Don't look now, but if you live in the state of Alabama or just happen to be passing through, don't ever get the appitite for Mexican food, because the state has just outlawed it. OK, so I'm only kidding; but, don't be surprised if the fine folks in Alabama's state government decides to do just that eventually. After all, as of September 1st, 2011, they will have the dubious distinction of being the state with the toughest anti-immigration immigration laws. Oh you think Arizona's shenanigans were bad? Checkout what Alabama has done:
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Alabama vaulted past Arizona on Thursday with what is being called the most restrictive law in the nation against illegal immigration, requiring schools to find out if students are in the country lawfully and making it a crime to knowingly give an illegal immigrant a ride.
Advocacy groups promised to challenge the sweeping measure, which like Arizona's law also allows police to arrest anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant if the person is stopped for some other reason. In addition, it requires all businesses to check the legal status of workers using a federal system called E-Verify.
"It is clearly unconstitutional. It's mean-spirited, racist, and we think a court will enjoin it," said Mary Bauer, legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center.
It takes effect Sept. 1.
Republican Gov. Robert Bentley, who signed it into law Thursday, expressed confidence it would withstand any legal challenges.
"We have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country," he said. "I campaigned for the toughest immigration laws, and I'm proud of the Legislature for working tirelessly to create the strongest immigration bill in the country."
Alabama has an estimated 120,000 illegal immigrants, a nearly fivefold increase from a decade ago, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Many of them are believed to be working on farms, at chicken processing plants and in construction.
One of the legislation's sponsors, GOP Sen. Scott Beason, said it would help the unemployed by preventing illegal immigrants from getting jobs in the state. Alabama's unemployment rate stood at 9.3 percent in April, the most recent figure available.
"This will put thousands of Alabamians back in the work force," Beason said.
I don't know just the estimated legal workforce population in the state of Alabama. However, the total population of the state is somewhere around 5 million according to data from the Census Bureau's 2009 figures. That would mean, that there must be a lot of people not able or allowed to work (you know, like those fat rednecks riding those hoverounds at Walmart) if 120,000 undocumented workers have stolen all the jobs. Either that or their weren't enough jobs to begin with down in good Ole Alabama.
How is this for irony? Two imams were headed to a conference addressing Islamophobia and prejudice in America, and instead of flying to their destination in peace, they were confronted with the theme of the conference head on.
Transportation Security Administration agents escorted two Muslim imams from a plane heading from Memphis, Tenn. to Charlotte, N.C. on Friday.
The men were on the Atlantic Southeast Airlines plane heading to a conference of the North American Imams Federation. The theme of the conference was prejudice and Islamophobia. Atlanta Southeast Airlines runs connection flights for Delta Airlines.
The Memphis-based imams, Masudur Rahman and Mohamed Zaghloul, were both dresses in traditional Muslim garb when the plane was told to return to the gate after taxiing to the runway.
Rahman and Zaghloul were put through secondary security screenings and not allowed back on the plane. Rahman told reporters that a Delta representative looked embarrassed after speaking with the pilot.
The men said they were treated kindly by TSA agents, but they still don’t know why they weren’t allowed to fly on the plane.
Rahman and Zaghloul eventually made it to the conference.
Their attorney said his clients have not yet decided to take legal action, but he wants the pilot to be held responsible for the incident. SOURCE
Could you imagine? I guess the fact that other passengers were "uncomfortable" sharing a plane with men dressed in traditional Muslim clothing was more important than the rights of those men to freely travel about the country. Next thing you know, the US will be passing laws outlawing traditional Muslim garb, like Belgium and France have already implemented. Because apparently Muslim clothing, in the minds of many Americans, is like a "terrorist" uniform.
Instead of government officials and corporate representatives like the TSA agents and airline pilot involved in this case attacking the biased thinking of these fools, they capitulate to the demands of the bigots.
Imagine if , after Timothy McVeigh, a so called "Christian" bombed the state building in Oklahoma, people wearing crosses were profiled on the streets, pulled over and confronted, treated as "extremists" and "terrorists". The whole world would be up in arms. Imagine if priests were not allowed to wear their collar while flying in a plane with children, for fear that they would molest the kids. How fast would there be laws passed banning this sort of treatment? Quick, fast and in a hurry. But no, these men were not Christian and not white, so they are considered fair game.
So I'm sure you people are aware that here in America you can be arrested by the police for doing just about anything while being black. In some rare cases however, you don't have to be doing anything at all, and in those cases, you can just be arrested for, well, doing nothing while black. Yep, you can be arrested for just being black. I know it sounds crazy; but you probably feel that way because you're either not black, or, forget that you actually are. With that said, check out the following and see how this worked out for Christina Jones:
CHICAGO (CN) - A black woman who was arrested while reading utility meters in a 97 percent white neighborhood can sue the two police officers who put her in handcuffs, the 7th Circuit ruled, noting that the officers failed to prove that the arrest was anything more than "a blatant and embarrassing abuse of police power."
A federal judge had ruled that the arresting officers were not entitled to dismiss the civil rights charges under qualified immunity, and the federal appeals panel upheld that decision on Friday.
On August 16, 2005, a concerned citizen in Braidwood, Ill. - which 2000 census figures indicate is over 97 percent white - called the police at 8 a.m. to report that a "person of color" was taking pictures of houses.
Christina Jones, a Commonwealth Edison worker, was reading electrical meters in the neighborhood and carrying binoculars to take readings from outside a locked gate or dog-guarded property. Officers Craig Clark and Donn Kaminski conceded to Jones' account of the events that transpired but still argued that they were justified to be suspicious of and ultimately arrest Jones.
Jones' shirt, pants, hat and reflective vest were all emblazoned with ComEd's logo. When asked, she presented Clark with two ComEd identification cards that displayed her picture. Jones explained that her binoculars, used to take meter readings from a distance, may have been mistaken for a camera.
Clark had radioed in that Jones was reading meters, but, "surprisingly, that did not end the investigation," Judge Diane Wood wrote for the 7th Circuit's three-judge panel.
When Jones turned to leave and return to work, Clark stopped her, asking for her birthday.
Jones accused Clark of harassing her, took a few steps away and phoned her supervisor. Clark radioed the other officer, Kaminski, reporting that Jones was refusing to cooperate.
Kaminski, apparently irate, then arrived on the scene. He screamed at Jones, knocked the phone from her hands and placed her under arrest.
Friday's ruling notes that as Jones was being patted down, she said, "This is harassment. ... This is happening because I am black in Braidwood."
At the station, Kaminski reportedly mocked Jones, mimicking her voice and adding, "You wanted to make it racial out there. ... Now it's racial."
Jones was charged with obstructing a peace officer, but Wood said the facts of the case point another way.
"The only disorderly conduct evident in this case came from Officers Clark and Kaminski," Wood wrote.
It's really good that the district court ruled in her favor in this. She did fight these charges for over two years until they were finally dropped in her favor. This should give hope to some of you who are of the belief that by virtue of being black, you never receive any justice. So hooray for Christina Jones who is now able to sue the shit out of officers Clarke and Kaminski. It's a small consolation knowing that you can actually sue police officers for, well, doing their jobs, which includes arresting black people for being black.
So anyway, about that "reasonable suspicion" thing again? Umm, yeah, see how that works? Of course I'm willing to bet nothing like this occurs on the Upper West Side of Manhattan as it does out in Brownsville, my old stomping grounds, where my family dwells. Ironically, on a recent visit to I was stopped and frisked outside of my mother's building on Snediker Av., just as I was saying goodbye as I was preparing to leave the city and head back out of town. The New York Times recently ran a report on this not so new phenomenon out in East New York.
The report spanned a four year period, and it was discovered that approximately 52,000 people were stopped in an eight block radius. Of which, one percent of the stops resulted in arrest, and cops were able to recover twenty six guns. I don't know about you, but this sounds more like operation let's-give-niggers-a-hard-time, as opposed to effective policing; especially when crime in New York is drastically down.
Some former officers who worked the area say the stops seem less geared to bringing down crime than feeding the department's appetite for numbers -- a charge police officials steadfastly deny. Though none said they were ever given quotas to hit, all but two said that certain performance measures were implicitly expected in their monthly activity reports. Lots of stop-and-frisk reports suggested a vigilant officer.
"When I was there the floor number was 10 a month," one officer said. Like many of the officers interviewed for this article, he asked not to be identified because he was still in law enforcement and worried that being seen as critical of the New York department could hurt his future employment opportunities.
He said if you produced 10 stops -- known as a UF-250 for the standardized departmental reports the stops generate -- you were not likely to draw the attention of a supervisor. "And in all fairness," he said, "if you're working in that area, 10 a month is very low. All you have to do is open your eyes."
But of course this type of thing happens everyday across the country and is not exclusive to Brooklyn, NYC. However, what was even more ridiculous about the stop-and-frisk practice in Brooklyn. Was the fact that cops took the names of every person stopped regardless of arrest and created a database, which as they said, would be an effective tool to help solve future crimes.
Recently, New York Gov. David Paterson signed new legislation which terminates the practice of collecting the names of individuals stopped by the police. However, unfortunately, the stop-and-frisk practice is still allowed to continue. One can only hope that House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers' End to Racial Profiling Act (HR 5748), which was introduced on July 15th, 2010 picks up some steam to end this practice.
In communities of color where mistrust of the police has long been the order of the day for its residents. It doesn't help matters when racial profiling is sanctioned by police departments, and by extension, the jurisdictions who govern them. Effective policing of our communities requires mutual cooperation and respect. And there's no way this can be accomplished if we turn a blind eye to the practice of racial profiling.
OK, so let's talk about racial profiling by law enforcement as it relates to Latinos, shall we? Yes, let's talk about the Eduardo Caraballo and his mistake of being born of Hispanic descent and living in America in 2010:
So yeah, I realize that this didn't happen in Arizona, but in the state of Illinois instead. However, this is yet another example of just how Arizona's new immigration law, and similar laws being considered by several states can backfire. Sure just this one story presents itself to be an anomaly; and, it is in no way indicative of any problems when it comes to policing Federal immigration laws.
However, this is nothing new; and further, it's a damn shame that Eduardo Caraballo had to sit in jail for three days before somebody decided it was OK for him to be a citizen (did it really have to take a Congressman for this to happen?). As I've highlighted on this very site just over a year ago, hundreds of American citizens of a certain hue are "accidentally deported" every year. Nope Cheech Marin's Born In East L.A. isn't just some Hollywood fantasy passed off as idle but comedic entertainment in the form of a motion picture.
Unfortunately for "Pedro" the Puerto Rican in the above story, he wasn't deported. He was fortunate not to have to endure the hassle of being outside of the country fighting to get back in as many others have. You know, the few hundred people or so who are accidentally deported each year? Yep, the very same people who have successfully brought lawsuits against the U.S. gov't or their errors. You know, people like Pedro Guzman and others who were American citizens kicked out of the country over the past eight years?
"Yeah RiPPa, "Pedro" the Puerto Rican might be American, but he still looks suspect just like the rest of his refried bean eating Messikan cousins! So yeah, let's deport them all and sort the shit out later. Yep, and while we're at it, why don't we send the Nigras back to Africa too. This is Amuur'cuh dammit! A nation designated by God, for white rule. Yep, it's in the constitution! Sure as shit!! Manifest Destiny biiiiiiiiyatch!!!"
But hey, racial profiling is no big deal nor a problem - the problem lies in all the "illegals" breathing and using up all the white man's air. If it wasn't for them, there'd be no need for just laws to protect our land. Sorry Eduardo, maybe you should bleach your skin like Sammy Sosa and learn how to hit a curve ball like the rest of your Latin-Caribbean cousins should you intend to stay in this country. After all, soccer isn't exactly America's favorite pastime sport.
So apparently the mayor of Columbus, Ohio, has pissed a few people off by proclaiming a city boycott of the great state on Arizona. This comes in wake of the recent passage of their racist anti-immigration laws.
"Well damn RiPPa, are you just gonna keep bombarding us with this immigration shit?! Is this all you are ever gonna talk about?!!"
Yes I am! As long as people don't see the need for this to be an issue; especially, a racial issue some say black folks should not concern themselves with? Um, I'm gonna have something to say about it.
Also, as long as "certain people" feel the need to dehumanize another group of people who just so happen to be born in another country? You know, like these clowns in the following story? Yes, I'll have something to say:
Immigrant groups are asking a local talk-radio station to apologize for promoting a Phoenix giveaway that it launched after Columbus' mayor suspended city travel to Arizona to protest its new immigration law.
WTVN-AM (610) promoted the giveaway as a trip to Phoenix "where Americans are proud and illegals are scared."
The contest, which ended tonight, was designed to capitalize on the maelstrom kicked up by Mayor Michael B. Coleman's decision, said WTVN program director Mike Elliott.
It was the most popular the station has had, he said. About 5,000 people entered the drawing for round-trip airfare to Phoenix, hotel accommodations, a "few pesos" and the opportunity to "spend a weekend chasing aliens and spending cash in the desert."[...]
[...] At a news conference today, Reform Immigration for America called the promotion insensitive and offensive and said it inferred a racial bias. The group supports providing documents to immigrants already living in the country without permission.
Jose Luis Mas, chairman of the Ohio Hispanic Coalition, said at the news conference that the station was inviting the contest winner to "spend a weekend hunting human beings."
"I think it's an attack on the immigrant community," said Cristina Villacinda-Farr, a 40-year-old Dublin resident who came to the states 20 years ago from Venezuela and became a citizen. Villacinda-Farr took issue with the promotion's use of the word alien. "I am an alien, but not illegal," she said. [...]
[...] Elliott said the station does not plan to apologize. He disagreed that the promotion contained racial overtones.
"It comes down to the word illegal for me. It's not a race thing. It's a legal thing," he said. "If you're breaking the law, it doesn't matter where you're from." (Source)
Listen, the late Howard Zinn once said, "The cry of the poor is is not always just, but if you don't listen to it, you will never know what justice is." From where I'm sitting, there's nothing "just" or "humane" about a contest that promotes the hunting of human beings.
But I suppose something like this is no big deal to "certain people" across the country. I mean what's the big deal, right? It's not like they hunting niggers, or anything like that, right? I suppose that if the shoe were on the other foot like in the following video, stuff like what the radio station proposes wouldn't be funny:
So I've been focusing a lot on the immigration debate as it involves our neighbors to the south lately. Forgotten in the discussion are our friendly, less criminal neighbors to the north. I know it's hard to believe, but there's actually another border other than the southern border. I'm aware that a significant number of visitors to this site are actual residents of Canada. They don't comment, but I guess taking a peek to see e'ry now and then, to see how fucked up life is here in the America, is enough to deter any thoughts of sneaking into our country in seek of a better life.
That's with the exception of the parents of Brendan Fraser who who could possibly be considered terrorists for the assault their son has had on American popular culture. But other than the Fraser family, it's safe to say that Canadians are all law abiding, unlike our Latin American neighbors to the south. I mean think about it. We never hear about a Canadian drug war, do we? OK, so the fact that all the dope gets consumed before gets to Canada might be a contributing factor, but you get what I'm saying. I'll posit that Canadians do not sneak into America, because unlike Latin Americans, they respect the laws that govern the United States.
Of course there are exceptions to the rule, as was the case of Maher Arar, a suspected terrorist, and Canadian citizen with Al Qaeda connections. Sure he was arrested here in the U.S., beaten, tortured, and eventually deported to Syria; but hey, you can't take any chances with those ethnic middle eastern looking guys; what more "reasonable suspicion" does law enforcement need, right? I mean, why else would the Obama administration through the Justice Department, urge the Supreme Court to not hear his case, right?
So who is Kris Kovach? Well, he's not only an attorney for the anti-immigration hate group FAIR as pointed out by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He's also a former Bush administration lawyer. In the wake of 9/11, he crafted the "National Security Entry-Exit Registration System," which required fingerprinting and monitoring of visitors from Muslim and Arab countries. A system which as Race In America points out, profiled and registered, 83,000 people; and, the arbitrary detention of 1,000 of them. Of course it is also important to point out that as a result of this practice, or exercise in "effective policing", not a single terrorist was identified.
More to the point, and for the intents and purposes of this post, Kris Kovach is the man behind Arizona's anti-immigration law, SB1070. And as a post at Mother Jones points out, his reach extends way beyond the state of Arizona, as he is now assisting other states in implementing similar laws. And get this! As the GOP chair in Kansas, he once bragged about illegally blocking minorities from voting, because they tend to overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. Hmmm, but yet there are people in this country who are in support of Arizona's new law? Yep, and some of them just happen to be blissfully ignorant Black people?
Of course since the story broke several weeks ago, and since "reasonable suspicion" is all authorities need to stop and demand documentation from suspected illegal immigrants. The running question (by opponents and people who care) has been: Just exactly what exactly is "reasonable suspicion"? Since this measure isn't inherently racist by nature, just exactly does an "illegal immigrant" look like. Well, in the following clip to surface on the internet recently, Kris Kobach in a police training video lecture breaks it all down:
So there you have it, folks. Yep, now when someone asks just what exactly is "reasonable suspicion"? Remember the fine points of this video that is being used as a training tool for Arizona police officers. Pretty technical stuff and tough to remember, I might add. However, you can skip most of it and refer to the very last two points. Which would be the attire worn by everyday Latino immigrants. Just remember, it is not racial profiling to remain vigilant for anyone wearing a Sombrero who looks and sounds like Speedy Gonzales. It's actually effective government sanctioned, and encouraged ethnic cleansing policing.
Nine suspected members of a militia group were charged Monday with seditious conspiracy and related charges, federal prosecutors said.
A federal grand jury in Detroit, Michigan, indicted six Michigan residents, two Ohioans and an Indianan on the conspiracy charges, plus attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, teaching the use of explosive materials and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence, U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade and Andrew Arena, FBI special agent in charge, announced.
The five-count indictment unsealed Monday charges that since August 2008, the defendants, acting as a Lenawee County, Michigan, militia group called the Hutaree, conspired to oppose by force the authority of the U.S. government.
The suspects were identified as David Brian Stone, 45; his wife, Tina Stone, 44; his son, Joshua Matthew Stone, 21, of Clayton, Michigan; and another son, David Brian Stone Jr., 19, of Adrian, Michigan; Joshua Clough, 28, of Blissfield, Michigan; Michael Meeks, 40, of Manchester, Michigan; Thomas Piatek, 46, of Whiting, Indiana; Kristopher Sickles, 27, of Sandusky, Ohio; and Jacob Ward, 33, of Huron, Ohio.
Let me get straight to the point. I think it's amusing that whenever a bunch of crazy white folks who are pissed off at the American government decide to engage in stupid shit, like create their own languages and defend themselves against a government that has ONLY ever looked out for their interests first, the media and the government itself never calls them terrorists. They are part of a "militia."
How quaint.
See if you were to substitute their names with Arabic or Persian ones, and change their "god" to Allah, it would be straight up terrorism. They would be insurgents, terrorists looking to harm the American people.
These people are a bunch of crazies, but they are no different than some weirdo hiding out in the hills of Pakistan or Afghanistan conspiring to take down the Americans and their government for being infidels ie Anti-Allah/Anti-Islam.
I guess it would make us look hypocritical if we took down terrorists in other countries while our own homegrown madasses ran unchecked.
Terrorists only come in shades other than white and religions other than Christian.
What do you do after a 23yr old Nigerian who is of the Islamic faith tries to blow up a plane in Detroit but fails miserably only to escape with 3rd degree burns on his nut-sack? Well, aside from being fearful of other Nigerian men who might be also Muslim, who just so happen to have the bubble guts and camp out in an airplane bathroom for an hour. If you're a wing-nut you do the obvious; you blame it on Obama. Then you get on Fox News because they have cornered the market on scaring a few million silly viewers and suggest the need for better racial profiling:
Denzel Washington won an Oscar playing the character of the badass crooked cop "Lonzo" in the movie Training Day. Everybody remembers the now infamous line "King Kong ain't got shit on me!" But the line that sticks out for me is in fact the title of this post. To me, that line embodies and epitomizes the power possessed by the police in our communities. But you know what they say: power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. That said, check out what's going on in smalltown America:
CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A former Montgomery police officer is suing the town and his former police chief, claiming shifts he had requested were given to other officers because he refused his superior's orders to harass the city's black residents.
According to the lawsuit filed in Kanawha Circuit Court, Gary Perdue says shifts he wanted were either given to other officers or eliminated, starting last November.
The shifts were given to officers with less seniority and "with a more aggressive approach against the African American citizenry of the City of Montgomery," according to the lawsuit.
Perdue, who has also served as the chief of police in nearby Smithers, names the city of Montgomery and former police chief Pete Lopez as defendants.
Now, I don't know what you think, but I can't help but to think that Gary Perdue may be a disgruntled ex-cop possibly looking to get back at his former boss. That said, what better way than to slap the good and tried race card on the table. See how powerful race matters are in this country?
But then again, Gary Perdue may have actually been one of the good guys who decided to do the right thing and not bust a few Negroes in the head. If so, I have to question why he never stepped forward while still working as a police officer in that jurisdiction and blow the whistle. Was he afraid to go against the brotherhood that is the Blue Wall of Silence within the police culture? Or was it that he had no allies with whom he could trust to hand a letter to president Obama like Sgt. Leon Lashley did last week? Or is Perdue an opportunist who with great timing is taking advantage of a situation:
Perdue's lawyer is Mike Clifford, who has filed at least four other lawsuits against Montgomery police since October. The others also named former Montgomery police officer Matthew Leavitt as a defender.
Last month, former Montgomery officer Matthew Leavitt pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor civil-rights violations in federal court. Leavitt pleaded to beating Twan Reynolds with a slapjack, or small club, and illegally charging his wife, Lauren Reynolds, with driving under the influence.
Leavitt admitted to hitting Twan Reynolds, who is black, in the head with the slapjack. He was also accused of licking the neck of Lauren Reynolds, who is white, and saying, "Little whore, you like it like that."
Sounds like ex-police officer Matthew Leavitt has seen the movies Training Day and Crash one too many times. Lord knows how many times he's gotten away with violating the civil rights of others as a police officer. Thankfully for the sake of America he doesn't wear a badge anymore.
I don't know what exactly to make of this ex-police officer coming forward and filing suit. Lets just say recent incidents in the news, have had a way of influencing my trust of the police. However, a part of me wants to think that this is true. Yes, just like a part of me thinks that cops have quotas to fill as far as issuing traffic tickets each month? You know, I think it's kind of odd that their presence on our streets are heaviest towards the end of each month?
Maybe I'm just buggin', and maybe it's just a Memphis thing. At any rate, if this above story is indeed true, it serves to shine a spotlight on what's going on in our communities all across the country and not just in little old Montgomery West Virginia. Surely given the option of going to jail or going home by a power drunk cop leaves us in a rather precarious position. Hopefully police officers don't think they too can win an Oscar for their real life performances.
[Editors Note: I wanted to have a serious discussion about racial profiling on this blog for some time now. That said, I couldn't have done as well with this topic as my brother from another mother Eddie Blue-Eyes of the blog [un]Common Sense. Added to this post is what I think to be a video of a very good discussion on this subject.]
The most dysfunctional aspect of the almost non existent national dialog on race is that it is almost always filtered through the narrow lens of individualism. This serves to leave out any discussion of practices rooted in centuries-long systemic racism that benefits whites and excludes people of color. In this way, the core issue of racism -- how it is deeply embedded in our social institutions -- is left out of any meaningful public discussion. In this way, the arrest of a prominent academic (in his own home) is seen only from an individual perspective, severed from its social context. Our national dialog on race is similar to communication in families plagued by addiction: no one dares speak about “Daddy’s problem” because of fear and shame. As in such families, a destructive dysfunction is maintained by its denial.
Conservatives contend that liberal indulgence has been the cause for black crime in America. This is utterly astonishing considering it has come after decades of a historically unprecedented increase in the incarceration of black Americans. A conservative-dominated era marked by efforts by legislators and courts to “get tough on crime” and drugs in the inner city. Those who read me are by now familiar with the sickening numbers: almost one in ten black men aged twenty-five to twenty-nine was in prison at the start of the twenty-first century, compared to one white in ninety. Between the mid 1980s and the mid 1990s, the number of black men sentenced to prison for drug offenses increased by more than 700 percent.
This conservative disconnect between the idea that blacks have been absolved of personal responsibility by guilt-ridden, namby-pamby liberals and the reality of nearly thirty years of increasing harshness to black offenders suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the conservative argument.
There is.
The problem of black urban crime is arguably the ugliest, most emotional, aspect of the debate about race in America today. Beginning in the late 1970s and continuing on during the neoconservative ascension during the Reagan years (and accelerating during the 1990s), white and conservative commentators felt blacks lost the high moral ground. During this time the image of the brave little black girl walking up to a schoolhouse door in the face of jeering white crowds was replaced by fearsome (“wilding”) young black men coming down the street ready to take your wallet or your life. That transformation of black youth from victims of injustice to sociopathic predators fueled public policies that quietly reduced funding for education and other beneficial programs and funneled those resources into the service of creating a prison/ industrial complex historically unparalleled by any enlightened society.
Conservatives downplay racism (except, apparently, when it comes to appointing wise Latina women Supreme Courts judges) pointing out that victim surveys do show that victim of violent crime, including black victims, describe their perpetrators as being disproportionately black. Following this wave of research, many conservatives suggest that racism has nothing to do with the disproportionate number of black arrests. However, victim surveys cannot be legitimately be used to dismiss the fact that the criminal justice system is free of bias. They tell us nothing of how blacks are treated before incarceration, for example. More concisely, victim surveys alone cannot explain why the number of black men sentenced to prison for drug offenses increased by more than 700 percent in the ten-year period of 1985-1995, or why 80 percent or more of incarcerated drug offenders in seven states are black.
Recent research makes it clear that aggressive police behavior toward minorities cannot be explained away simply as a result of higher rates of black crime. A study of police stops of civilians in New York City, for example, done for the New York State attorney general’s office (Flynn, 1999), found that over a fifteen-month period in 1998 and 1999, blacks were stopped by police six times as often as whites were, and Latino/as, four times as often. Blacks made up about 25 percent of the city’s general population but 50 percent of the people stopped by the police. Whites made up 43 percent of the population but just 13 percent of civilians stopped by the police. Blacks were stopped considerably more than they were arrested, whites less so.
In fact, the scientific evidence on patterns of discriminatory police practices show that it is consistent and long-standing. Evidence from a variety of sources has shown for decades that such discrimination is systemic and widespread, even in police departments that are generally considered to be highly professional. Indeed, those discriminatory practices are not only tolerated but also frequently justified as good police work by the police themselves. Those practices, however, are often the initial steps in a process through which people of color, and minority youth of color specifically, are funneled into the maws of a criminal justice system.
In a classic observational study, markedly different treatment for black youth were found, even in departments widely known for the superior quality of its personnel. Especially minor offenses (situations where officers hold a great deal of discretion in deciding which actions to take) the police were much more likely to give blacks the tougher dispositions and less likely to release them outright. The researchers discovered that the most crucial factor in the police officer’s decisions was based on cues inferred from the youth’s character: “Older youths, youths with well-oiled hair, black jackets, Negroes, and soiled jeans... ” and boys who in their interactions with officers did not exhibit “what were considered to be appropriate signs of respect” tended to receive the most severe treatment and dispositions (Piliavin & Briar, 1964).
More recent work suggests that similar patterns prevail today, even after decades of efforts in some jurisdictions to improve the racial record of police. Newer research (Conley, 1999) reconfirms that black and Latino/a neighborhoods are more likely to be the focus of heavy police monitoring and surveillance to begin with, and that black and Latino/a youth are more likely to be defined by police as threatening and insubordinate, more likely to be stopped under various (and often false) pretexts, more likely to be arrested than to receive a warning, less likely to have charges dropped by the police (Human Rights Watch, 1996).
There is supportive evidence from some recent research that police are well aware of these racially structured practices but that they often defend them on one or more related grounds. On the one hand, police still operate under a peculiar form of circular reasoning that tends to reify the black stereotypes that were common over a generation ago. Since minority youth are more statistically more likely to be carrying weapons or dealing drugs on the street, the line of reasoning goes, why would police not concentrate their limited resources on them?
But the consequence of this reasoning, of course, is to exacerbate the very differences that are invoked to justify racially targeted practices in the first place. This in turn reinforces the public’s image of the gun-toting drug dealer or gang banger as black or Latino/a. And this confirms the validity of the police focus on youth of color, which then goes around and around in the same kind of vicious circle described in studies over forty years ago.
It’s all an exercise in tautology. In other words, By largely confining surveillance and searches to blacks and Latino/as, police authorities ensure that most of the people arrested for transporting guns or drugs on the freeways, for example, are black or Latino/a. This, of course, further validates the disproportionate focus on minority drivers. “To the extent that law enforcement agencies arrest minority motorists more frequently based on stereotypes,” a report mentions, they continue to “generate statistics that confirm higher crime rates among minorities which, in turn, reinforces the underpinnings of the very stereotypes that gave to the initial arrests” (Human Rights Watch, 1996).
This vicious cycle was escalated during the 1990s with injunctions that allowed police to target youths, often in ambiguous terms, as gang members if they so much as stopped to talk to a friend on the street. At one point, the county of LA outlawed so many colors, it was discovered the colors of the flag were illegal (Davis, 1992). This escalation has certainly been a major factor in the role of the police in the school-to-prison pipeline -- the shunting minority of youth into the criminal justice system. One study in a California County widely known for its extensive white drug-using counterculture found that 93 percent of youth sent to juvenile court for the offense of “possession of narcotics or controlled substances for sale” in the 1990s were Latino/a. Of youth and adults arrested in 1998 in California for the recently enacted offense of “participating in a street gang,” only 13 percent were white and non-Latino/a; almost 67 percent were Latino/a alone.
It follows then, that race still helps to determine who will enter the formal justice system in the first place and thus shapes what will happen thereafter. And what the research shows clearly is how persistent racial stereotyping works with long-term structural disadvantages to ensure that blacks wind up more often in the criminal justice system. It is well-known that adverse structural disadvantages cause blacks to have higher rates of offenses to begin with. The higher rates of offenses are then used as a justification for closer police monitoring of minority youths and by courts to sentence them more severely. The levels of incarceration serve to undermine black communities, as the collateral consequences of incarceration include obstacles to employment, education, and housing, which increases the risks of re-offending and higher rates of recidivism.
Conservatives fail to recognize the destructive effects of that cycle, mostly because they deny that there are structural reasons for high black crime rates. According to the conservative mindset, blacks are congenitally more prone to a criminal mentality. In this way, it's deemed perfectly appropriate to stop a well-dressed black professional. And if he becomes "insurbodinate (read: "uppity"), it's just as justified to arrest him.
Taken on its own merits -- divorced from its social context -- the Gates arrest doesn’t seem like much. I know some black people who express their belief that the incident had nothing or very little to do with race. However, placed within its social context, Gates’ arrest had a lot more to do about race than we care to admit as a society. Surveys show that at an overwhelming number of black men admit to being racially profiled at some point in their lives (Fausset & Huffstutter, 2009 ). I know Gates has experienced this as has our President. Almost all my darker-skinned friends have been targets. There is a strong conservative push to deny racism in our lives. And that, my friends, is a huge part of the problem.
Conley, D. (1999). Being black, living in the red: Race, wealth, and social policy in America. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Davis, M. (1992). City of quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles. New York: Vintage Books.
Fausset, R., & Huffstutter, P. J. (2009 July 25). Black males' fear of racial profiling very real, regardless of class. Los Angeles Times.
Flynn, K. (1999, December 1). Racial bias shown in police searches, state report asserts. New York Times, p. A1.
Human Rights Watch. (1996). Race and drug law enforcement. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Piliavin, I., & Briar, S. (1964). Police encounters with juveniles. American Journal of Sociology, 70(2), 206-214.
Yes, since racial profiling is no big deal and can be forgiven over a six pack, lets look at it from another angle shall we. Ok, lets say you have had a series of parking tickets and you've yet paid them. Hardly a criminal act, but instead a civil issue, right? How would you like it if being in that position, you're awakened to the police in your home at 4am ready to take you to jail?
Oh yeah, I forgot to add that they got into your home without an arrest warrant or a phone call from your neighbor as in the case of Skip Gates. Yeah, kicking in your door, arresting you and searching your home without a warrant; I hope you know that isn't quite the way things are supposed to be done in this country.
But seriously, can you imagine what would happen if this only happened to White people? Fortunately for them this only happens to people of color. Or more specifically: to the people who are brown in color and love tacos.
A recent investigative study by researchers at Cardozo Law School found:
• Despite the purported focus of ICE home raid operations, the report concludes that the large majority (approximately two-thirds) of people arrested during home raids are not dangerous targets but rather are mere civil immigration violators who are in the wrong place at the wrong time — people who have, for example, overstayed their visas.
• While ICE has publicly and repeatedly admitted that it does not obtain judicial warrants for its home raid operations, the report finds a pattern of ICE agents physically pushing and breaking their way into private homes in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
• Once inside, the study finds a pattern of ICE agents abandoning their purported focus on high priority targets and instead illegally seizing residents without legal authority – in an apparent effort to meet inflated arrest expectations.
• Finally, the data reveals that Latino residents are disproportionately likely to be arrested without any articulated basis during ICE home raid operations. Indeed, approximately 90% of the collateral arrest records reviewed, where ICE officers did not note any basis for seizing and questioning the individual, were of Latino men and women – though Latinos represented only 66% of target arrests. [Click to read the entire report]
Uh huh, then given these findings: why is it Barack Obama on July 10th made a move to expand on a measure which gives local police in certain jurisdictions the power to cooperate and assist the Feds in rounding up undocumented immigrants? If you don't believe me, you should: click here to read. Now mind you, this was a Draconian style witch hunt practice signed into law back in 1996. But, can anyone tell me why Barack Obama has moved to expand it's practice when clearly there have been violations in doing so?
(Well RiPPa, those people are in the country illegally and they need to be rounded up by all means necessary!)
Yes, you're right that they're here illegally; yes, and they should all be rounded up and sent to Guantanamo Bay to be water-boarded. Yes you may feel that way but listen, there is this document on this old piece of paper called The Constitution... yeah, law enforcement officials must adhere to it. Yes, and from the looks of it, they sure haven't been following the letter of the law too well.
(Well that really sucks then RiPPa, and it needs to be changed.)
Sure it needs to be changed; especially if you like police officers having the power to walk into your home and drag you to jail if they feel like it - you know, kinda like what Sgt. Jim Cowley did in Cambridge? I mean you probably don't look like you hopped over a fence two days ago into Texas or California from Mexico, but if we're all afforded equal protection under the law why don't we just throw out the 4th and 5th amendment. How about that? Sounds good doesn't it?
What gets me is that supposedly the Obama administration has suggested a different direction on immigration enforcement pending comprehensive reform. But somehow, I'm a little wary of this type of reform especially since arrests have drastically increased. Sure there's going to be an increase when law enforcement is able to enter a home without lawful consent:
When monthly 2009 prosecutions of this type are compared with those of the same period in the previous year, the number of filings was up (32.1 percent). Prosecutions over the past year are still much higher than they were five years ago. Overall, the data show that prosecutions of this type are up 122.5 percent from levels reported in 2004. [Click to read the entire report]
Hmm, looks like they're doing all they can to fill those new super-max prisons. Look, unfortunately the problem of racial profiling in this country is perceived to be exclusive to African Americans. Yes, people raised hell and were of the opinion that the Gates' arrest was another in a long line of this practice.
Well, the truth is, it wasn't; the police were called to his home on a possible breaking and entering. No, they did not drive by and happen to see a Black man attempting to kick his own door in.
But now that all of this is behind us and the president has encouraged us to have a conversation on this issue. Am I wrong for highlighting what I see as Government sanctioned racial profiling? I mean if I am, maybe someone needs to have Obama give me a call and preach to me about personal responsibility. After all, I too am an immigrant who like everyone else has helped to build this country, no?
After watching that video, I can't do anything but to quote the late great Martin Luther King Jr. as he spoke on injustice when he said, "Fuck the police!" Ok, so I'm not sure if that was a direct quote or not, but I'm sure that thought crossed his mind as it has yours at one point or another. It makes me wonder what would you guys do if you were ever put in that situation by someone who is sworn to uphold the law. Me personally? I'd never get myself into that situation. Yes, I would have never been one of the victims in the above news release. You know why? Because I do not talk to cops. Yes, RiPPa is down with the "Stop Snitching Movement" that so many are against.
What RiPPa, you're one of those ig'nant niggas who support that bullshit?
Yes I am, and I am proud of it. You know why? Because per the constitution I can muthafucka. That's right; the problem is people talk too damn much. Yup, and when they do, they get fucked by the police pretty much like the people in the video above. Ok, so yeah, I doubt cops all over the country are ganking folks for their unemployment checks. But I do know that the civil rights of people are constantly violated by cops. And you know why they continue to do this? Because of the ignorance of the general public.
"The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful searches and seizures. Despite this, countless citizens have been subjected to searches without suspicion, and people of color and Muslims are disproportionately targeted for these unwarranted intrusions. The ACLU challenges such unlawful practices, and our Campaign Against Racial Profiling helps to defend the rights of those most targeted for discrimination and unfair treatment." - ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union)
Many people aren't knowledgeable of their constitutional rights and as a result, through racial profiling, you have Slave Catchers like the Black cop in the video above taking advantage of minorities. To me, that's the sad part about this situation; yes, a Black man who is sworn to uphold the law has taken advantage of ignorant minorities. I'd love to see him try that shit on some White folks. I bet his Black ass wouldn't even dare. Yup, it's usually Slave Catching Negroes such as the Black cop above who in the position they're in will knowingly screw another minority.
Now wasn't that cop a bad actor or what? If only they were like this is in real life. Hell, most of them just try to get by on intimidation which only aids them in jamming a nightstick up your ass. Listen up folks, you do not have to speak to the police ever. Lemme be clear, you do not have to speak to the police, or sign any documents without an attorney present. When you do, you often end up being the one the shitty end of the stick. Or worse, curled up beside a Hyundai getting your head bashed in like Rodney King.
In the following video at the end of this post, there's some valuable information. You'll see that currently there are innocent people who have had their convictions eventually overturned all because they spoke to the police. I'm not gonna ramble on with this one, but just know that the 4th & 5th amendment protects you from this sort of thing. Yes it does and its up to you the individual to acquire said knowledge of law and the constitution. I say that because when you do go to court, you don't want a judge to have to tell you that ignorance of the law is no excuse. So yeah watching this next video is all on you. However, I'd like you to share with me any messed up police encounters you may have been subjected to. More importantly, I'd like to know what did you do about it. My best advice for anyone would be seek counsel of the ACLU on matters like these. As a matter of fact, I think it's a good idea to join their organization. Why? Because freedom cannot protect itself.
We’re almost through the month of April and now past April 15th Tax Day Tea Party Protests. So what’s next on the agenda? It's an issue, which has been a longtime debate, between politicians, and citizens alike. Yes, I am talking about the immigration debate.
It has been reported that the Obama administration plans to tackle this issue in the upcoming month of May. Just in time for the upcoming discussions, comes a report released by the Pew Hispanic Center showing that the number of undocumented immigrants are actually flat-lining after a 16-year surge between 1990 and 2006. Yes folks, according to the report, the numbers have declined drastically.
The 2008 report, released on April 14, estimates that there were 11.9 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, down from 12.4 million in 2007. And among undocumented immigrants, 8.3 million of them (69 percent) were in the work force as of last March. - SOURCE
So what brought about the drastic change? Some may credit the aggressive actions of ICE, but that’s debatable. As a matter of fact, many undocumented workers picked up in raids or arrested for other crimes, are often left to languish indefinitely in immigration detention centers across the country. Some may say this decline may be due to the failing economy, which might be partially true. It has been reported that many undocumented workers are leaving the country to return to their homelands as employment has all but dried up.
So how do you feel about the current state of our supposed , immigration problem? Well, some may say that it is indeed a problem and presents a drain on the economy, jobs etc., while adding to an increase in crime. My guess is, you’d believe what you want to believe which is something we must be careful of as there have been many campaigns filled with much misinformation. I won’t get into that right now, as I prefer to deal with what you think in your commentary.
Something I found to be quite interesting which indicates just how broken the system is currently, is that there have been American citizens who have been deported. Citizens deported?! Yes, American citizens have been deported on many occasions. Ironically, the accidentally deported citizens were for the most part of Hispanic descent. Just proving how once again how the practice of racial profiling is often a flawed error in judgment.
The nonprofit Vera Institute for Justice found 322 people with citizenship claims in 13 immigration prisons in 2007, up from 129 the year before. That number does not include possible citizens in the nation's more than 300 other immigration prisons. - SOURCE
The gentleman pictured above is Pedro Guzman. Pedro, a gentleman of obvious Hispanic descent happens to be mentally ill, and unable to read and write. After being arrested some time ago, he was asked if he wanted to go home. Naturally, since jail isn’t the comfortable place like home, Pedro said yes. After which, he signed documents to help speed up the process of going home. Unfortunately for him, it was assumed that he was an “illegal immigrant”, and the home they were asking about was Mexico.
Sadly, Pedro, a Hispanic male who was born and raised in this country, was deported, and was separated, practically lost in a country he knew nothing about for three months. You can read the story of his ordeal as well as others if you don't believe anything I say. However, whether you do or not, you must understand that he’s not the only victim to be mistaken for an illegal immigrant. According to reports, there are at least 55 cases to this date where citizens have already settled with the gov’t on lawsuits, or are in the middle of litigation.
Yes, it’s quite obvious that the system is broken. If citizens can be “accidentally deported”, the system is indeed broken and needs to be fixed. I don’t know what your take may be on immigration reform, but I sure would like to hear what you think, as well as your suggestions on what needs to be done. Currently Pedro’s mother is in litigation with the gov’t pending restitution for their mistake. The upcoming immigration debates will be interesting, but sadly, stories like that of Pedro, and other American citizens will be overlooked. One only has to wonder if this would be the case if this were happening to White American citizens.
QUESTION:What are your thoughts on the "immigration problem" and what do you think should be done?
The movie "NOTORIOUS" is finally here. The movie is a biopic which centers on the life of legendary rap star The Notorious B .I.G. , or Biggie, as he is affectionately known by hip hop heads such as myself. As a fan, I'm kinda torn on the movie though I haven't seen it just yet. As a matter of fact, when I heard it was in production, I made up my mind that I wouldn't see it. Its not that I already know how its gonna end, its just that I loved that dude and his music so much that I can't see some other fat dude (other then myself...*cough*) playing him in a movie.
To me, making a movie about him is a violation. Making a Biggie movie is like remaking a Michael Jackson classic. Lets face it: there are some stuff that should never be touched, and to me, this is one of them. I'm dead serious, I'd be equally as pissed if they made a Vanilla Ice movie. I mean, who needs to relive that embarrassing moment in hip hop history. Wasn't the made for TV MC Hammer movie enough?
Instead of seeing "NOTORIOUS" I think I'm gonna go see "Gran Torino". You probably haven't heard of this movie, nor have you paid any attention to the trailer. Basically, its a movie staring legendary actor/director Clint Eastwood. He's some where around 103yrs old now, so just the fact of him being in a movie in itself is an accomplishment. Supposedly, he's playing another bad ass character in this movie. If you know anything about his older movies, he's always been a bad ass hero through the years, and his persona is something that's for the books.
But do you wanna know why I'm interested in this movie? I'm interested in seeing it because I believe it will be a source of comedy for me in months to come. Its a pretty serious movie, and not to be confused with Clint playing in a comedic role. So what's so funny RiPPa? What's funny is that he's playing and old ex-military racist bastard who has a hard on for young thugs. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, but just from what I've read, and seen in the trailer, he's bent on getting his rocks off on getting rid of young punks in his neighborhood. Yup, Clint is going around shooting at gangbangers the likes of something reminiscent of the movie "Falling Down". Remember that one?
So again, what's so funny about that RiPPa? What's gonna be funny is probably what's gonna happen after the movie is released and seen by white people. You see, Clint Eastwood is like John Wayne in the minds of white people of another generation. A lot of them are gonna wanna see this movie just because its Clint. And when they do, they're gonna think of his old "Dirty Harry" character from back in the day. They're gonna go see this movie and get so involved with it that they're gonna think its real life. Black people do the same thing at the movies and thats why they talk through movies, and get shot for doing it. But not White people. They don't say shit at the movies. Instead, they leave the movie all juiced up like an idiot who just drank a Red Bull, and did a couple lines of meth. You know, just like the Italian dudes who saw "Rocky" back in the day? Eddie Murphy talk about them in his stand up movie "Raw", remember?
Well if you remember that bit, you'll understand why this is going to be comedy for me. You see, I suspect that after seeing this movie, there will be a lot of old ass white men killed, or injured pretty badly in an attempt to be bad asses just like Clint's character in the movie. Yup, I suspect that Clint Eastwood is going to be the death of old ass white men in 2009. Think about it: cops are killing Black men these days; they're doing their part. What makes you think old white men wouldn't attempt to recapture their racist youth of days gone bye and try to take out a few young thugs in this day and age. And see, that's where they're gonna get themselves fucked up, and its all gonna be Clint Eastwood's fault. Of course the media wouldn't see it that way. Instead they'll probably report it as some young thug deciding to be a menace to society as always. But here's a tip for my white readers, and friends of white people: Stay away from Gran Torino; stick to Benjamin Button; you'll live longer.
I'll have to comeback and tell you guys about the movie once I see it. I'll do my best although I do not think I can do as well as Invisible Woman does on her blog when she breaks down the latest movies. But I guarantee you that my assessment will be honest, and delivered with the fullest reality as always. Who needs to see the Biggie movie and be sad all over again when he gets killed in the end. Yup get mad at the fact that his killer hasn't been caught to date and its been years since he was killed. Instead, go see Gran Torino, that way we can have a profile of the future killers of young Black males other than the police and other Black men these days.
Are you having a happy new year thus far? I hope you are. I say that because there are at least three families who aren't. To date (yes and the month isn't even over yet), there have been three high profile police shootings involving Black men here in America. Though they've not all equally received media attention, they are, and that fact alone, is indicative of a problem we have in this country.
Three Black men: Oscar Grant, Robbie Tolan, and now Adolph Grimes III, have been the victims of police shootings. Of the three, two of them are dead, and one still sits in a Texas hospital with a bullet lodged in his liver. Now I could go into detail surrounding each shooting, but I'll just sum it up and say that in everyone of them, all accounts are pointing to officer error.
Oscar Grant: While pleading not to be tasered as he lay unarmed on the ground was shot in the back and killed. So far, the talk has been that it was accidental since the cop (who has since resigned) was reaching for his taser but got his gun by mistake, and pulled the trigger.
Robbie Tolan: While in his own driveway at the home of his parents he was shot after being suspected of driving a stolen vehicle. It has since been discovered that the SUV in question was not stolen.
Adolph Grimes III: Just three hours after ringing in the new year in New Orleans, he was shot 14 times, 12 times in the back, by New Orleans police. This was done just after he stepped out of his grandmothers house and sat in his car as he waited for his cousin. His mother had to hear the news about his death on the 5 o' clock news. The police said he shot at them first, and was armed. He was carrying a registered firearm; registered in his name. The police are also saying they recovered a shotgun from the trunk, but they somehow won't produce it. But how does a man running away from the cops who gets shot in the back 12 times while fleeing pose a threat?
"Police shootings receive intense media coverage but are still relatively rare. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that less than one percent of encounters with police involve threats or use of force. Blacks and Hispanics, however, report violent or potentially violent encounters with police at twice the rate of whites. Fifty-seven percent of those involved in a police force situation reported that they had argued, disobeyed or resisted or had been drinking or using drugs at the time."
With the exception of Grimes who had a weapon in his possession. What all these three men have in common is the fact that they were all Black, unarmed, and "allegedly" posed a threat to the police. Maybe I'm wrong here, but when is anyone laying face down or handcuffed a threat in the presence of trained police officers. I don't want to say that this is all racist because of the history of the police, racism, and racial profiling. Instead, I'll say just like some of my non-empathetic white brothers and sisters, that the police were just doing their jobs, and they felt their lives were in danger. All of these shootings are a concern for me. I am a Black man ya know. I'm especially watching the case of Mr. Grimes in New Orleans. If you've been reading this page you may understand why. But if you don't, you can click here to read all about it and catch up.
Seriously, I don't even have a solution for this problem short of all Black people (males in particular) having to walk around naked in public. When you're naked in public, though you may fit the profile of a criminal by being black. At least we may have a chance for survival or not encountering police shootings. By being naked there's no way they can say you had a weapon or a gun unless it was in your hand. Or worse...stashed in your asshole.
My concern as a Black man, is how can we stop this? Or will this ever stop? This is something that has been going on since Jeremiah was a bullfrog, and its senseless, and inhumane. Yes its inhuman, and obviously prejudicial to assume that a person has a propensity for crime because of the color of their skin, and hence the use of unnecessary force. Would this all end if there were Black cops shooting White suspects? Would society at large recognize this as a problem then?
Sometimes I think that I'm pretty fortunate to have been born when I was. I was born in 1970 and I used to wonder what it'd be like to have been born and grow up in an earlier time. But then I remember that if that had happened, as I am a dark-skinned person, I would most likely have been either a slave or routinely treated as a second-class citizen. After all, the origins of the enslavement of black people go way beyond mid-eighteenth century America. So yeah, when I look at it that way, I'm glad that I wasn't. Besides... "Toby" is just a fucked up name for anyone, slave or not.
White people of Earth, listen to me. Being brown (or in your case, orange) is not all it's cracked up to be. A lot of the time, it can be a real hassle. Well, unless you're not in a hurry to get somewhere when the cops pull you over. Stop now before you kill yourself AND your credit score. Don't let your white guilt be the catalyst or your motivation to get tanned as you do. Just be nice to us colored folks, give us jobs or maybe even stock tips. Don't worry, we'll still be cool, and we'll still sell you drugs. Besides, getting tasered by the police isn't as cool in real life as it looks on TV.
“He who warned uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.” -- Sarah Palin on Paul Revere
