Tag: Race

By on

I can’t help myself. I try to ignore Donald Trump as much as I can but since he is now president it is impossible, so here goes.

Donald Trump wants to prioritize White South Africans as immigrants. Does this have anything to do with native South African Elon Musk? No, it couldn’t. Musk would never use his influence in the Trump Administration to ask for something so egregiously racist.

Immigration give priority to people who are in immediate danger. Trump’s focus is on South Africans of European descent. So this applies to mix raced South Africans as long as one of the two parents were of European descent. What if only one of the grand parents is of European descent? What percentage European descent is he talking about?

Then, why do White South Africans get priority? Are they in any more danger than women who want out of Iran? Or Sudanese rebels? Or just plain poor folk from Central America who want to escape drug lords?

The troubling aspect about Trump’s order is that it is so transparently racist. This order comes while he is trying to shut down the border from non-white immigrants. So Trump isn’t really opposed to immigrants, just non-white immigrants.

By on

I think most conservatives will agree that Kathleen Ryan, an Oakland County Michigan judge, needs to be removed from her position. The headlines are pretty cagey about why she got canned. It sounds like she is getting the ax for racism when actually it is for sexual harassment. Her racism is just the icing on the cake and I am sure will come into play if she eludes removal for sexual harassment.

Ryan’s problem, as a judge, is that her impartiality has been impinged beyond repair. She also appears to be a bit of an idiot which I think everyone, Right, Left and Center can agree on. Most smart public figures, in this day and age, know that it is unwise to speak this way unless they absolutely know for certain the other person agrees with them because her opinions are flagrantly racist. She was bound to piss off someone sometime and she did. Ryan was talking with an employee. If nothing else, this shows an amazing lack of good sense.

She could have relayed her opinions through a coded racist cant that lets everyone know what she was thinking without exposing her to racist’s complaints. Ryan gleefully and unapologetically cuts loose with her racism. Worse still, she is unaware that what she is saying is racist which is troubling. How is she supposed to rule in a case where racism is involved, if she has an inability to identify what racism is?

By on

I am sure the cops will come up with an explanation that gets them off the hook but the death of Roger Fortson is a perfect case to show the problems of the police, Black men and the 2nd Amendment. Forston was an Air Force man in his home when the police came knocking but, according to witnesses, not identifying themselves as police. Forston, who did not know they were cops, greeted them with a gun which is his right. The cops shoot him dead.

First, cops should always identify themselves as cops — every single time. This may have stopped the tragedy from going any further. I don’t care what the situation is because the cops, as in this case, might be at the wrong house. Given the high percentage of gun owners in the USA, if the cops break down someone’s front door without identifying themselves, they really should expect to be greeted with a person holding a gun. Isn’t this what the whole 2nd Amendment argument is all about — home owners protecting their homes. Identifying themselves as cops is for the safety of the cops as well as any potential suspects.

Then there is the fact that the cops had the wrong address. Yes, the cops can make mistakes but how rotten is it for the cops to break down a person’s door, find a man with a gun waiting for them and, because he is pointing a gun at them, the cops then shoot the person dead. All taking place within seconds of the police breaking down the person’s door. How do you balance a person’s right to protect themselves with the cops justified fear that the person holding a gun might kill them? Right now, it seems that cops have a little trouble with the constitutional right for Black men to bear arms (see Tamir Rice, John Crawford and Philando Castile).

It is completely irrelevant to argue, like Heather MacDonald frequently does, that black criminals are much more dangerous to the black population than cops. I suspect that this is also true that white criminals are more dangerous to white people than the cops. This should go without saying, right? Criminals are criminals. There should be an expectation that they are more dangerous than cops. Cops, on the other hand, aren’t supposed to be killing innocent people. Criminals are under no such compunction.

The fact that the mortality of Blacks at the hands of cops is small compared to Black criminals is changing the argument about a real problem. MacDonald says the problem is crime and if only Blacks understood that the police, in order to deal with crime, will have to take on Black criminals. Up to a point, she is correct. Criminals need to be dealt with but if you are afraid that your call to the police might get you or a neighbor killed, you might think differently. She conveniently ignores the historical experience that Blacks have had with the cops. If she considered it, it might help her understand why Blacks focus on cops killing innocent Blacks. They shouldn’t have to worry about cops killing innocent people.

If Blacks are afraid to ask the cops for help, they may depend more upon their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms which conflicts with MacDonald’s assertion that innocent Black people will have to endure even more contact with the police in order to stop Black crime. The cops then will face even more Black men with guns which then will lead to even more innocent black men getting shot. MacDonald assumes a level of trust that Black people just don’t have with the cops. She can complain all she wants about Black criminals being more dangerous than cops but in order for her plan to work Blacks have to see cops as allies and not enemies. They don’t and it is up to the cops to change this perception.

Until then, Black men will have to exercise their 2nd Amendment right with extreme caution.

By on

Heather MacDonald worries that Black on Black crime is the real problem plaguing the Black community and not a racist cop problem. That Black on Black crime problem is rooted in the racist cop problem eludes her. She thinks it is simply a matter of the Black community behaving better and all will be taken care of. She offers nothing in the way of tangible ways to make this happen and, because she ignores the racists cop part of the problem, her idea is doomed to failure even if she could trouble herself to make a tangible recommendation to address Black on Black crime.

MacDonald sees the problem quite narrowly — Blacks are committing too many crimes against other Blacks. Blacks need to stop worrying about bad cops and do something about their criminal youth then there would be no problem at all. But crime has been with us since humans began living together. It isn’t going to stop. Say a stranger attacks me on the street. I will certainly be pissed off about it and want something done. Now, if that person is a cop, I am going to be pretty damn upset about it. I just don’t expect much from my neighbors. They are strangers and I they can be half crazy for all I know. I do, however, expect cops to be helpful. I don’t expect them to attack me. They are public servants paid, in part, with my taxes. The worst I, as a white person, expect from a cop is that the crime will remain unsolved and I will never hear from them again. Some Blacks fear a different reaction from the police and that is a problem. A problem that impacts all crime in a Black neighborhood.

This doesn’t mean Blacks like their neighbors committing crimes against them or that they don’t see this as a problem. They may, however, have different concerns about the police. They may worry that the police will somehow entangle them in a bigger problem, or that the cops might overreact to what happened and, instead of solving the problem, they may kill someone or send someone to the hospital. They might weigh their decision about whether to involve the cops. Is this going to be worth any trouble I get from the police. This is an impediment to crime control. It also makes the police peculiarly ineffective in handling crime in Black neighborhoods. How can police solve crimes when the people they are serving mistrust them so much that they are circumspect in their interactions with the police? MacDonald never addresses this.

But she does point out that Black criminals are more dangerous to Blacks than the police. I don’t think anybody would argue with that. Criminals are more dangerous than the police. The problem here is that the police aren’t supposed to be dangerous. Fear of the cops is not an issue for MacDonald. For MacDonald, the data should convince Blacks about that, why should any other effort be made when the numbers prove her point. But, even if you assume the numbers are right and MacDonald is correct about Black on Black crime, it doesn’t really matter. Perception is everything. If the Black community believes Racism is still a problem then it is still a problem and the police need to change that perception. The burden for change rests firmly with the cops. Present day cops are paying the price for the racist behavior of their predecessors. It’s not fair to them but it is up to the present day cops to change this perception.

I also would argue that MacDonald is wrong about police racism being inconsequential and all in the Black community’s mind. Here is a sample of police racism which might explain this fear: the Central Park rape trial of innocent blacks, the drug arrests of innocent Blacks in Tulia Texas, George Floyd who died in police custody over a bad check, Tamir Rice, a twelve year old boy with a toy gun, who was shot and killed seconds after the police arrived — a grand jury decided not to take case to trial, John Crawford III who was shot holding a BB gun in a Walmart — a grand jury decided not to prosecute, an all white jury finding a white policeman not guilty of shooting of an unarmed black man, a white Louisiana judge using the N word, an Illinois cop fired for his racist posts, six Georgia policeman caught using the N word, a Mississippi police chief caught bragging about killing a black person, and just recently an Oklahoma sheriff was caught on tape talking about lynching black people. Why would Black people think they could be treated fairly when their daily personal experiences tell them differently? Why would Black people work with the police to stop crime in their neighborhoods when they are suspicious that these efforts might be used against them or their kids?

Black on Black crime is a problem but it isn’t “the” problem. Blacks have plenty of reasons to mistrust the police. MacDonald telling them this no longer is a problem in 21st Century America isn’t going to change many minds because Black people have a history with hundreds of years of police racism. Those feelings don’t just disappear overnight. In order to fight crime, Black people need to have confidence in the police. A lot of them don’t. Until then, MacDonalds complaint about Black on Black crime is an impotent response to a difficult and complicated problem and therefore meaningless.

By on

I keep up with Conservative thinking just to make sure I know what exactly is going on in their fevered minds. On the other hand, keeping up didn’t mean I wanted to spend too much time exploring their murky depths. I decided to pick one website and to read that website religiously. I can’t recall exactly why but I choose Glenn Reynolds’ Instapundit site. I wasn’t disappointed. Reynolds is easy to read and links to a wide variety of Conservative and Libertarians writers that range from the slightly unbalanced to the completely wacko. He was clearly connected to Conservative and Libertarian thinking so I felt a wise choice in my pulse taking endeavor.

Instapundit also serves as an alternate to a cup of coffee in the morning. Every day Reynolds and company serve up some tidbit that will spark my rage. Yesterday I was jolted awake when I read Reynolds discussion with David Bernstein regarding race classification. Bernstein believes that the present racial classifications are dated, arbitrary and eventually going to be meaningless with the increasing popularity of intermarriage between the races. He claims that in the not so distant future 80% of all Americans will have some minority status that will qualify them for minority business enterprise designation. Because of this racial mixing, racial classifications will cease to have any meaning, much less any use.

To a point, I agree. What percentage of racial makeup makes someone black? Does one grandparent make one Black or must someone have four grandparents one Black? What if you have significant black heritage but your pigmentation is white — can you still be called black? If you have to wade through a your gene pool to determine your race, what is the point of racial classification?

The future sure sounds great. The problem is we aren’t quite there yet. People still use racial classifications because people still see race. I googled Black incarceration statistics and quickly found an example. Eugene Volokh wrote in Reason about the difference in incarceration rates between Blacks and Whites. Volokh says Blacks commit more crimes than Whites which explains why they are jailed more than whites. Well, then, how is Volokh defining race? Is it anyone with any black heritage? Is it one, two, three or four grandparents? Or is it someone who has black pigmentation? Or is the person self-reporting? You can’t say racial classifications are meaningless when people still use them when discussing issues like crime and poverty because Racial classification definitely mean something to Volokh. More importantly, his audience understands what he means when he uses racial classifications. Are Reynolds and Bernstein suggesting eliminating racial classifications when discussing crime and poverty? Would elimination of these classifications help us to understand the best way to address these issues?

The problem here is that, while making progress, Americans still see racial differences. Maybe 50 years from now Black and White won’t mean anything. Right now they have a powerful meaning. It isn’t as if Blacks created the distinctions. Whites did. First to distinguish slave from master and then to know when to practice discrimination. To suddenly say these are now meaningless lets White history off the hook. Discrimination is illegal now so racial classifications no longer have a purpose. To White conservatives maybe, but not so for Blacks.

Racism didn’t end with the passage of Civil Rights Legislation in 1960’s although many Conservatives like to think it did. It still lingers on and has an effect of Black people’s lives now. Slavery happened. Discrimination happened. Lynchings happened. Blacks, the largest minority group for the most of American history, suffered horribly . In didn’t happen in quite the same way to the Irish or to the Italians or to the Japanese or to the Pakistanis. These other groups undoubtedly experienced difficulties but they don’t compare to the crucible that Blacks endured. So until people stop seeing race, how do you measure racial discrimination? People will need to see that things are getting better with data, how would you prove your point?

By on

I thought Rod Dreher’s column about race would cause more of media storm than it did. He worries that whites are ignoring the dangers of black criminals because they fear being labeled racist. Whites needlessly are walking into danger because they are ignoring their own instincts regarding dodgy black men. He calls these criminals animals unworthy of sharing society with the rest of us. The implication here is that people need to be prejudiced in order to be safe from the rampant criminality of young black men.

The crimes he describes are horrible. But what is his solution — more judicial leeway for the police and avoiding groups of young black men. He only sees the black criminal and not the police. One of the factors in Black/Police relationship is that many in the Black community don’t trust the police. The don’t believe that the police are there to help them. How does Dreher’s thinking address this perception? Furthermore, how does a person distinguish between Black criminals and rowdy Black teens? Or is Dreher’s default setting for young black men hoodlum? What does Dreher think about White criminals? Both the Littleton theater shooter and the Sandy Hook school shooter were White. Does this make a gang of young White men animals as well? As far as I can tell, he is only worried about young Black men.

This makes it easy for Whites to retain their prejudices and believe that criticism of the police are based on isolated incidents that doesn’t represent the actual experience of a Black person in the criminal justice system. Most cops are not racists. How can that be when Dreher documents accounts that support his view of black criminality. He thinks that people need to protect themselves whenever they see Black teenagers. He then admits that Whites already have a preconceived notion of the Black teenaged male as hoodlums but stifle this prejudice because they don’t want to be seen as racists and because they are ignoring these gut instincts they are making themselves fodder for the heartless Black criminal.

If people have this knowledge regarding young Black men then how can Whites working in the criminal justice system be free of this prejudice? There are a numerous accounts of judicial system employees with racial bigotry and instances of their unfair treatment of Blacks. How can Blacks trust a Louisana judge who uses the N word? Or policeman who use the N word, and here, and here and here and here? Or their jailers and here and here? Or policeman who beat them for traffic violations? Or police that are so afraid of young black men that they shoot unarmed black men within seconds of seeing them with toy guns or no guns– see Amadou Diallo, Tamir Rice, Donovan Lewis, and John Crawford III. Or how are they supposed to trust the justice system when innocent kids were railroaded into convictions for the rape of the Central Park jogger? If you remember the Central Park jogger rape, you will also remember that the defendants were called animals. Some of these public officials were absolved for their errors and still retain their government position. How does that engender trust within the black community?

There are an awful lot of isolated incidents here too. If you look at the volume, you might even suspect a systematic problem in the criminal justice system. But, OK, for the sake of argument, I will view these as isolated incidents and not a systematic one. Then, Dreher has to do the same thing with the crimes he is talking about it. He describes some horrible crimes with Black culprits and, from these isolated incidents, draws a general conclusion regarding Black criminality. Or, if he is unwilling to give up his prejudice regarding Black men because people’s lives are at stake here, then how can he ask Blacks to surrender their beliefs that the justice system is filled with prejudiced people who are afraid of Black people and treat Black people differently because of that fear.

Most mystifying in Dreher’s commentary is that he complains that these victims of Black crime are not given the same attention from the press as the Black victims of the police. There is a big difference and that Dreher is unable to see this difference is troubling. I think everyone would agree that people who shoot convenience store employees are criminals and deserve prosecution. There isn’t a question or a debate on what happened. On the other hand, when policeman on duty murdered Floyd, there was a debate regarding what happened. If not for the press attention, this crime might very well have been swept under the carpet because the police, at first, tried to paint Floyd as responsible for his own death. This is a very different situation to the murders Dreher describes. I am not sure what Dreher finds missing from the Press coverage of these terrible crimes. The only thing I can think of was that the press didn’t highlight that Black hoodlums were going around murdering people. How is this helpful to the bigger problems here? Oh, I know, it reinforces the Dreher’s belief that Blacks are criminals and don’t deserve to be with the rest of us.

There is no easy solution, particularly not the one the Dreher chooses. I wish there was. Dreher wants to blame Black criminality as the problem. If only Black people would behave better than White people could begin to let their guard down. But right now Black crime is running rampant and until then Whites have every right to worry about young Black men. The problem with his thinking is that there is no way to stop all Black criminals. Ever. We know this to be true because we still have plenty of White criminals. If White people can’t stop White criminal behavior how do we expect Black people to be successful? It is an impossible standard. What needs to be done is for the police to work with Black communities so show them that police are on their side, that working with the police will make their communities safer and better able to handle and lessen the impact of the criminals within their community. This is a much more difficult task and I don’t see Dreher offering much in the way of a solution.

By on

Aurora Snow, porn star actress, wrote an eye opening article regarding white men’s sexual fears. Apparently the White boyfriends of porn actresses are understanding about their girlfriends having sex with other men as long as they aren’t black. She claims this is because they believe the following three things:

Black Men have bigger dicks.

Women prefer men with bigger dicks.

White women will abandon White men for Black men because they have bigger dicks.

There is so much wrong here I don’t know where to begin.

First and foremost most male porn stars have big dicks. It is in the job description. So if White men are worried about big dicks than almost any male porn star would be a potential threat. Are White men with big dicks somehow less threatening? If so, why? There is something else going on here and it has nothing to do with big dicks.

Then there is the notion that women prefer big dicks. This may be true. Women also might like a hairy men, tall men, younger men, daddys, rich men, nice men, patient men. That these men focus on dick size as a woman’s most desired male trait suggests a pretty shallow understanding of female sexuality. It boils down to the bigger the dick the happier the woman. So much for romance and foreplay.

Then there is women will leave them for the bigger dicked black male. The good news here is that there simply aren’t enough Black men to go around so, unless your woman moves fast, you are probably safe. You, however, might think about getting a penile implant and spending some time on a tanning bed to play it safe. The bad news here is if your woman will leave you because of the size of your dick, you must be a pretty poor catch in the first place. Your dick size is the least of your problems.

The casual racism and sexism revealed in this article is mind boggling. It also explains why racism is so hardy in the USA. You can give a man countless pictures of black men with average and small dicks and it wouldn’t matter. He would still see big dicks . You could have a man listen to thousands of women saying that dick size has no effect on arousing her and he wouldn’t hear them. There is no amount of sensitivity training that will change a man who fears that another man has something his woman wants and he doesn’t have. It is primal. It is irrational. And that it is also why it is extremely dangerous.

By on

Let me get this out of the way first. White people still can use the n-word. If they are by themselves or with like minded people, they can say the n-word to their hearts content. They, however, must face the consequences if they say the word among people who disagree with how they are using the n-word. To give you a concrete example of what I mean, I will use another word that I hope will illustrate what I mean. I can call my boss an idiot on the way home from work. I can call my boss an idiot with like-minded employees although there is a danger that I might be wrong about them being like-minded. On the other hand, it would be foolish of me to call my boss an idiot if I was in a meeting with him and other employees. If I was so idiotic to actually call him an idiot in this situation, I, also, would have to be willing to face the consequences of my actions.

But wait why can rappers use the n-word and I can’t. Rappers get grammies for using the n-word and I get in trouble. That isn’t fair. I would argue that rappers are criticized for using the n-word. Indeed, whenever, someone points out that rappers are using the n-word, there is an implicit criticism of their actions. The difference is that the rapper’s audience still are willing to buy the rapper’s records and there is no consequence for his action. It isn’t fair. But, as we are constantly being reminded, life is unfair. Just because rappers continue to use the n-word, doesn’t mean, out of fairness, that white people are free to use the n-word without consequence.

Most white people over a certain age know this and rightfully avoid using the word. They also know why we shouldn’t use the n-word. For hundreds of years, white people used the n-word publicly and without repercussions to belittle and demean blacks. It was intended to be hurtful to blacks and, because of this history, most people, white and black, don’t utter this word in public discourse. If they do, they also understand that there might be pushback from anyone who hears it. If they don’t like it, they are free to complain about it, ask for apologies, and demand some form of consequences.

To feign ignorance or to demand people look at the context of how the n-word was said is more than a little disingenuous. Everyone knows that the n-word is unacceptable in public discourse including the rap stars who continue to use it. The bottom line here is that anybody can use the n-word in a public forum but, if they do, they risk consequences. The n-word carries so much racial animus, the risk of pushbacks for a white person who uses it are high. It seems easy enough to avoid using the word. I have written four paragraphs without using the n-word once. Everyone who reads this blog understands what word I am talking about. So, if you are a white person who wants to continue to say the n-word, by all means, continue. You are free to do so, but then, be prepared, you will have to explain yourself.

By on

I don’t think the phrase white privilege really captures the white experience with race. Class is an important element that has an effect on low-income whites. Privilege isn’t the word that these people would use to describe their life, so they resist this idea. In this polarized political atmosphere,  I’m not sure there is any way or words to change their minds. I would like to try though because there is an advantage to life in USA if you are white. Some whites get more benefits for their race than other whites. But the advantage does exist. I can best illustrate this advantage through my personal experiences with the police when I was between the ages of 13 and 18.  

During my adolescence, I had at least five contacts with the police departments located in the suburban Kansas City neighborhood where I grew up. I would say that there were no real crimes involved, more of a rambunctious teenager getting into trouble but in each and every case I possessed marijuana and in some cases I was as high as a kite. The police in a city like New York could have used the stop and frisk policy to send me to juvenile detention. They didn’t though.

My first experience with the cops was when a friend of mine and I found an old street sign in an alley. It looked like it had recently been removed and a new sign was posted. The sign was attached to the post with a large block of cement at the end.  My friend wanted the street sign but we didn’t have any tools to remove the sign from the pole. My friend feared that someone else would find this treasure, so we decided to lug sign, pole and cement block to his house where we could remove it. As we carried the post across the busiest street in our little town, the local cops stopped us and let us know that we couldn’t have the sign. We actually argued with them because we said it was just lying in the alley. The cops disagreed with our logic. They called my Dad who instructed me to do whatever the cops said and to get home. My Dad didn’t even have to come and collect me.  The cop made sure we returned the sign to where we found it and that was that.  

The next time, one of my passengers in my car dinged the door of the brand-new truck parked next to us. The truck owner, needless to say, was angry because his once perfect truck was now imperfect.  He called the cops.  The truck owner got even angrier because he realized we were high on grass and happily pointed this out to the cops. My Dad was called to collect us. The man calmed down after he had trouble locating the damage to his truck. The cop kept asking do you really want to report this. The man, much calmer at this point, decided not to. So, by the time Dad arrived the problem was sorted. Neither the Truck driver nor the cop mentioned the pot smoking to my Dad.  No crime was reported despite me reeking of marijuana.

Then I was at a high school’s dance, my date and I ducked out of the dance to my car for a joint. As we returned to the dance, a policeman stopped us as he noticed us in the car. He made us return to the car and shined his flashlight into the car. I’m not sure what he was looking for but all he found was a six pack of beer. Neither me nor my date were of age, so he made us dump the six pack. Again, no crime was reported despite me reeking of marijuana.

My most serious altercation with the cops came when the police stopped me because he saw a passenger in my car passing a joint. I was caught red handed with pot. My friends and I were hauled down to the local police station where our parents were called.  The police weaved a terrible future for us, going to court, possibly juvenile detention.  Not only was I in trouble with the law but my parents would definitely find out that I was smoking pot. Plus, I also demonstrably lied to my mother about where I was going. I told her I was going to the library and I was miles away from the library and in completely the wrong direction from the library to our house.  Because the cops found the pot illegally and admitted as much to all the parents who, I might add, weren’t in the least big angry about this illegal search and seizure. Now, I believed the cops just wanted to scare a bunch of teenagers and had no intention of arresting us.  They let my Dad take care of the punishment which he did. I got off scot free for possession charges and the only crime noted was me driving with an open can of beer in the car.

The next incident, my friends and I were driving by a road construction site and one of my passengers decided he wanted one of the orange pylons on the side of the road. I drove him close enough to one so he grabbed it and I fled the scene with our take. Because I was driving, and the construction crew had my license number, several days later the police came to my house to retrieve the pylon.  As my parents were out of town at the time I took this opportunity to spend the day getting high. I was barely coherent when the policeman arrived. He was kind enough to ignore my condition and just asked for me to return the pylon. No crime was recorded for the pylon or the pot.  

My last run in with the cops was when a friend of mine was having an informal party because his parents were out of town.  People just showed up at his front lawn.  By the time I arrived, there was only room on the public sidewalk. Soon after the cops arrived. For some reason the host thought the cop looked like Barney Fife, the hapless cop from the Andy Griffith show, so he began to taunt the cop with Barney Fife remarks from the safety of his front porch.  The host absolutely forbid Barney Fife from entering his yard without a warrant. He could remove the people from the sidewalk however.  I was, unfortunately, on the sidewalk. As I was underage and had a beer in my hand. I also had a bag of weed in my front pocket. Other than losing one more beer to the sidewalk, the cops left without further incident.

I believe this is what should happen when cops and teenagers come into contact with each other. In each case, the cops, even when they dealt with argumentative teenagers, handled the problem without incident.  Or, if it was a more serious situation, they informed my parents that there was a problem and got them to deal with it. Remarkably soon after I turned 18, I became somewhat more responsible as I don’t recall any further incidents where I was carrying pot when stopped by a cop.  I grew up. I made better decisions.

Would I have had the same experience if I had been black?  I don’t know but I seriously doubt it. The difference is when white cops stopped me, they, maybe saw their own kids and knew that one day soon this kid will be all right. Does the cop make the same connection when he sees a black kid? Or does he see a future criminal who needs to be dealt with now in order to stop future crime? This perception makes a world of difference in how a person is treated.

It also skews crime statistics.  If the police wanted to pursue me, I would have been found guilty five times for marijuana possession. The cops decided to handle things differently. If I had been searched legally, which the cops could have easily managed, I would have had five charges of possession of marijuana. So, when commentators talk about the difference between white crime and black crime, keep in mind that a black teenager who had his marijuana possessions recorded would look like bigger trouble than me even though the police could have charged me with possession numerous times.

Police have a bit of grace in how they enforce the law. It’s subtle, unmeasurable so difficult to see. It does, however, exists. I know because I have experienced it. If I had been black these five experiences with the cops may have had different outcomes. But lucky for me, I was white and middle class and my youthful indiscretions have had little impact on my present life.

By on

Whenever anyone talks about the dangers of Critical Race Theory (CRT), I think of my 12 years of Catholic education. The purpose of Catholic education, or so my parents thought, was to deliver good Catholic adults. It failed miserably with me and my brothers and my sisters. Not a good Catholic among 5 children. If after thousands of years of practice, the Catholic Church can’t deliver even one child out of 5, I really don’t worry much about CRT indoctrination. If the hidden agenda of CRT is making bomb throwing America hating Bolsheviks, I am confident that the marketing departments of America’s commercial enterprises will triumph over the theoretical dogma of CRT. 

People are pretty practical about grand theories. If you ask the average Catholic about the Church, they could care less about why the Church encourages Infant Baptism, or did Jesus’ body Ascend into Heaven, or was Mother Mary a virgin. They are drawn to the church for the big picture messages – love they neighbor and your sins will be forgiven by a loving God. They pick and choose what they believe. Birth control is a good example of individual Catholics taking what they believe to be most important and ignoring the rest.   For example, most Catholics today have much smaller families than previous generations.  If I had to choose why, I would say they are using birth control. The Church stand on birth control is quite different.

Which brings me back to CRT.  First, and most importantly, public schools are not teaching CRT. It is an academic theory so laden with technical jargon to make it incomprehensible to the average adult much less a child. I am completely fine with people not teaching any of the theory unless it was before nap time. Now, on the other hand, where CRT might prove helpful is when educators are putting together a history curriculum. An understanding of CRT might encourage these educators to include sessions about how race affects people of color and can help us understand the history of our country.  If they don’t want to talk about race, how are they going to explain what happened to the indigenous people when they encountered the European settlers? Or why Africans were forced into slavery.   If it wasn’t racism, explain the terrible treatment these groups received from the European settlers?  These discussions would certainly benefit from an understanding of race.

Critics of CRT are pretty coy about what they want instead. By conflating teaching about race and racism with CRT, they are campaigning to remove race completely from the curriculum. Which means what? The Civil War was about two groups of good citizens fighting about state’s rights. The indigenous peoples happily relocated to reservations to make room for the European settlers.   Will they talk about lynchings? The Tulsa Race Riot? Discrimination?

It annoys me that Liberals are put on the defense over something like CRT. Critics are going after some of the most strident parts of the theory and saying this is wrong and because this particular point is wrong, it makes the whole theory wrong.  I have never believed in any doctrine 100 percent and I don’t think anyone ever has. The important takeaway from any theory is the big picture and, from where I stand, the big picture message from CRT is that to understand America, race and racism has to be talked about. I believe that to be true. So, until something better comes along, I am comfortable with big picture CRT and will leave theoretical CRT to the academics.