White privilege in action? http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/09/01/3-arrested-after-brawl-involving-wedding-party/
White Privilege
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
Wsk, Whiskers, Kelly?
I only now realized you were a guest here, and so my manners should have been extended as such.
Perhaps I could have been more helpful in your understanding of how it all works.
If you aren't familiar with the construction industry, it should be noted that it's one of the largest (if not the largest) of industries in America, and the world for that matter.
Fortunately for the construction industry's sake, affirmative action hasn't wriggled its way in, or if it has, it hasn't gotten very far.
The industry is just way too complex, and constantly ever changing for such laws to keep up with.
In a typical large construction project, every thing from a-z is involved, and each project usually requires some sort of invention.
As a general contractor, if I hire sub-contractor Alan at $35/hr to perform certain tasks, and Alan just so happens to be white, so be it.
And if I hire Julio at $12/hour to perform certain tasks, and Julio just so happens to be Hispanic, then that's fine too.
No one can stop me from hiring at different wages, depending on the scope of the work.
Some guys might charge a thousand dollars/hr or more to be involved in the project. Granted these are usually fat white guys, but more and more Bros and Latinos are learning how to make top dollar too.
While some backhandedness may always inevitably be taking place, it's probably much less backhanded or underhanded than many would think.
It's just natural for birds of a feather to flock together.
The more people look, talk, and act alike, the more readily their acceptance is within the flock.
Going back to the time I hired Leroy as my assistant laborer; I don't remember the exact dollar amount, but I'm sure I made or kept at least a little money off the top of what I paid him.
Was that me taking advantage of my white privilege?
Maybe, but at the time I didn't consider it.
I at least reasoned that I had already been trained in the masonry work that I was performing, and it's doubtful Leroy could have been as productive on his own accord, or without my instruction/supervision.
And so what if I did take advantage of my white privilege?
I was born with two good eyes- a privilege not all can say they've been given, but just because I came into the world more fortunate than blind folk, that didn't stop me from taking a good look around.
Perhaps the denial of white privilege is really just a form of white guilt.
And, sure, I could video tape white guys telling brown guys what to do, showing their higher pay wages, and make a court case, but that evidence would never be considered incontrovertible, and frankly I wouldn't waste the courts time with it.
The simpler solution is to continue to vote for legislators who are perfectly aware of the situation, and who take such everyday phenomenon as white privilege into consideration when distributing the wealth around America.
Last edited:
. . . an armed, drunk, disobedient white man -- and his encounter with the cops. Something seem odd?
What do you suppose would happen to an agitated, belligerent African-American man wandering around on the street in his pajamas yelling at people, waving a gun around and telling police to shoot him? Judging from But that’s not what happened to this gentleman in Kalamazoo, Michigan. In fact, what happened in Kalamazoo was a picture-perfect example of smart, strategic policing to deescalate a possibly lethal situation.
Of course, the perpetrator was a white, 63-year-old “open-carry” advocate who was drunkenly asserting his right to bear arms in the middle of the day — the very definition of a “good guy with a gun.”
Here’s what happened. It was a Sunday afternoon about 4 p.m. when Kalamazoo 9-1-1 got several calls from citizens concerned about an intoxicated man with a gun walking around a coin laundry and “stumbling around a little bit and kind of bumping into some stuff” on the street. The police arrived shortly and confronted the man by saying, “Hey, partner, how you doing? Can you set that down real quick and talk to me?” (The officer didn’t have his gun drawn.) The armed man refused to set it down. The officer told him that he was jaywalking and was being detained. At that point the officer radioed that the armed man would not drop the weapon. He tells the man again that he just wants to talk to him and says, “You’re walking around here scaring people, man.”
A second police car arrives at the scene. The man refuses to identify himself and demands to know if he’s free to go and the officer says no, that he is resisting and obstructing, a misdemeanor, for jaywalking and failing to identify himself. The man says, “Why don’t you fucking shoot me?” The officer gently replies, “I don’t want to shoot you; I’m not here to do that.”
This back and forth continues, with the man refusing to give up his gun and the cops patiently trying to talk him down from his position. The whole time he’s rambling about revolution and accusing the cops of being “gang members.” It becomes clear that he has conceived this drunken episode as an “open carry” demonstration. He’s proving to the community how important it is that “good guys” be allowed to carry guns on the street to protect themselves.
Soon 12 police are on the scene, including a supervisor and SWAT negotiator. The street is shut down in both directions. Police recordings describe the man as agitated and hostile and although he is holding his gun at “parade rest” he’s switching it back and forth and fumbling in his pockets for chewing tobacco. After much discussion, he finally agrees to give up the weapon.
Do the police then instantly swarm him and wrestle him to the ground? Do they handcuff him, throw him in the back of the police car and arrest him for the trouble he’s caused? Did he get roughed up or put in a chokehold for resisting arrest and being uncooperative?
None of that happened to this man. The police took his gun and then said he could have it back immediately if he agreed to take a breathalyzer test on the spot. (You can be arrested for carrying a firearm while intoxicated in Michigan if you blow a .08 or above, the same legal limit for DUI.) The man refused. They carried on for a while longer with the man objecting to having his gun taken away even as the police explain that he is free to walk home and retrieve it at the police station the next day. They spar over whether he’s mentally unstable and if it’s a good idea for him to “demonstrate” this way, particularly being hostile to the police. He finally apologizes and leaves the scene without his gun. No charges were filed. Nobody was hurt. He got his gun back.
That’s very different from what happened to Kaijame Powell, the young black man from St. Louis with mental problems. A shop owner called the police to report a shoplifter and said he had a knife. The man walks around on the sidewalk in an agitated fashion. A few minutes later a police car races up the street and stops at the curb in front of him, two officers jump out with guns drawn shouting, “Put down the knife!” He says, “Shoot me, shoot me,” and he walks toward the car and they fire their guns, killing him on the spot. The whole altercation took 30 seconds. The St. Louis police chief said that the video of the incident was “exculpatory” and explained that the officers could not have done anything different (like use the tasers they carried on their belt) because nothing else was “guaranteed” to stop the victim.
Just a few days before that another African-American man named John Crawford was shopping in an Ohio Wal-Mart while talking to his wife on the phone. He’d picked up a BB gun the store sells and apparently some patrons were afraid and called police. The wife heard the cops order him to put down the weapon and he immediately shouted, “It’s not real.” Then they opened fire and killed him. (Another shopper collapsed and died as she tried to get away from the gunfire.) Crawford had two young children and a third on the way.
Many people have wondered how one is supposed to know which people carrying guns in public are “good guys” who just want to defend the Constitution and which ones are the “bad guys” who are dangerous. Evidently, one way that some people tell the difference is by the color of their skin. A drunk white man wandering around with a gun, spouting gibberish, leads the police to be patient and considerate since he’s obviously just exercising his Second Amendment right to bear arms and just needs to be talked down and counseled a bit. If it’s an agitated young black man with a knife he’s clearly trying to kill someone and the police need to kill him first.
The first method is the proper one. Those Michigan police followed the law and they used common sense. The man wasn’t trying to kill anyone, but he was drunk, angry and potentially dangerous. They could easily have escalated that situation into something tragic. But they took their time and whether you agree that the man should have been arrested or not, one thing is sure: In the end everyone went home alive and in one piece.
Unfortunately, the police in Missouri and Ohio shot first and asked questions later and two young men are dead when they didn’t have to be. It’s very hard not to conclude that if they looked more like that man in Michigan, they would have had a much better chance of surviving.
Heather Digby Parton
What do you suppose would happen to an agitated, belligerent African-American man wandering around on the street in his pajamas yelling at people, waving a gun around and telling police to shoot him? Judging from But that’s not what happened to this gentleman in Kalamazoo, Michigan. In fact, what happened in Kalamazoo was a picture-perfect example of smart, strategic policing to deescalate a possibly lethal situation.
Of course, the perpetrator was a white, 63-year-old “open-carry” advocate who was drunkenly asserting his right to bear arms in the middle of the day — the very definition of a “good guy with a gun.”
Here’s what happened. It was a Sunday afternoon about 4 p.m. when Kalamazoo 9-1-1 got several calls from citizens concerned about an intoxicated man with a gun walking around a coin laundry and “stumbling around a little bit and kind of bumping into some stuff” on the street. The police arrived shortly and confronted the man by saying, “Hey, partner, how you doing? Can you set that down real quick and talk to me?” (The officer didn’t have his gun drawn.) The armed man refused to set it down. The officer told him that he was jaywalking and was being detained. At that point the officer radioed that the armed man would not drop the weapon. He tells the man again that he just wants to talk to him and says, “You’re walking around here scaring people, man.”
A second police car arrives at the scene. The man refuses to identify himself and demands to know if he’s free to go and the officer says no, that he is resisting and obstructing, a misdemeanor, for jaywalking and failing to identify himself. The man says, “Why don’t you fucking shoot me?” The officer gently replies, “I don’t want to shoot you; I’m not here to do that.”
This back and forth continues, with the man refusing to give up his gun and the cops patiently trying to talk him down from his position. The whole time he’s rambling about revolution and accusing the cops of being “gang members.” It becomes clear that he has conceived this drunken episode as an “open carry” demonstration. He’s proving to the community how important it is that “good guys” be allowed to carry guns on the street to protect themselves.
Soon 12 police are on the scene, including a supervisor and SWAT negotiator. The street is shut down in both directions. Police recordings describe the man as agitated and hostile and although he is holding his gun at “parade rest” he’s switching it back and forth and fumbling in his pockets for chewing tobacco. After much discussion, he finally agrees to give up the weapon.
Do the police then instantly swarm him and wrestle him to the ground? Do they handcuff him, throw him in the back of the police car and arrest him for the trouble he’s caused? Did he get roughed up or put in a chokehold for resisting arrest and being uncooperative?
None of that happened to this man. The police took his gun and then said he could have it back immediately if he agreed to take a breathalyzer test on the spot. (You can be arrested for carrying a firearm while intoxicated in Michigan if you blow a .08 or above, the same legal limit for DUI.) The man refused. They carried on for a while longer with the man objecting to having his gun taken away even as the police explain that he is free to walk home and retrieve it at the police station the next day. They spar over whether he’s mentally unstable and if it’s a good idea for him to “demonstrate” this way, particularly being hostile to the police. He finally apologizes and leaves the scene without his gun. No charges were filed. Nobody was hurt. He got his gun back.
That’s very different from what happened to Kaijame Powell, the young black man from St. Louis with mental problems. A shop owner called the police to report a shoplifter and said he had a knife. The man walks around on the sidewalk in an agitated fashion. A few minutes later a police car races up the street and stops at the curb in front of him, two officers jump out with guns drawn shouting, “Put down the knife!” He says, “Shoot me, shoot me,” and he walks toward the car and they fire their guns, killing him on the spot. The whole altercation took 30 seconds. The St. Louis police chief said that the video of the incident was “exculpatory” and explained that the officers could not have done anything different (like use the tasers they carried on their belt) because nothing else was “guaranteed” to stop the victim.
Just a few days before that another African-American man named John Crawford was shopping in an Ohio Wal-Mart while talking to his wife on the phone. He’d picked up a BB gun the store sells and apparently some patrons were afraid and called police. The wife heard the cops order him to put down the weapon and he immediately shouted, “It’s not real.” Then they opened fire and killed him. (Another shopper collapsed and died as she tried to get away from the gunfire.) Crawford had two young children and a third on the way.
Many people have wondered how one is supposed to know which people carrying guns in public are “good guys” who just want to defend the Constitution and which ones are the “bad guys” who are dangerous. Evidently, one way that some people tell the difference is by the color of their skin. A drunk white man wandering around with a gun, spouting gibberish, leads the police to be patient and considerate since he’s obviously just exercising his Second Amendment right to bear arms and just needs to be talked down and counseled a bit. If it’s an agitated young black man with a knife he’s clearly trying to kill someone and the police need to kill him first.
The first method is the proper one. Those Michigan police followed the law and they used common sense. The man wasn’t trying to kill anyone, but he was drunk, angry and potentially dangerous. They could easily have escalated that situation into something tragic. But they took their time and whether you agree that the man should have been arrested or not, one thing is sure: In the end everyone went home alive and in one piece.
Unfortunately, the police in Missouri and Ohio shot first and asked questions later and two young men are dead when they didn’t have to be. It’s very hard not to conclude that if they looked more like that man in Michigan, they would have had a much better chance of surviving.
Heather Digby Parton
PASADENA HILLS, Mo—Martise Scott had made it. He escaped the inner-city ghetto of north St. Louis, went to college, and got hired as a police officer for the St. Louis County Police Department. It was 1985, and he was one of about 50 black officers in a force of about 700.
"We were the lucky few," says Scott, who was first assigned to patrol the wealthy white suburbs in west St. Louis County.
He still remembers the looks he got from homeowners when he responded to calls. And the comments police officers made about African-American defendants. It wasn't long before he realized that the black crack dealers and users he arrested would get longer prison sentences than the predominantly white cocaine dealers and users.
"It's a thin line for a black officer," says Scott, now 49. "Nobody understands what it's like to be on both sides. You walk a tight rope."
Though Scott had broken the cycle of poverty he grew up in, he would never break past the racial barriers he faced during his 15-year career as a police officer. This became clear to him one evening as he drove home from working an undercover shift in one of the suburbs.
Scott was headed to the city in an unmarked car on Olive Boulevard, a road that many African-Americans avoid because it connects dozens of suburbs where police racially profile drivers. In Ladue, Scott saw a pickup truck swerving and then watched it make a left turn on a red light. Afraid that the driver was drunk, Scott called police and said he would follow the truck until officers arrived.
The truck pulled into a gas station, and Scott got out of his car and announced that he was a police officer. The man ran into the station's convenience store. Two local police officers then arrived and went straight to Scott, pushing him to the ground and pointing a gun at him. Scott said he put his hands in the air, told them he was an undercover county police officer, and said he had a revolver in one pocket, and his police identification in the other. They took the gun, he said, but ignored his pleas to get the ID from his pocket. He kept telling them the drunk driver was inside.
"They weren't worried about him; they were worried about me," says Scott.
The officers eventually arrested the other driver, who was white, but they didn't apologize or thank Scott, he says. Furious, Scott filed a complaint with the town's police department and with his own department. Nothing came of it, he says.
That was the wake-up call.
"I realized that it doesn't mean a damn thing if you're black and you have a badge. I was still just a black man," he says.
The experience frustrated Scott after working so hard to build a life different from the one he knew. He grew up in a St. Louis neighborhood where prostitutes and drug dealers owned the streets. His mother, who was single, worked a series of odd jobs at hospitals and clinics to pay the rent for the old, shotgun flat they shared with four other families. Scott shared a bed with his two brothers, while his two sisters shared another bed in the same room.
After graduating from high school, Scott attended a local community college, but had to drop out and find work when his mother fell ill. That's when he got a job with the county police department. He later earned a business degree while working full-time as a cop. Scott says he was fortunate to find a way out of the blighted neighborhoods of north St. Louis. Not everyone can.
"It's hard to break the cycle," he says. "If slinging dope is all you see as a kid, then that's probably what you're going to do."
As a black officer in a mostly white police force, Scott soon learned that he needed to work three times as hard as everyone else to get the same credit. He was promoted from a street cop to detective, and spent years investigating drugs, robberies, and homicides. Toward the end he was working cases with the FBI and ATF, but decided to leave law enforcement in 2001 when the FBI turned him down for a job as a special agent.
By that time, Scott had a wife and three daughters, and was looking for a higher-paying job.
"It was a sad day," says Scott, wiping away tears as he stands outside his two-story brick house in Pasadena Hills, a historic suburb of mid-twentieth century homes and old pine trees. Now he works as a loss prevention manager for Walgreen's. His salary pays the mortgage on the five-bedroom house and put all of his daughters as well as a nephew through college. A black family lives next door and a white family lives across the street. He and his wife bought a house here because they wanted their daughters to grow up in safe, diverse community.
Scott says his white neighbors are friendly, but that it's impossible to ignore the racial tension that lurks beneath the surface. Like Ferguson, Pasadena Hills was a suburb where white families settled as more African-Americans moved to the city. No one really talked about race until riots broke out on the streets of Ferguson last month, less than three miles away from Scott's house.
"The nation's eyes are on us, there's no more hiding the racist overtones," says Scott.
He understands the anger over the shooting of an unarmed black teenager. It disheartens him "as a black man" to know that Ferguson police officers left the boy's body uncovered for hours in the street.
But Scott also defends his former colleagues in the county police department, who descended into Ferguson with armored trucks and tear gas. They were handed a messy situation they didn't cause, he says, but they shouldn't have put on the military fatigues either.
During the riots, Scott had to shut down two Walgreen's stores. Both were ransacked, with $45,000-worth of merchandise stolen from one of them. Scott describes the looters as "opportunists," who distracted people from the real issues that St. Louis needs to face.
"I hope that this city--little by little--can learn and grow and that we start to value black men," he says. "It's going to take a lot of healing."
ALEXIA FERNÁNDEZ CAMPBELL
"We were the lucky few," says Scott, who was first assigned to patrol the wealthy white suburbs in west St. Louis County.
He still remembers the looks he got from homeowners when he responded to calls. And the comments police officers made about African-American defendants. It wasn't long before he realized that the black crack dealers and users he arrested would get longer prison sentences than the predominantly white cocaine dealers and users.
"It's a thin line for a black officer," says Scott, now 49. "Nobody understands what it's like to be on both sides. You walk a tight rope."
Though Scott had broken the cycle of poverty he grew up in, he would never break past the racial barriers he faced during his 15-year career as a police officer. This became clear to him one evening as he drove home from working an undercover shift in one of the suburbs.
Scott was headed to the city in an unmarked car on Olive Boulevard, a road that many African-Americans avoid because it connects dozens of suburbs where police racially profile drivers. In Ladue, Scott saw a pickup truck swerving and then watched it make a left turn on a red light. Afraid that the driver was drunk, Scott called police and said he would follow the truck until officers arrived.
The truck pulled into a gas station, and Scott got out of his car and announced that he was a police officer. The man ran into the station's convenience store. Two local police officers then arrived and went straight to Scott, pushing him to the ground and pointing a gun at him. Scott said he put his hands in the air, told them he was an undercover county police officer, and said he had a revolver in one pocket, and his police identification in the other. They took the gun, he said, but ignored his pleas to get the ID from his pocket. He kept telling them the drunk driver was inside.
"They weren't worried about him; they were worried about me," says Scott.
The officers eventually arrested the other driver, who was white, but they didn't apologize or thank Scott, he says. Furious, Scott filed a complaint with the town's police department and with his own department. Nothing came of it, he says.
That was the wake-up call.
"I realized that it doesn't mean a damn thing if you're black and you have a badge. I was still just a black man," he says.
The experience frustrated Scott after working so hard to build a life different from the one he knew. He grew up in a St. Louis neighborhood where prostitutes and drug dealers owned the streets. His mother, who was single, worked a series of odd jobs at hospitals and clinics to pay the rent for the old, shotgun flat they shared with four other families. Scott shared a bed with his two brothers, while his two sisters shared another bed in the same room.
After graduating from high school, Scott attended a local community college, but had to drop out and find work when his mother fell ill. That's when he got a job with the county police department. He later earned a business degree while working full-time as a cop. Scott says he was fortunate to find a way out of the blighted neighborhoods of north St. Louis. Not everyone can.
"It's hard to break the cycle," he says. "If slinging dope is all you see as a kid, then that's probably what you're going to do."
As a black officer in a mostly white police force, Scott soon learned that he needed to work three times as hard as everyone else to get the same credit. He was promoted from a street cop to detective, and spent years investigating drugs, robberies, and homicides. Toward the end he was working cases with the FBI and ATF, but decided to leave law enforcement in 2001 when the FBI turned him down for a job as a special agent.
By that time, Scott had a wife and three daughters, and was looking for a higher-paying job.
"It was a sad day," says Scott, wiping away tears as he stands outside his two-story brick house in Pasadena Hills, a historic suburb of mid-twentieth century homes and old pine trees. Now he works as a loss prevention manager for Walgreen's. His salary pays the mortgage on the five-bedroom house and put all of his daughters as well as a nephew through college. A black family lives next door and a white family lives across the street. He and his wife bought a house here because they wanted their daughters to grow up in safe, diverse community.
Scott says his white neighbors are friendly, but that it's impossible to ignore the racial tension that lurks beneath the surface. Like Ferguson, Pasadena Hills was a suburb where white families settled as more African-Americans moved to the city. No one really talked about race until riots broke out on the streets of Ferguson last month, less than three miles away from Scott's house.
"The nation's eyes are on us, there's no more hiding the racist overtones," says Scott.
He understands the anger over the shooting of an unarmed black teenager. It disheartens him "as a black man" to know that Ferguson police officers left the boy's body uncovered for hours in the street.
But Scott also defends his former colleagues in the county police department, who descended into Ferguson with armored trucks and tear gas. They were handed a messy situation they didn't cause, he says, but they shouldn't have put on the military fatigues either.
During the riots, Scott had to shut down two Walgreen's stores. Both were ransacked, with $45,000-worth of merchandise stolen from one of them. Scott describes the looters as "opportunists," who distracted people from the real issues that St. Louis needs to face.
"I hope that this city--little by little--can learn and grow and that we start to value black men," he says. "It's going to take a lot of healing."
ALEXIA FERNÁNDEZ CAMPBELL
I see you have been spending your time very wisely, as usual.
I hope it's at least during your non-flying hours.
Just curious though, Luc- Would one of your pseudonyms happen to be, Juan_Lapin?
And just as a side note, that t-shirt wearing bunny doll does look pretty pissed off. Good job photoshopping your kid's stuffed animal.
It's obvious this man has more wisdom than all who proclaim to be on the "right" side put together.
And he'll always be a black man, but oh no, that's not good enough for righty whitey.
Righty whitey wants Scott to forget that he's a black man and start acting like a white man. Irony being, they want Scott to forget he's black, but they'll never let him.
Righty whitey scratches his head on this one, 'He's talking that niggerish nonsense again'.
But righty whitey ain't never gonna learn, cause righty whitey is better off ignant.
That's right, whitey! So why you wanna act like they don't exist? (Not you Db, I'm talking to Achilles, AAA, and the others who adamantly resist the thought of their racist attitudes.)
The difference between "looters" and "opportunists":
Looters take $45,000.00 worth of merchandise goods, while Opportunists take $45,000,000,000.00 worth.
"I hope that this city--little by little--can learn and grow and that we start to value black men," he says. "It's going to take a lot of healing."[/quote]
Heard dat.
Thanks for continuing to educate, DB. Some of the shit slinging monkeys in here may not act like they appreciate it, but if even one them stops acting a fool for just one minute of one day, then your endeavors have served society(an probably their immediate family members) a great justice.
Ferguson.... yawnnnn.... It's time to get out the "get whitey" vote, gotta keep those Blacks on the Democrat reservation.. White privilege... yawnnnn, White people have roads, cars, retirement plans, Africans have dirt floor shacks and psychopathic leaders. Does anybody see the difference there? African American's biggest problem is their gangster grandchildren... yawnnnn They hated Whitey, they burned his cities, now their grandchildren steal their welfare checks and rule their neighborhoods, how is that my problem?
You could have saved us the time by just saying you see things for what they are and you really don't care. Glad you've learned something.
I hope its ok I took the liberty of cropping your poster down to what I think is the essential element- the angry stuffed bunny rabbit!
Feel free to use it as your avatar.
Last edited: