people disproportionately being jailed and placed into forced labor camps, so long as it can be attributed to a reason other than them being black? What do you believe currently justifies placing black men into forced labor?
So you’re perfectly fine with placing black people into forced labor camps, so long as they are labeled as criminals first? As an aside, do you support Trump placing children into concentration camps? If not, why (keeping in mind that they are technically criminals)?
So, to be clear, your claim is that black men do indeed deserve to be placed into forced labor at the current rate? If not, why do you claim that therefore their skin color doesn’t matter?
So you claim that it’s okay to target black men for forced labor camps because you have other priorities? What do you prioritize higher that justifies placing black men into forced labor camps at a disproportionate rate?
Do you believe there is a clean line between the two? Do you believe forcing children to pledge allegiance to the government, particularly a government that is likely to then place them in forced labor, is patriotism or nationalism?
So you’re claiming that it’s okay to place black men into forced labor camps, so long as they do so in the name of the government? Do you believe that prior to the abolishment of slavery, a slave catcher wasn’t racist because they obeyed the letter of the law? What about if they specifically did not believe there should be slavery, but still did that as a job?
Did you intentionally avoid this question? Why do you believe this is illegal? Do you believe forcing people to pay for tickets to vote is illegal or racist? Do you believe forcing people to pay for special papers to vote is illegal or racist? Do you believe that forcing people to pay for any specific thing before voting is illegal or racist? Do you believe that forcing people to pay for IDs is illegal or racist? After you have read all of these, did you think about where you draw the line on where this?
Do you think that Republicans don’t support ethnic cleansing? Do you think Trump retweeting white supremacist does not indicate he believes in white supremacy? Do you think Trump calling Neo-Nazis very fine people does not indicate that Republicans believe in ethnic cleansing? Do you believe that placing children into concentration camps is not part of ethnic cleansing? What constitutes proof of ethnic cleansing to you? Do you believe it is necessary to wait until after Republicans begin instituting death camps and rounding up Jews, queers and people of color before you’re comfortable with acting against them?
Do you genuinely believe that black people have economic parity with white people?
Do you believe yourself to be inherently superior to people of color? If not, why do you imply that your view is objective, but people of colors cannot be objective?
Does this mean you would willing kill Jews, queers, and people of color if you were conscripted and it were given orders to after laws were passed legalizing it? If not why (keeping in mind that to be objective, you cannot include any emotional arguments)?
I will say that 1) saying both sides gerrymandering, etc. Isn’t helpful. It is a good way of being able to ignore “hard evidence” against one side, because you can say “Aha this means the other side is equally bad”
Saying people are passionate anti-racists who try to read minds is pretty patronising.
That De something dude isnt great.
1st 12 hours he references “monkey”, calls the guy a “performer” or something, calls him “articulate”
In the past his team has said blatantly racist thing. He doesn’t comment, forget about taking action against the racist person still on his team.
He is pro execution
The system disproportionately charges black men, so this is slightly racist.
What makes this overtly racist is that he has defended an audience member who said they wanted to bring back the hanging tree.
You perhaps could convicne me the death penalty isn’t racist
Lynching and hanging people, you could argue, isn’t racist, but if you said that I’d ignore you.
He has also appeared alongside David Horowitz, and islamophobe, and Milo Yillanopolis or something, a well know member of the alt-right.
Now I’m wondering, for such a keen lover of “hard evidence” why didn’t you show me the’s links-- after all I am the emotional anti racist who tends to not use facts and try to justify opinions I already hold.
And when you say you try to keep objective views, remember objective doesn’t mean 50/50 between both sides or something.
The “hard evidence” is that black people on average make a lot less than the average white person.
Therefore the more barriers, economics or time, there are to actually being able to vote, it will have the effect of disproportionately letting less black people vote.
Also, you seem to be okay with a lot of stuff that harms black people more as long as it isn’t intended to be racist.
Like that guys comments, if the end result is racist, I don’t care if they meant to be racist.
If my school made a rule saying people who don’t go to a certain after school revision session are punished, that would have a racist result, as more of my black friends have part time after school work than white friends.
And you keep talking about the fringe of left leaning pepole to describe everyome. It’s like I don’t think all Republicans are racist, but if they support an institution with racist leaders and many racist policies and rhetoric, they are as bad as a racist.
Sure, you can be objective
But you also have to do thorough research on both sides-- an objective, unresearched opinion is worth less than the experiences of someone, like a black person, who can tell us of their personal experience.
The assumption here is that criminal law and the society that enforce it are colourblind.
Crime isn’t so much a personal failure as it is a systemic one. People are rational actors, and they commit crimes when they consider the consequences of possibly being caught breaking the law to be superior to the consequences of remaining within it. For lack of a better term, American (and to a differing extent, Canadian) society “encourages” certain ethnic groups to be criminal.
Black Americans in particular dealt with an overt system of racial discrimination which officially barred them from almost every opportunity to build generational social and economic capital - a system which only ended two generations ago. Since then, they’ve continued to have to deal with discriminatory practises in just about every facet of society, from underfunded schools, to the stigmatisation of their appearance on the part of employers, to exploitative practises like “redlining”. The end result is that (as @lovinglydull has already mentioned) black Americans, through no fault of their own are rendered poorer, less employable, and less socially mobile specifically because things like their skin colour and their natural hair are considered “unprofessional” and unsuitable for the “high status” jobs required for social mobility.
Of course, that’s not even throwing in the fact that American police seem to have a nasty habit of being able to get away with shooting black people, no matter how unarmed or law-abiding they are. That’s not just a problem in itself, but a symptom of a larger issue, the idea that law enforcement are somehow justified in approaching black people (especially black men) with a presumption of guilt, and that goes all the way from high-profile extrajudicial murder all the way down to practises like carding.
So where does that put black people in America? At the business end of a system which renders them borderline unemployable, deprived of social mobility, and often in poverty. In the sights of a system of law enforcement which is willing to treat them as criminal whether they’ve committed a crime or not - and which will often come down on them for misdemeanours which white people (and people who look like me) will get a warning for, at most. From where a lot of them are standing, “crime” seems like an awfully rational prospect, especially if it’s their only shot at survival.
So yes, theoretically, you “put criminals in labour camps for being criminals”, but the way American society works, that’s often only one or two steps removed from “putting black people in labour camps for being black”.
Seems like a bit of a vicious cycle to me. The police crack down on black people at a disproportionate level, which causes feelings of anger and persecution, which erupt into violence against the police that also occurs at a disproportionate level, which makes the police more prone to take extreme measures against black suspects, and round and round it goes.
Unfortunately, it’s why groups like Black Lives Matter may ultimately prove counterproductive. Anything that furthers the divide between the two groups is just going to increase the mutual enmity and lead to more violence.
Well, even though I’m not an American, I’ve been thinking a bit about McCain’s passing these past few days and even though I’m here late for the discussion, I’d like to plant a few thoughts.
I mean, due to the fact that he was a political figure for such a long time and, more specifically, during the 00s, it’s natural that his legacy is such a mixed bag; especially for the younger members of the forum like me, who don’t really remember the 08 campaign as intention polls or political analyses. McCain seems to have rallied against the more radical non-partisan bits of his party, even though you could argue (and I think it’s an interesting point) that he empowered the anti-intelectual wing of the Republicans by naming Palin as his runing-mate.
His intense opposition to torture certainly earns some points. It’s easy to look back fondly to the past, and to McCain more specifically just because he isn’t like plenty of today’s members of the GOP. While there are certainly valid criticisms to be made about him, moments like this seem to be becoming more and more a thing of the past.
I noticed you asked this question a few times, but I’ll answer it just once. If the crimes are equal, and black criminals are being sentenced to penal labor more often that white criminals, then that’s clearly racism.
I read all your questions but this really stuck out to me. To answer it, no of course I wouldn’t take the proverbial gun shot just because of a law or an order. And I don’t need to get emotional to make use of my morals. Killing people is morally wrong. Killing people based on race or religion is morally wrong.
There’s a picture you’re painting here with your questions, but if I’m wrong please correct me. Do you live in a world where Trump is Hitler 2.0? The slavery, the genocide, the concentration camps…is that what you’re perceiving as America in 2018?
That’s a level of bias reaching that of a full-blown hallucination. This isn’t something that can be handled in the realm of political discourse. To have a debate, you have to raise your consciousness of ‘The Other’. In this case, the other for you is Republicans/Trump.
Levels of consciousness:
Yanny vs Laurel
The Other is confused
The Other is foolish
The Other is evil (you’re here)
When you realize that practically all democrats and republicans are well-meaning but with different, imperfect approaches to problems, the world gets a heck of a lot brighter. We are in a battle of Good vs Good here. Don’t fall into the trap of demonizing those you haven’t tried hard enough to understand. Because once you understand Trump and why people voted for him, Trump goes from being a monster, to being a clown, to being a guy with different approaches than you.
Logic doesn’t work with subjective realities. If you believe that Trump or me or anyone white person that voted for him assumes they’re in some way superior to blacks, then I’m wasting my time here. I think your best bet if you truly want to understand the other side is find some people in real life who voted for Trump, and giving them an honest listen without the impression that they’re evil, foolish or confused.
Prison is the end result of a series of breakdowns. Addressing inequality at that final point in the series is a fair point, but it’s not that useful. If there’s racial disparity in the job market and school systems, or in housing–now these are far more useful to investigate. I see the police and the prison system as a crappy band-aid for a gaping wound, which only covers it so that the public and our politicians don’t have to seriously look into the underlying problems.
Add the sensationalism that comes from a handful of dumb, or under-trained, or racist cops and you have a recipe for racial tension. The media knows what gets ratings, and it’s certainly not stories of the vast majority of cops who actually care about their neighborhoods and the people in it. Again, this demonizing is a path towards a hallucination that the police are out to lynch blacks.
Thank you for giving us some insight into your circumstances! That definitely sounds rough and inconvenient. I definitely agree that is voter ID was to be instituted, that there needs to be some way to implement it quick and freely. We have the technology–people should be able to get their pictures taken at a voting booth and cross-checked in real time. In 2018 you’d think we’d have some solution that didn’t involve waiting at the DMV all day!
Remember when above you said you don’t think of black males when you hear the word “criminal”? I think you just put the lie to your own claim.
Remember also that marijuana was criminalized–without any scientific evidence–in order to justify the incarceration of black and brown people.
You see “criminal,” but without asking why these actions are considered criminal, or why the police pursue some crimes but not others, in some neighborhoods but not others. You’re letting the word “criminal” erase what other factors might be in play.
If blacks are statistically more likely to be criminals, then my point still stands: you either believe that there’s an inherent difference to the races, which means you’re a racist, or there’s systemic racism that is skewing the results. That statistical probability is a result of the systemic racism.
And this is a canard. To say that you’re concerned about fatherless homes without looking at the systemic racism that causes black men to be disproportionately incarcerated or to be disproportionately jobless/underemployed is to try to address a broken limb with a band-aid.
If you want to fix inner-city schools, then you need to divorce school funding from local property taxes. As long as wealthy and middle-class people keep their money in their local school districts, of course urban schools are going to be underfunded. Again, this is systemic racism; the system was literally designed so that white folks don’t have to pay for black kids to get an education.
And here, again, you’re showing your privilege. This problem isn’t new. This problem is part of the design of a system to disenfranchise individuals and to keep the poor poor. It’s to the benefit of the system to not make this easier, just like it’s to the benefit of the system to not have early voting, or e-voting, or ranked-choice voting, or at-large districts. IDs will never be “quickly and freely” available, and positions and policy should not be designed around the false hope that they are or soon will be.
Now, if Republicans somehow do manage to make IDs quickly and freely available, then we can talk about VoterID laws. But until then, it’s an active attempt to disenfranchise the poor.
Ugh, I absolutely detest that idiot Milo kid! He gives gay guys everywhere bad publicity.
Labour camps don’t work skills training in prison does and I’m all for having at least 50% of what they earn from those skills while still in prison go towards restitution to their victims. As long as those skills give them a decent thing to build on when they get out. Sadly even over here prisons don’t offer nearly as many remedial education and skills training as they used to and this function should be restored.
Excepting the life sentences, the main business of the prison system should be to provide second chances and I won’t say no to more restitution/compensation for victims either of course.
Ugh, thanks for making me feel like an old fossil. I still remember Clinton’s 1996 campaign and W and McCain back in 2000. Though at least I was still too young to vote back then.
While I hear plenty about the wrongs and failures of American Society, where does Canada fall short, apart from the treatment of First Nations, in your estimation Cata? As I fear I’ve never really looked into the Canadian System back in college when the British and American systems were always the low hanging fruits for comparative law courses.
It’s rather worse than that. The prison system is less a band-aid over the wound and more like dripping raw sewage into it.
Criminal records affect people negatively, when it comes to employment, when it comes to social capital, and when it comes to further interactions with law enforcement (not to mention how society perceives further interactions with law enforcement). If the person being incarcerated was the breadwinner for a family, then their dependents are being deprived of income they need to survive, which leads to crime being a more rational decision for those dependents.
We’ve established society already tacitly encourages black people to be criminal. The prison system - which takes a disproportionately incarcerated demographic, deprives them of opportunities further, while further impoverishing their dependents and normalising the idea of prison time itself - is absolutely a part of that process.
Thought experiment: let’s say out of all the police in the US, 98% do not have strong enough racial biases against black people to commit to racist policing. But they’re also not willing to stand up to the remaining 2% when they are. Out of institutional loyalty, or personal camaraderie, they keep quiet, because in a service like the police force, you’re supposed to watch your partners’ backs.
If you’re on the receiving end of those 2%, would it honestly matter how not-racist the remainder are if they do nothing while the vast majority abuse you? If your only active interactions are with those 2%, and the rest of the force does nothing to stop them, what would a rational actor in that perspective conclude?
I’m sure you’ve heard of the phrase “a few bad apples”, when referring to racist police. Remember that the complete sentence is “a few bad apples spoils the bunch.”
As I’ve mentioned above, American prison systems don’t really work like that. In most cases, prisoners are treated as menial labour, paid pennies a day, and ejected with further obstacles in the way of using what meagre skills they’ve supposedly been taught to get a job.
I get the impression a lot of the issue comes from the private prison industry, more interested in their bottom line than their workers, especially since society as a whole seems to consider those workers without rights.
First Nations folks are disproportionately incarcerated up here. If anything, it’s worse than with regards to black people in the US, seeing as the reservation system still allows for a level of “officially sanctioned” discrimination. There’s discrimination towards black and brown people up here too, though probably not quite as bad in the US. I’ve had black friends who’ve had brushes with racist policing, and Toronto recently had a major debate over carding.
This is, of course, not counting Quebec, which tries its hardest to be a genuine white francophone ethnostate, as the recent law passed by the provincial government banning niqabs from public transport (and criticised by the opposition parties for not being harsh enough) would demonstrate.
People who murder, rape, assault and rob others deserve to be incarcerated regardless of the color of their skin. Period.
Of course not, but it’s my understanding that the crimes are not necessarily exactly the same -legally- speaking. For example, crack cocaine is significantly more popular among black cocaine users than white cocaine users and the penalty for crack is much heavier than for powder cocaine.
I’m heartened that Republican resistance to prison sentencing reform has rapidly decreased of late. Ironically enough, it may be a benefit of Trump’s influence on the Republican Party. I suspect Trump was so pleased to have his picture taken with first Kanye West and than Kim Kardashian that they were able to convince him to adopt their cause as his own. Furthermore, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is also enthusiastic about making Federal prison sentences more fair and reasonable. Apparently Jeff Sessions is spearheading the resistance inside the party against “letting convicted felons go free” and this has made Grassley and some other Senate Republicans less inclined to defend him against Trump. This may be one of the few areas where bipartisan cooperation may be possible. Politics can get complicated.
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I fully agree that prisoners should not be turned into slave labor. I’m leery of any sort of forced labor, and strongly opposed to any sort of “for profit” forced labor as it creates a financial incentive to treat inmates as slaves. Like @idonotlikeusernames I do see a role for prisons in teaching inmates a trade, and as long as they can pick their trade I don’t have an issue with requiring them to work while in prison as long as some sort of reasonable appeals process exists. The point would be rehabilitation however, not profit.
This is the problem with assuming a generalization always to be true just because it often is. The facts in individual cases don’t always bear it out. The jury in the Castile case was not all white. Two of the jurors were black. They both voted for acquittal. Two white jurors held out and desperately wanted to convict, but after repeatedly reading the legal definition of “culpable negligence” and debating it for over 4 hours with their peers on the jury, they were forced to reluctantly concede that Yanez’s terrible judgment did not meet the definition of “culpable negligence” in the state of Minnesota.
I did not “go after” Muslims. Jason brought up MENA men in the context of terrorism first. And let’s be real here, most MENA men are physically indistinguishable from southern Europeans. The unjustified discrimination they face in the US isn’t due to their skin tone, it’s due to their faith. I can use the term MENA if you prefer, and perhaps I’m misunderstanding something about the language of the political left that you and Jason are using, but to me it sounds like code.
Because there are different definitions of terrorist. The definition that you and Jason use is different and more expansive than the one I’m accustomed to using. My apologies for giving you reason to infer that the definition you use is somehow less legitimate. I grant you that your definition is actually more accurate in several important ways.
I don’t care what the terrorist’s skin color is. I only care about their actions. That said, mass-killings do tend to get the press’s attention in ways that more personalized acts of terrorism do not. So I’ve tended to think of terrorism only in a more limited context than you do. Nevertheless that’s a big part of why I post here, because I tend to get a point of view here that I’m not exposed to anywhere else. Sometimes I will agree with you, and sometimes I won’t. Either way I find these discussions and debates informative, because even if I’m not always in agreement with you, I’d at least like to understand your perspective.
Because as I said previously, it comes across as an inconsistency to defend one group of human beings from blanket judgment while using a blanket judgment against another group of human beings.
Of course. This is where we’re talking past each other, because you’re seeing something very different from what I said.
Do I really need to point out that there are a lot more white folk than black folk in the US? So of course white folks are going to commit more crimes.
Of course not. White folk have no more or less of a proclivity for violence than folk of other colors. You’re tilting at windmills here, and I see no point in defending a windmill that in my view has nothing to do with anything I’ve said previously.
This isn’t directed at me, but I’ll answer it anyway. Trump has made racist statements and hesitated to dissociate himself from known racists, so by the definition of the left he is a racist. But like @MultipleChoice, and most people outside of the political left, I look for intent. From my perspective he’s a selfish narcissistic asshole who won’t hesitate to lash out with the most hurtful statement he can possibly think of, including racist ones, when he feels attacked, He doesn’t go any easier on white men who offend him. He just uses a different put-down or insult. Trump is also a nativist with a poor vocabulary who chronically exaggerates and misspeaks, and he feels that apologizing is a form of weakness. So even in those moments when he’s self-aware enough to recognize that he’s been offensive he’s unlikely to apologize.
What I’m saying here is that for all of his other faults and offenses, Trump isn’t necessarily any more racist than Hillary was, just significantly less filtered. You’re welcome to disagree, God knows I intensely dislike the man, but I’m calling it like I see it. In fact I see him as very much wanting to do something to help African Americans, more so than Hillary, if only to get his ego stroked, and to reward Kim and Kanye for their willingness to be seen with him.
I think it’s against the US Constitution and a form of discrimination, although I’d argue that it more directly targets the poor, who are still a core Democratic party constituency, regardless of color.
Ethnic cleansing is evil all by itself, even before we tie the word racist to it. Whether or not it’s racist in my view would depend on whether or not you consider one group killing another group of the same color to be racist or not (eg Hutu’s vs Tutsi’s in Rwanda and Serbians vs Bosnians in Bosnia-Hercegovina). So my answer is that it often is, but not always. Sometimes it’s simply evil instead of both evil and racist. Given that your definition for many of these terms tends to be more expansive than mine, you may well disagree.
It’s not so cut and dry as you think. The parties are not static and unchanging. Do recall that McCain and many Republicans, as well as a smaller number of Democrats, begged President Bill Clinton to intervene in Srebrenica before the city full of people was butchered in a wave of ethnic cleansing. Clinton did not. The massacre that followed will haunt Clinton and the pacifists who were around him for the rest of their days. Bill Clinton embraced and presided over the prison-building boom of the 90’s and Trump certainly appears eager to do what he can to reform the Federal prison system. Furthermore, several of Trump’s actions with respect to immigrants that have gotten so much criticism were also taken by President Obama without the attendant criticism.
I think both sides all too often compromise their principles in the name of political expediency and as a result I have issues with both sides.
II’d call it either cowardice or hypocrisy, probably both.
While some human beings may be a much darker shade of gray than others, humans that are purely good or purely evil do not exist. It’s possible to share some values and find some common ground with nearly everyone. It may not be ground that you personally value as much as the ground that you don’t share, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
I’m not comfortable with calling someone a racist just because they prioritize issues differently than the beholder desires. Clearly David Duke is a racist as racism drives him to do what he does, but when an 85 year old great-grandmother votes for Trump because she wants more conservative justices on the US Supreme Court to “save babies from abortionists”, I simply consider her a single-issue voter who prioritizes fetal life above nearly everything else.
It’s certainly racist in effect, particularly in the present day. Nevertheless I was alive at the time crack first hit the streets, and I vividly recall the fear that pervaded America after the press started ginning the fear up to draw eyeballs and sell newspapers. I do not recall anyone in the press making the distinction that it predominantly affected black folk at the time, but I do recall the mass hysteria as countless people demanded laws to stop the “deadly epidemic” from “killing our children”. The laws that resulted were anything but rational.
You’re thinking of the CIA. They’ve single-handedly led to the imprisonment and addiction of an entire generation of African Americans. Black communities are still trying to recover from it.
Webb summed up the heart of his Dark Alliance series thus: “It is one of the most bizarre alliances in modern history. The union of a U.S. backed army attempting to overthrow a revolutionary socialist government and the uzi-toting “gangstas” of Compton and South-Central Los Angeles.”
Perhaps most damningly, Webb wrote that crack was virtually unobtainable in the city’s black neighbourhoods before “members of the CIA’s army” began supplying it at rock-bottom prices in the Eighties.
“For the better part of a decade,” he wrote in the intro to the first piece in the trilogy, “a San Francisco Bay Area drug ring sold tonnes of cocaine to the Crips and Bloods street gangs of Los Angeles, and funnelled millions in drug profits to a Latin American guerrilla army run by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.”
This isn’t necessarily the case. Darker-skinned latinx folks are also targeted by security apparati and racists, as are, for example, Copts and Sikhs who might not necessarily have anything in common with Muslims except the region their grandparents were from.
The “Islam isn’t a race” argument falls apart when the perpatrators’ definition of “Muslim” tend to use racialised characteristics to determine who’s a target and who isn’t.