Bean pointed out this story to me; an ABC hidden camera “reality” show paid three teenage white boys to “vandalize” a car in a park (a car that was owned by ABC, of course). The boys visibly broke into the car, and then began beating it with a metal tool and spray-painting it. This went on for quite a while.
One person called 911, and one passerby asked the boys what they were doing. Elsewhere in the park, coincidently, some black folks (relatives of an ABC employee, as it turned out) were napping in their car; this also generated a call to 911.
Next day, same park, same situation — but the three actors hired were black. Suddenly, lots of people were asking the boys what they were doing, and lots were calling 911.
What interested me, in light of recent discussions on “Alas,” was the quotes from the various white people who called 911 about the three black “vandals.”
So we asked those who approached the black kids or reported them to police, “Would you have acted any differently if the boys were white?”
Sang said, “I would have done the same thing. Maybe I would have stopped them sooner.”
Joan A. and Martha had a similar response: “I did notice they were African-American young boys in a white neighborhood,” said Joan A. “But if they had been white kids, I mean, I would have done exactly the same thing.”
Martha agreed, “I might have done it quicker if they were white kids.”
“Actually, I probably hesitated because they were black,” said Joan D. “I don’t like to assume that three black kids are up to trouble. But they were clearly up to trouble,” she recalled, laughing. “But had it been three white kids I’d have done the same thing. I might have called quicker.”
ABC’s segment isn’t a legitimate study, of course; but for argument’s sake, assume a social scientist did a well-designed study which replicated ABC’s findings. (In the real world I doubt an academic ethics committee would approve purposely generating false calls to 911).
RonF and others argue that it’s wrong to believe racism is a factor when the individuals involved have a plausible, non-racist motivation for their actions. That means there’s no racism here: Every individual person who called 911 denies that there was any racism in their choice. If anything, they say, they would have been quicker to call 911 if the vandals had been white. And no one denies it’s legitimate to call 911 when one sees a crime being committed, regardless of the criminal’s race.
So, Ron and others: Is it wrong to say that there’s anything racist about a society in which random passerbys are more likely to call the cops on black teens than white teens for identical behavior? Let’s say that having black teens do the crime generates 10 times as many 911 calls, whereas white crimes doing a crime is only as likely to generate a 911 call as black people taking a nap are. But in no case can we prove that any individual making a 911 call had a racial bias.
From your point of view, there’s no racism going on here. Right?
One quibble: A group of boys vandalizing a car in a park where another group of vandals had been active the day before might generate more 911 calls than a group of boys vandalizing a car in a park which had not suffered from vandalism in the recent past. However, that doesn’t explain the 911 call for the person napping in their car. Why would anyone call 911 for an adult napping in their car? A kid, yes–they shouldn’t be left alone in a car–but an adult? Why?
Anyway, that quibble aside, I suspect (but can’t prove) that the people quoted are wrong. Not lying, but wrong. They wouldn’t have called 911 as or more quickly if the vandals were white. But they may honestly believe that they would. People’s consious beliefs about themselves and their subconsious motives don’t always match up.
one passerby asked the boys what they were doing
Trying to visualize the scene…what did the actors say? What did the passerby do afterwards? Did s/he call 911 after talking to them?
I agree with you that the people quoted most likely believe they are telling the truth, and most of them are honestly mistaken.
The actors had apparently been told to be brazen and obnoxious; they mockingly told the passerby to mind his own business. The passerby understandably became very angry. An ABC producer stepped in to defuse the argument and explain what was going on to the passerby.
A new form of profiling – sleeping while black. Who knew?
This is pretty sad. You’d think the commission of a crime would transcend the particular racial characteristics of the persons committing a crime as influencing witness reporting. Cuz, ya know, crime is bad, nnkay? But apparently even that is naive.
Oh, I saw this, too, last week, and I was thinking the same thing (well, sort of — I hadn’t particularly linked it to any of the discussions currently going on here at this blog).
Anyway, IIRC, the call about the person sleeping in the car (I think there were actually 2 calls, but I think the 2 calls were from the same person, so 1 person called), he said that he saw 3 black men in a car “staying real low like they’re about to rob someone.” (I am paraphrasing from memory, so it might not be word for word, but that is the general idea of what he said).
Also, these men sleeping in the car were the relatives of one of the black teen actors — which makes me think that maybe this experiment happened over the course of 1 day, rather than 2 (why would the black teen’s relatives need to be waiting for him in the parking lot if his acting job wasn’t until the next day?)
Also, while only one guy really confronted the white boys, there were several people who talked to them — many said things like, “is that your car?” The boys (having been told to be obnoxious) replied, “No, is it yours?” and “What do you care?” and so on. The people would say something along the lines of “you shouldn’t be doing that” but then continue to keep walking and do nothing else.
Oh, I knew I shouldn’t have looked at the comments section of that article. It depresses the hell out of me the average American’s understanding of what is/isn’t racism and/or bigotry.
Assuming that the neighborhood where this experiment was conducted was majority white (the passers-by seem to have been white from their racial comments), we would need to see the same experiment done in a majority black neighborhood. I suspect that the results would be the same: there would be some response to the black youths, and a much heightened response to the white youths. People are more likely to call the cops, or vig up, on people they perceive as outsiders.
In response to the question, “Is it wrong to say that there’s anything racist about a society in which random passerbys are more likely to call the cops on black teens than white teens for identical behavior?”, I would say no. That seems like pretty good evidence of racism in the passersby – once you establish it through actually randomized trials.
This trial isn’t randomized, because the behavior isn’t identical (black youth in white neighborhood is not sociologically identical to white youth in white neighborhood). You’re in the position of a homeopathy advocate who says “ok, this successful trial we did wasn’t really scientific. But if it had been, and had gotten the same result, wouldn’t you agree that would be evidence to support homeopathy…”
Robert: I agree that it would be interesting to see what happened if the experiment you suggested were performed. And if this were a manuscript to a peer reviewed journal rather than a clip for a reality show, I’d certainly want that control to be performed. I’d also be curious to see what would happen in a truly mixed neighborhood (i.e. southern Harlem) and what would happen if you changed the order (the black kids first, the white second). Not to mention what would happen if the experiment were repeated, to ensure that the one experience wasn’t a fluke. However, there is a limit to the number of 911 calls a reality show can generate before the cops get seriously annoyed.
But I’m not at all sure that the outcome would be as you suggest. When I’ve been in neighborhoods where I stood out because of my skin color, I’ve not been perceived as a threat–at least not as far as I could tell by people’s responses to me. Instead, most people seemed to see me as confused, possibly lost. Or just unusual. On the other hand, I wasn’t vandalizing cars. Being obnoxious…possibly (I tend to get angry when whistled at rather than frightened), but not vandalizing cars.
I’ve not been perceived as a threat
You’re a woman. The mere physical presence of a woman is almost never perceived as a threat.
Assuming the control gave the same result (black vs white neighborhood), I’d say yes; racism is reflected in the pattern of calls to 911.
However, let’s assume that you observed one step down the line; the cops arrest every vandal they find, respond to every call equally, etc. (I’m assuming a can opener, I know.)
Would it prove that the police department was racist that blacks were more likely than whites to be arrested when vandalizing a car?
I say no.
Would it prove that the police department was racist that blacks were more likely than whites to be arrested when vandalizing a car?
That’s something that one might be able to look at systematically. Compare 911 logs for the complaint of vandalism with arrest records, correlate with race. I’m not sure how often the race of a possible vandal who was not arrested would be determined, though. Or if the data is public record or not.
But really is there a question? This wasn’t a heavily controlled study–more of a case report–but there is plenty of evidence out there that racism is still a problem. Just to cite one area, if anyone’s interested, I could give you links for several articles demonstrating that blacks are less likely than whites to receive chemotherapy for cancer, when controlled for tumor aggressiveness and stage. There might be factors other than racism in any one case, but is there any way to explain the consistent results but racism? Possibly unconsious racism, but racism nonetheless.
I’d say this is too flawed an experiment to be of any real value – for the reasons already pointed out. First, it was done on successive days, and I’d think that vandalism on a second successive day would generate a lot more calls than the first, regardless of any other factor – and second, because of the demographics – I think someone perceived as an outsider to a neighborhood is more likely to generate 911 calls than not, simply because of latent tribalism in human beings.
This is anecdotal, but I never had any rude treatment at all from others in the neighborhood when I lived in Harlem, nor when I lived in the NE Killingsworth area of Portland (which is the closest Portland has to a black neighborhood), nor did I ever notice being seen as threatening merely for walking in the neighborhood. In contrast, I’ve heard many black folks describe being treated rudely, and seen as a threat, when walking through white neighborhoods.
Also, even if it’s true — and I doubt it is — that the results would have been exactly reversed had the experiment been conducted in a mostly-black neighborhood, what does that tell you about life in the US? Which is more likely — for a white person to spend their life rarely happening (or having) to be in a black neighborhood, or the reverse?
There is rarely 100% absolutely certain proof of racism in real-life situations. The practical consequence of the “deny it could possibly be racism unless there’s ironclad beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence” view is to deny that racism exists at all, nearly all of the time. Which is, of course, a painless and beneficial conclusion for white people to come to.
Let me repeat a line from the post I wrote:
ABC’s segment isn’t a legitimate study, of course; but for argument’s sake, assume a social scientist did a well-designed study which replicated ABC’s findings.
My argument is not that this ABC segment proves anything about racism; my argument is that this segment shows how it’s possible that racism could exist that would be impossible to acknowlege under RonF’s, Robert’s and other’s views.
If you’re not willing to address the question and argument brought up in this post, then stop posting on this thread. (This means you, DBB, although you’re not the only one to have ignored that part of my argument).
my argument is that this segment shows how it’s possible that racism could exist that would be impossible to acknowlege under RonF’s, Robert’s and other’s views.
Except that I at least (and I imagine Ron) would acknowledge that this is racist, if it were proved out. That seems to argue that you don’t really understand “our” view (don’t want to put Ron in the same boat as me without his consent), not that our view makes acknowledging racism impossible.
Apart from what this experiment proved or didn’t prove about racism, I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around the two 911 calls for the kids sleeping in the car. I’m trying to picture it:
Caller (staring intently at the sleeping kids while in the background three other kids vandalize a car): There’s some black guys in a car. They’re lying low…their eyes are closed…one’s snoring slightly…I think they must be planning to rob someone.
911 operator: What’s that thumping noise I hear in the background? Is someone being attacked?
Caller: No, that’s just some kids having fun. But send someone quick! One of the black guys just rolled over…
Yeah, I know, it probably wasn’t quite that overt, but really, if you have a cell phone and call 911 wouldn’t it be more sensible to call about the crime in progress rather than the imaginary one you fear might occur at some point?
Why Robert is unlikely to appear in the next Kill Bill sequel. And why, if he does appear, he is unlikely to appear in any subsequent sequels.
I thought the article said that the two sets of actors were filmed on the same afternoon, defacing the same car. If that’s the case, then there wouldn’t be any subsequent day effect on the number of 911 calls because there wouldn’t be time for news to spread about vandalism in the park.
Also, anyone else notice the language used in the piece? The white kids were “mischeif-makers.” The black kids were people you didn’t want to confront directly because they might have guns.
I think the language is one piece of evidence that shows racist underpinnings in the people who responded, as does the “sleeping while black” emergency call.
Why are these threads being hijacked by people wanting to deny racism? What is the point, exactly?
Every time an instance of probable racism is brought to light, there are some white people around ready to leap into action and find an explanation, however improbable, that there is some other, non-racist excuse for it. It’s just a coincidence that the actions in question effect PoC negatively. A side effect.
I just want to know, how many of these “coincidences” does it take to not be a coincidence anymore and we can stop quibbling about whether racism occurred? When we quibble racism away, who benefits and who loses?
Another way of putting it is, why do we automatically discount the experiences of people of color, but give extra value to the experiences of whites? On these threads individuals are dismissing that PoC experience racism at the hands of whites, and giving whites and their flimsy excuses endless benefit of the doubt. We are not weighing experiences equally. Why might that be? Who benefits and who loses?
Ultimately the answer to this question boils down to definitions. Here we have [intended to create] a situation involving similarly-situated people who differ only by race, and we observe people acting differently. When asked, the people who acted differently offer rationales that have nothing to do with race, but the rationales conflict with the evidence. Is “racism going on here”? Sure. Can I identify any specific individual’s conduct as “racist”? No.
If you define racism to focus exclusively on results, then motives are irrelevant. If you define racism to depend exclusively on motives, then results are irrelevant. The different definitions support different conclusions. My conclusion: the terms “racism” and “racist” obscure more than they clarify.
When I (reluctantly) use the term “racism,” I use it in contrast to an implied assumption of meritocracy – that is, an assumption that people act for good reasons, and that there is rarely a good reason to discriminate on the basis of race. I strive to demonstrate racism by 1) identifying an apparent disparity between people of differing races, and 2) considering and ruling out any possible good reason for the disparity. (This step often involves putting the burden on the allegedly-racist actor to identify a bona fide reason for his or her actions.)
Now, might people postulate and embrace non-racial theories to explain racial disparities out of a self-interested desire to avoid the discomfort of having to confront racism? Yes. Does this fact eliminate the merits of considering non-racial theories to explain racial disparities? No. I seen no conflict between these propositions.
Here Amp postulates that minorities and majorities have different experiences PURELY AS A RESULT of being minorities and majorities – either without regard to group animus, or at least without regard to unreciprocated animus. Yes, the average black American will spend more time being surrounded by whites than the average white American will spend being surrounded by blacks. This has real consequences for both black Americans and white Americans, and many of these consequences can be explained without the need to postulate racial animus. Whether you choose to call these consequences “racism” depends on whether you choose to define the word in terms of outcomes or intentions.
I acknowledge that proving that a specific individual’s actions were motivated by racial animus is, in most instances, neigh unto impossible. And…?
My presumption-of-innocence posture may well reflect my white (or majority) privilege, although I wouldn’t want to deny that members of minorities can embrace this view as well. My privilege arguably contributed to my willingness to extend the benefit of doubt to the Duke lacrosse players, for better or worse.
I believe that people may be able to secure political advantage by alleging racism even when alternative rationales exist. And, after some reflection, I must concede that I don’t expect to be very patient with the inevitable whisper campaigns that will follow Obama (or Clinton) into the election, and I may be quicker to allege racism (or sexism) than otherwise. Political campaigns are not model forums for justice, as we are all too, too aware. Raw political might does not make right, but political weakenss don’t neither. So I’ve already got my finger on that trigger.
Yet I don’t intend to use campaign tactics as a guide for living the rest of my life. Why the different standard? Not sure. Maybe that’s just my white privilege speaking….
RonF and others argue that it’s wrong to believe racism is a factor when the individuals involved have a plausible, non-racist motivation for their actions.
No, that’s not my argument. I’d say it’s wrong to assume that racism is a factor absent a determination of motive; see the arguments above where various other scenarios, etc. are put forward as to why the pattern of calls were what they were. Although in a given context it may certainly be reasonable to suspect it. A determination of motive may well show that racism was the cause.
my argument is that this segment shows how it’s possible that racism could exist that would be impossible to acknowlege under RonF’s, Robert’s and other’s views.
I would think that racism exists in numerous situations where it’s not possible to prove it. The fact that a) racism exists, and b) it’s hard to prove in a given context doesn’t mean that you should go ahead and assume racism in such a context anyway. I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I’m not sure what you mean by “acknowledge” in this context.
So, Ron and others: Is it wrong to say that there’s anything racist about a society in which random passerbys are more likely to call the cops on black teens than white teens for identical behavior?
Should an actual controlled study show that effect, showing it to be independent of the various factors raised up-thread, then I would say that there’s some racist people out there. “Racist society” is a rather different concept than “racist individuals” and not one that I’d consider proved by that.
The practical consequence of the “deny it could possibly be racism unless there’s ironclad beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence” view is to deny that racism exists at all, nearly all of the time.
The view you describe in this sentence is one I have not seen previously in these threads. I do hope that you don’t think that I hold it.
There’s a great study done by Samuel Gaernter & John Dovidio (“The Aversive Form of Racism”, in Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism [Gaertner & Dovidio, eds., 1986]) that measured a related theme (I summarized the study in this article). Essentially, it shows that Whites will act in racially disparate manners when they can justify it to themselves that they’re actually behaving neutrally. When they can’t, they are relatively egalitarian.
Racism cannot possibly exist unless scientifically proven in a very rigorous study and even then it might only say something about the individuals studied. I can tell this is true because racism has never caused Me any problems. I’m white, but that hasn’t got anything to do with anything.
Amen, Les. :)
It’s not new.
That’s not really true. See above.
The effect of the correlation between race and the tendency to under or overreport crime, is reflected in recent statistics about US incarceration rates.
On average, 1 out of every 100 americans in in jail, but 1 out of every 9 black men is in jail. Black women are jailed at the average rate, but only 1 out of every 355 white women is in jail. If, as this ABC excercise shows, americans are more likely to report the activities of black parkgoers to police, it makes sense that the police confront and ultimately incarcerate black people at a greater rate than white people.
I don’t think the exercise is about why the black vandals were reported (they were blatantly committing a crime). This was about why the white vandals weren’t reported. The piece was about privilege.
I don’t mean that people should heighten their rate of reporting suspected criminals until it averages out across all races/genders.
But I do think the “benefit of the doubt” could be spread more evenly. The people sleeping in the car could have used more.
From time to time I see a piece about a test that was run (either by a government regulatory agency or a media organization) wherein comparable black and white couples are sent out apartment- or house-hunting or to apply for a mortgage. By “comparable” I mean that they are or appear similar in every relevant aspect, income, credit history, work history, and so on, except race. Invariably the black couples fare worse than their white counterparts: they’re shown worse housing in less desirable neighborhoods and/or quoted less favorable rent or mortgage terms. These studies are done in northern cities in what you would normally think of as liberal parts of the country (Boston, for instance). I believe similar studies have been done for job hunters and car shoppers.
You could find nonracist reasons for this phenomenon: the white couple came early in the day, the black couple came at the end of the day when the realtor was tired and just wanted to go home, the realtor just happened to be having a bad day, yata yata. It’s even possible that the realtors/bankers/agents were unaware of being racist. But I don’t see how you can argue that these people “weren’t really racist” in the face of evidence like this.
I once had a long conversation with a coworker wherein she claimed to be entirely innocent of racism; I didn’t believe her, and eventually got her to admit that if alone on the subway late at night with just one guy besides her in the car, she’d be more nervous (other things such as age and dress being equal) if he were black than if he were white. At the risk of being flamed until crispy I will admit that I’d feel the same way; I’d feel bad about it, but I wouldn’t be able to help it. I’ve read all the crime statistics that are perpetuated by the overreporting of black crime (or noncrime such as sleeping) and underreporting of white crime, among other factors, and I’m also hard-wired to be more afraid of people I perceive as different from me.
You know, this is possibly the nastiest thing about racism today. “Everyone knows” what racism is; it’s when you want to hurt the (fill in the blank with a hateful term for a racial group).
But what racism really is, is the belief that one “race” is superior to another. (Someone is going to probably chime in with how racism is “prejudice and power”, which I’ve seen stated many a time. While that’s a good working definition, I’m dealing with a more theoretical issue at the moment.)
And like many beliefs, what counts is not what you profess to believe, but what actually influences your actions.
The really painful thing about this is that it doesn’t tend to be a conscious thing. It tends to live under the surface. These people honestly don’t feel that they have any racist feelings, and because of that, will probably resist (sometimes angrily) the suggestion that they might.
I think that it is perfectly normal to feel predisposed towards someone
who is similar to you – because of race, interests, class, education, etc…
Never acting on it is impossible. But striving to remain fair at all times
is what I try to do. I have caught myself going out of my way not to
appear racist, and in other cases, I have realized after the fact that I
have done things motivated by racism.
Anyone who claims different must be very different from me. I am sure
that upbringing and education, and especially exposure to multiracial
people of the same class can prevent racism from taking root in a child’s
mind. I do not think this happens that often in the States. As for myself,
it took me less than an year here to start catching myself acting on
prejudice I would have swore I did not have back in Bulgaria.
But I have to disagree with Ampersand about a white person being safer
in black neighborhoods, than a black person in a white one. I can name
off the top of my head ten places in California and South Carolina that I
could not cross on foot at 10pm without getting harassed, and very likely
attacked. I could not name one where a black person would suffer the
same fate. I am sure there are such places, but I have never known of one.
Of course, I may have been in plenty, but how would I know?
This is a very odd end to an “I must disagree…” statement.
It is, in fact, literally what someone was complaining about upthread. “I must disagree that it’s more dangerous for a black person to be in a white neighborhood than a white person to be in a black one. I know this to be true because I have been in places where it was dangerous for a white person to be, but I don’t know of any places where it’s dangerous for a black person to be. By the by, I’m white.”
The intent on the part of the individuals is unclear. Sometimes, it is undeniable mockng, sometimes masturbating, sometimes what must be a far greater tolerance (enjoyment?) for repetitive argument than I have. (Gee, Robert says thing A, RonF says thing B, Amp says thing C, and I say thing D. Wasn’t that fun? Yahoo.)
The effect of the individuals over time is, unfortunately, extremely clear. Conversations are prevented from ever retreading anything but the same territory, over and over again. And eventually progressives are driven off the site as they grow weary of throwing themselves against the same, unyielding, unchanging rhetorical walls. This allows the effect to magnify as the proportions shift.
Why does this happen here? The civility stuff. Which many of us like, on the surface. It unfortunately facilitates this style of dilettante argumentation and favors the privileged over the oppressed, for reasons enumerated previously by other posters in other threads.
All of which describes why I have not posted here in several days, and been happier for having not done so, and why I am unlikely to post here again until the moderation policy changes. As another moderator said to me the other day, this space has become what Ginmar accused it of being years ago. The signal to noise here is like listening to a channel of static.
Those who wish to discuss the moderation implications of this, rather than the implications for progressive discussion of racism and sexism, should head to an open thread. And no, I don’t consider myself obligated to answer your questions, though I may do so if I consider them worth my time.
As for the argument that “the reverse would be true” in a black neighborhood…
— i don’t get the sense that white people in a black neighborhood would be more likely to have the cops called on them just for being there.
(but racial profiling does happen to black people in white neighborhoods — this is a legacy of segregation)
Racial profiling is about how black people and other minority groups are mis-percieved by society and about how the mythology that surrounds race has a negative impact on the experience of minority groups in this country.
I think it’s crazy to suggest that driving/walking/existing in a different-race neighborhood is viewed equivalently for blacks and whites. I’m not claiming that there is zero effect on whites, but, please–are we seriously debating the different proportions? Whites don’t get arrested for walking their dogs, as a general rule, or for jogging, or parking, or driving. I’m sure there are exceptions (though as it happens I don’t personally know of any) but this basically doesn’t happen to whites, and it happens to blacks all the time. Haven’t we all read about ‘sunset’ communities? Shouldn’t we all know by now that there are entire towns where a POC will be viewed suspiciously just by existing? Don’t we all think that’s, you know, sort of freaky in the U.S., and not a good thing?
(part of it is undoubtedly classism as well. But it’s mostly racism. or racial profiling, if you prefer.)
I think Petar’s objection involved fear of black on white violence. Now, I happened to look up some data recently, and the total yearly numbers of assaults in New York City, since 1999, equaled at most about one half of one percent of the city’s population. Ditto for robberies. We know that whites often fear black violence, but the evidence of Katrina* suggests this fear can keep itself going without any need for statistically significant evidence. (See in this connection Terry stops.) I don’t think we can rule out the null hypothesis.
*”Even if our worst, darkest, most evil fears are true, even if there are uncivilized animals walking around among us in the shape of men and those animals disproportionately wear dark skin (and I don’t believe it, but even if), then America should be harshly judged by the gods for our cowardice.”
Yes, I meant the danger of violence. Like everything else, racism is a lot more
dangerous when combined with power. The power that black people in black
neighborhoods have is the power of criminal violence, as opposed to power
backed by the agents of society.
As for the fear being exaggerated, you must be kidding. Walking while white
was dangerous in quite a few black neighborhoods in Boston in the mid-nineties.
I have been personally attacked (as in having been actually touched) three
times. Once on Central Square, halfway between MIT and Harward, and once
barely out of the MIT campus itself, by a group that ended up being arrested,
and turned out to contain a MIT student. I have been insulted and harassed
every single time more than two black men have noticed me near Charles River
as I was walking back to campus after visiting my girlfriend in Jamaica Plains.
In North Carolina, I missed an exit off Independence, and had to drive through
a few blocks in broad fucking daylight. I got more stuff thrown at my truck
than I could identify. It turned out that there had been some race trouble that
week, and that I looked Hispanic enough…
In South Carolina, I was visiting a student (I was volunteering as a teacher) in
his house, because he had been injured in a car accident… as I was getting back
in my car, someone smashed a bottle which more than half-severed my finger.
Of course, there is no way to make you believe me, but in none of these cases
have I done more than walking through a place where a rational white person
would not be. I am short, I like walking, and there was a time where I cared
more about my pride than about my safety. Today, I would not walk, alone
and unarmed, across Compton at night for a million dollars.
And yes, I am well aware that I may have been in places where a black person
would be assaulted, and have no way of knowing, because I am white. That’s
why I said it. But white people do not usually have to assault black ones…
calling the cops works. I believe that given the chance, most people will act
against those who are different, and that the easier it is for them to deny their
motivation, the more likely it is that they will act on their racism.
As fas as I am concerned, the value of the above experiment is not that it shows
that white people are racists, but that it can make people aware how we lie to
ourselves. And I will refrain from my regular litany of how insulting people
is counterproductive unless you have the upper hand. I know that Mandolin
and I would not agree on methods even if we could theoretically agree on goals.
this abc study is not about Black on White violence. it’s about how perceptions of criminality are related to race.
it’s about people being unable to see white vandals as criminals even when they are committing criminal acts.
it shows that people will call the police on black people (not just black vandals), regardless of whether or not they are committing criminal acts.
on a different note:
— getting assaulted without cause and being confronted by police without cause, have different consequences.
in the first case, you might be able to press charges against the perpetrator. in the second case, you are assumed to be a perpetrator…you “fit the profile.”
— people who “fit the profile” experience a greater chance of being put in jail than those who don’t, even when crime rates are the same (as in this ABC exercise), and the statistics on racial diaparities in incarceration bear that out.
As the post about “Terry stops” mentions, irrational-seeming fear of black men plays a role in all that.
Unless you’re a Black woman.
Pingback: Thoughts on Taylor Marsh: Concern Troll? « The TM Experience