Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, April 14, 2014

Doug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway

Its unthinkable that we still find instances of discrimination against former Phillies.

A police officer from West Hartford had pulled up across the street, exited his vehicle, and begun walking in my direction. I noted the strangeness of his being in Hartford—an entirely separate town with its own police force—so I thought he needed help. He approached me with purpose, and then, without any introduction or explanation he asked, “So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?”

All of my homeowner confidence suddenly seemed like an illusion.

It would have been all too easy to play the “Do you know who I am?” game. My late father was an immigrant from Trinidad who enrolled at Howard University at age 31 and went on to become a psychiatrist. My mother was an important education reformer from the South. I graduated from an Ivy League school with an engineering degree, only to get selected in the first round of the Major League Baseball draft. I went on to play professionally for nearly 15 years, retiring into business then going on to write a book and a column for The New York Times. Today, I work at ESPN in another American dream job that lets me file my taxes under the description “baseball analyst.”

But I didn’t mention any of this to the officer. I tried to take his question at face value, explaining that the Old Tudor house behind me was my own. The more I talked, the more senseless it seemed that I was even answering the question. But I knew I wouldn’t be smiling anymore that day.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: April 14, 2014 at 08:08 PM | 576 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: connecticut, doug glanville, espn, phillies, racial profiling, racism

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 5 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 
   401. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 20, 2014 at 08:51 PM (#4689928)
And yet when the police department defended their officer's actions, and the Mayor simply asserted that in the future the police would act differently, the Glanvilles didn't object.


How could they object? They were shown to have been utterly off base in their assumption that Glanville was "racially profiled." Following the hysteria they caused -- and after the facts came in -- they learned that the cop was simply responding to a complaint that described a black man in his 40s soliciting with a snow shovel. Glanville was a black man in his 40s shoveling a driveway. The cops later found a black male fitting the description and warned him. There was no "racial profiling" at all, except to irrational people who want the cops to investigate "the person is a black male" type complaints by not stopping any black males.
   402. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 20, 2014 at 08:55 PM (#4689929)
Nor did the Glanvilles retract their untrue and excessive statements.


Yes. There was no evidence at all of racial profiling, racial bias, racism, a cop questioning a man for "shoveling while black," or anything like that.
   403. CrosbyBird Posted: April 20, 2014 at 09:01 PM (#4689931)
And I suggested that since you have no problem concluding that white people think that way, perhaps it describes you as well.

As a matter of fact, it sometimes does. I'm not color-blind, and I can't make myself color-blind. I have a number of preconceived notions about all sorts of different people based on my upbringing and my social experiences, and I have to make a conscious effort to recognize whether I'm acting on preconceptions before I speak or act.

Of course, that's almost entirely irrelevant. (I would argue that consciously considering that the world from my perspective may well not be entirely objective makes my judgment sounder than it would otherwise be.) The important thing is that it usually doesn't matter much what you think, so much as what you do.

My initial reaction was similar to Sugarbear's: what drama-queens the Glanvilles must be. Then I thought about how pissed off I'd be if a police officer approached me with the same tone. Then I thought about how, outside of when I've really been guilty of something (like speeding), no police officer has ever approached me for any reason with that sort of tone. And then I thought about how it might have just a tiny bit to do with the fact that I'm white. Then I read what the Glanville's did again, and I read the tone of his article (as opposed to merely the provocative headline). And I thought about one of my friends telling me about the time he was walking home in Scarsdale and the police interrogated him because he happened to be a black teenager.

So I think I'm right to laugh off the idea that I'm projecting some sort of personal demon onto this situation. A situation that was resolved pretty much entirely to my satisfaction by someone in authority saying "hey, maybe there's a better way to handle situations like this."
   404. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 20, 2014 at 09:12 PM (#4689938)
Then I thought about how pissed off I'd be if a police officer approached me with the same tone.

So would I. I just wouldn't attribute it to the race of the cop if he wasn't white. Which is what we're talking about here. We aren't and never were talking about "rudeness," we just had to default to that because Andy fell back to that line once he realized his "racism" angle was in full rout and retreat.

No one's begrudging Doug Glanville his general piss-offedness, and no one ever did.

no police officer has ever approached me for any reason with that sort of tone.

Really? You're lucky then. I've found them to be rude and "aggressive" at least half the time -- white and black -- and that's being charitable. It's gotten a little better as I've gotten older, I guess.
   405. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 20, 2014 at 10:27 PM (#4689978)
And yet when the police department defended their officer's actions, and the Mayor simply asserted that in the future the police would act differently, the Glanvilles didn't object.

How could they object? They were shown to have been utterly off base in their assumption that Glanville was "racially profiled." Following the hysteria they caused -- and after the facts came in -- they learned that the cop was simply responding to a complaint that described a black man in his 40s soliciting with a snow shovel.


What you conveniently forget to mention is that these facts could have been explained to the Glanvilles BEFORE the policeman presumptively "asked" him “So, you trying to make a few extra bucks, shoveling people’s driveways around here?” Apparently this would have been too much to ask.

You and your friends seem to think that the policeman had no obligation even to explain himself to a citizen, because AUTHORITY or whatever excuse you can think of. By failing to do so, the policeman was the one who set this incident in motion, but apparently policemen aren't required by you five to take responsibility for their own actions. That obligation rests solely with the Glanvilles. Nice system you've got there.

Once again: A policeman acted rudely towards an innocent citizen without any explanation or apology. The citizen and his wife raised a stink, and the situation was handled through proper channels. Only someone with some sort of a political agenda---note that I didn't say "racial"---could find anything "hysterical" about that.
   406. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 20, 2014 at 10:35 PM (#4689986)
If I am not for myself, who will be?

But if I am for myself alone, what am I?


How does that work in a legal and political frame of reference?


I'm not a lawyer. Get down to specific cases. The Glanvilles followed both parts of that sentiment in what they did: They stood up for themselves, and they stood up for others without similar advantages. This seems to bother you for reasons only you can best explain.

As a political and legal principle, I’ll go on record stating that I’m for equality before the law and in the law.

And exactly how was that violated by the outcome of this incident, other than the fact that the Glanvilles' position helped them to get redress that another citizen might not have? A fact that should in turn be redressed by treating all citizens with respect, not by giving policemen carte blanche to treat the Glanvilles rudely.
   407. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: April 20, 2014 at 11:24 PM (#4690003)
And I thought about one of my friends telling me about the time he was walking home in Scarsdale and the police interrogated him because he happened to be a black teenager.


This is impossible in today's America.
   408. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 20, 2014 at 11:46 PM (#4690009)
Yeah, everyone knows that ever since the Reverse Racism Act of 1979, the police can only interrogate blacks on TV crime shows. Stupid modern liberals!
   409. Morty Causa Posted: April 21, 2014 at 12:18 AM (#4690014)
406:

You're not a lawyer? Now, I must admit that made me smiled. Why should you take a demotion? When has that ever kept you from laying down the law? Especially when it comes to race and racism.

I told you my standards, and I've articulated them at length many times here. Don't pretend you're at a loss as to what they are. But I have no sense at all of what your standards are except that you assume an allegiance to one side that side can never do wrong.

If that's wrong, though, here's you're chance to straighten me out. Now, this is about just some vague, general moral/ethical precept. What’s the principle to be used on running a system and determining outcomes? Don’t forget to include something about how all sides in the equation are covered by that standard when there is conflict.

The unexamined life is not worth living is the saying. I just thought it might be interesting if you told us what your standards are when it comes to determining legal and public policy issues beyond simply assuming knowing superior airs that merely allow you to pretend the answer always goes without saying. How does your system work out? How is justice dispensed?
   410. Rob_Wood Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:25 AM (#4690037)

I don't know why, but the following seems germane to this thread ...

High school was a long time ago for me, but I distinctively remember a week-long role-playing game we played in Social Studies. The class was initially divided into two groups, one larger than the other. A mock economy was set up, along with law enforcement, election, and judicial systems. Large tangible rewards were well publicized for those who did the best in the game.

It did not take long for the majority (the "haves") to introduce laws, courts, and business relationships designed so that they got all the rewards and for the minority (the "have-nots") to be marginalized, jailed, and robbed of their assets.

Even though we all knew, at some level, that this was just a game, there was quite a bit of friction between the haves and the have-nots. Eventually, everything the haves did was interpreted as being prejudicial against the have-nots (even when it was not).

Of course, there were many lessons to be learned (and we spent the entirety of the following week discussing them). One of the most salient was that people in power want to maintain the society's status quo (obviously).

We learned/discussed the likes of Bull Connor, Governors Wallace, Barnett, and Faubus in the Civil Rights arena and Mayor Daley, Governor Reagan and others in the "Generation Gap" era. It was all quite stimulating, illuminating and educational. All of these status-quo bearers were fervent in their regard for the law.

So I have been skeptical of anyone who goes around saying how much they are proponents of the law, as anyone who either lived through the 1950s-1960s or has studied its history.
   411. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 06:44 AM (#4690051)
This is impossible in today's America.

It's entirely possible. Just as it's possible the cop in the Glanville case was motivated by race.

Which tells us nothing, beyond the banal and generic observation that any interaction between people of different races could have a racial component. The modern liberal obsesses about that possibility, and regularly pretends he has more evidence of racialism than actually obtains -- as the modern liberals have done here.

   412. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 21, 2014 at 07:10 AM (#4690054)
I'm saying he behaved in a way that might have been racist

There's no evidence whatsoever of this.


Does it warrant further investigation?
   413. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 21, 2014 at 07:55 AM (#4690058)
It's entirely possible. Just as it's possible the cop in the Glanville case was motivated by race.

Which tells us nothing, beyond the banal and generic observation that any interaction between people of different races could have a racial component. The modern liberal obsesses about that possibility, and regularly pretends he has more evidence of racialism than actually obtains -- as the modern liberals have done here.


No it does tell us something. You admit racism exists. You admit it is possible racism caused (perhaps only partly caused) the cops actions. Presumably you also admit that some interactions similar to the Glanville one are motivated by racism.

So what percent of interactions like this are partly motivated by racism, do you think?
What do you think an acceptable percentage for that is?
Assuming the percentage is currently higher than you would like, how do we (as a society) reduce that percentage?
   414. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 08:13 AM (#4690063)
406:

You're not a lawyer? Now, I must admit that made me smiled. Why should you take a demotion? When has that ever kept you from laying down the law? Especially when it comes to race and racism.

I told you my standards, and I've articulated them at length many times here. Don't pretend you're at a loss as to what they are. But I have no sense at all of what your standards are except that you assume an allegiance to one side that side can never do wrong.


And what side would that be, Mr. Causa? The side of the white worker who was fired when a noose was found next to a black worker's workplace during the construction of Nats' Stadium? The side of Don Imus, who was fired for his cracks about "Nappy-headed ho's?" The side of the black nationalists in the civil rights movement? The side of not calling Redskins fans "racists"** because they feel an historic attachment to their team's name? The side of class-based affirmative action in hiring, college admissions, and public funding? The side of O.J. Simpson? If I were really as race-driven as you say, my position on all of these (and other) cases would have been different from what it actually was.

Your idea of being "race-blind" boils down to little more than a willful refusal to admit how history can negatively impact the present in many racial situations. If blacks come out short because of this, your response is inevitably "This is the way it is. Deal with it, sonny." And if whites are ever called to task for anything this side of confessed and illegal racial discrimination, your response is an instinctive summoning of the Al Sharpton and "Freedom Riders" gambit.

Trying to sort out the facts and the background and come to a resolution in particular cases that would satisfy Rabbi Hillel's guidelines is an exercise that frankly seems beyond your pay scale. Even in a case like Glanville's, where the outcome seems to satisfy all the parties directly concerned, you still act as if some sort of sacred line has been crossed, simply because an assertive black man used the same grievance procedure that millions of other citizens, the vast majority of them white, have used before him. What steams you and your friends here is that this time he succeeded, and the world of reflexive "authority" that you've known and loved continues to crumble bit by bit.

**Which short of calling all white people "racists", has got to be the most overreaching accusation of racism ever posted on BTF, since it indicts millions of people indiscriminately, and without the slightest acknowledgement of the other side of the issue. And yet the loudest screamer of "racism" in that thread is one of the biggest screamers against Glanville's family in this one.
   415. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 08:20 AM (#4690068)
No it does tell us something. You admit racism exists.

Nope, no such admission. (*) I merely said that on a theoretical level, any interaction between people of different races could have a racialist or racist component.

Which flows in both directions. I'm no more interested in "investigating" "racism" where there's no evidence of it when the potential perpetrator is black than I am where he's white. Black cops have been rude to me; that hardly warrants an "investigation."

Nor am I interested in the Glanvilles being "investigated" for whether their excessive and false accusations against the white cop were racially motivated or "racist."

We all know the modern liberal's wet dream consists of white people being hauled up and being "investigated" for "racism," patent or latent, whether or not accompanied by actions showing it.(**) The question in 412 and the other comments merely prove what the sane among us already know.

(*) At least in the quoted remarks. There are certainly racists in the world, of all shapes, sizes, and colors.

(**) Earth to Andy -- this is part of the "obsession" with race you always "wonder" about.
   416. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 08:37 AM (#4690076)
Which short of calling all white people "racists", has got to be the most overreaching accusation of racism ever posted on BTF, since it indicts millions of people indiscriminately, and without the slightest acknowledgement of the other side of the issue. And yet the loudest screamer of "racism" in that thread is one of the biggest screamers against Glanville's family in this one.

The Re____ns name was put in place by a racist and is and always was a racist slur.(*) It's utterly comical that you obsess about the "other side" of that issue, and pay no attention to the "other side" in things like the Glanville matter. You literally haven't acknowledged the discussion taking place outside your narrow field of vision, and instead comforted yourself in argument with the voices in your head.

Which isn't really surprising, since you have no real principles in these matters beyond ratification of your own experiences. You experienced Deep South racism against blacks, and that remains your primary lodestar of analysis of 2014 racism (**); you've been a R______n fan and you and your friends have used and heard and celebrated the slur, and that remains your primary lodestar of analysis of the matter in 2014.

(*) The "other side" is that the name has taken on a different,non-slurrish connotation by Whitey's use of it for 70 years, a self-negating argument addressed herein at length in previous discussions.

(**) And let's be clear before the boo-hoo-hoos start -- your activism against it BITD is quite rightly a point of pride.
   417. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 08:51 AM (#4690083)
Your idea of being "race-blind" boils down to little more than a willful refusal to admit how history can negatively impact the present in many racial situations.

So how do we work the Holocaust into this? Or does that history not count?
   418. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 10:02 AM (#4690142)
The side of not calling Redskins fans "racists"** because they feel an historic attachment to their team's name?

...

**Which short of calling all white people "racists", has got to be the most overreaching accusation of racism ever posted on BTF, since it indicts millions of people indiscriminately, and without the slightest acknowledgement of the other side of the issue. And yet the loudest screamer of "racism" in that thread is one of the biggest screamers against Glanville's family in this one.
Huh. Seem to have missed that particular bit of idiocy; must have happened during my time away.
   419. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 10:06 AM (#4690149)
(*) The "other side" is that the name has taken on a different,non-slurrish connotation by Whitey's use of it for 70 years, a self-negating argument addressed herein at length in previous discussions.

The "other side" is simply that using the name "Redskins" in the context of talking about a football team doesn't make someone a "racist", whatever you think of the name itself.

Your idea of being "race-blind" boils down to little more than a willful refusal to admit how history can negatively impact the present in many racial situations.

So how do we work the Holocaust into this? Or does that history not count?


I literally have no idea where you're going with this question, but perhaps you can elaborate.
   420. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 10:08 AM (#4690152)
Huh. Seem to have missed that particular bit of idiocy; must have happened during my time away.

You would have been supremely entertained, and though I hope it doesn't disturb you to hear this, I'm pretty sure you would have been on my side in this one. I'll let SBB bring you up to speed if you haven't figured it out already.
   421. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM (#4690185)
I literally have no idea where you're going with this question, but perhaps you can elaborate.

You remarked that "history can negatively impact the present in many racial situations." How does the history of the Holocaust "negatively impact the present" in situations involving (or perceived to be involving) Jews?

It must, somehow ... right?

The "other side" is simply that using the name "Redskins" in the context of talking about a football team doesn't make someone a "racist", whatever you think of the name itself.

It makes R______n fans guilty of deploying a racial slur, in many cases knowingly.
   422. Greg K Posted: April 21, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4690207)
You remarked that "history can negatively impact the present in many racial situations." How does the history of the Holocaust "negatively impact the present" in situations involving (or perceived to be involving) Jews?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the conversation, but I would think the history of the Holocaust plays a massive, massive role in how Jewish people are perceived (and how they perceive themselves). I'm not sure there's a group of people that is more intrinsically tied, in the public mind, to their history.
   423. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4690214)
I literally have no idea where you're going with this question, but perhaps you can elaborate.

You remarked that "history can negatively impact the present in many racial situations." How does the history of the Holocaust "negatively impact the present" in situations involving (or perceived to be involving) Jews?


Virulent anti-Semitism long predated the Holocaust. For anti-semites, the Holocaust can be dismissed as "history", and for the Uncle Leos, anti-semitism can be present everywhere. Memories of the Holocaust obviously spur many people (and not just Jews) to embrace the concept of a Jewish state to a degree that they might not have in the absence of that history, and sometimes it leads some of them to use that history as a crude sledgehammer to gain favor for hard line policies. I don't think you can fit Holocaust memories into any single pre-packaged box.

The "other side" is simply that using the name "Redskins" in the context of talking about a football team doesn't make someone a "racist", whatever you think of the name itself.

It makes R______n fans guilty of deploying a racial slur, in many cases knowingly.


The number of Redskins fans I've met who "knowingly" use "Redskins" as a racial slur: Zero.

The number of Redskins fans I've met who've ever used "Redskins" in any context other than discussing the football team: Zero. This is 2014, not 1914.

None of this means that Snyder's insistence on keeping the name doesn't betray at least a bit of insensitivity. But much as I loathe Snyder for a hundred other reasons, "racist" isn't a term I'd apply to him: "Capitalist trying to preserve his investment" would be much more like it.

And BTW my favorite team is the Ravens.
   424. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: April 21, 2014 at 11:45 AM (#4690219)
But much as I loathe Snyder for a hundred other reasons, "racist" isn't a term I'd apply to him:


Oh I think there is some room to call him a racist here.
   425. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4690221)
The side of the white worker who was fired when a noose was found next to a black worker's workplace during the construction of Nats' Stadium?
Heh. That was six years ago, older than my children. Had almost forgotten it.
   426. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4690227)
Memories of the Holocaust obviously spur many people (and not just Jews) to embrace the concept of a Jewish state to a degree that they might not have in the absence of that history, and sometimes it leads some of them to use that history as a crude sledgehammer to gain favor for hard line policies.

And sometimes the history of slavery and Jim Crow causes modern liberals and others to use that history as a crude sledgehammer. As, perhaps, the Glanvilles did here.

I don't think you can fit Holocaust memories into any single pre-packaged box.

Same for Jim Crow and slavery, on all sides. Which is kind of the point some of us are trying to make. The modern liberal sure seems to have a "single pre-packaged box" in which every white-black encounter that ends in something other than breaking into Kumbaya fits, but maybe you can enlighten us on the point.

The number of Redskins fans I've met who "knowingly" use "Redskins" as a racial slur: Zero.

How so? Are they unaware that it's a racial slur? If someone's aware that something is a racial slur and they use it anyway, they've knowingly used a racial slur.





   427. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4690234)
But much as I loathe Snyder for a hundred other reasons, "racist" isn't a term I'd apply to him:

Oh I think there is some room to call him a racist here.


Could be, but I think my point about protecting his investment speaks much more to his motivations for wanting to keep the name.

The side of the white worker who was fired when a noose was found next to a black worker's workplace during the construction of Nats' Stadium?

Heh. That was six years ago, older than my children. Had almost forgotten it.


It was a useful case to illustrate where paranoia sometimes takes off from history, sort of like the case where a stink was made about the use of "niggardly" by some DC government worker.
   428. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4690240)
Memories of the Holocaust obviously spur many people (and not just Jews) to embrace the concept of a Jewish state to a degree that they might not have in the absence of that history, and sometimes it leads some of them to use that history as a crude sledgehammer to gain favor for hard line policies.

And sometimes the history of slavery and Jim Crow causes modern liberals and others to use that history as a crude sledgehammer. As, perhaps, the Glanvilles did here.


There are plenty of cases where history is used as a crude sledgehammer, and plenty of other cases where it's a useful reminder. Obviously the issue is where to draw the line.

I don't think you can fit Holocaust memories into any single pre-packaged box.

Same for Jim Crow and slavery, on all sides. Which is kind of the point some of us are trying to make. The modern liberal sure seems to have a "single pre-packaged box" in which every white-black encounter that ends in something other than breaking into Kumbaya fits, but maybe you can enlighten us on the point.


Read that thread that David linked to if you want an example of how I've addressed that.

The number of Redskins fans I've met who "knowingly" use "Redskins" as a racial slur: Zero.

How so? Are they unaware that it's a racial slur?


The answer to that is that they understand the meaning of context. You might learn to do the same.
   429. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4690268)
There are plenty of cases where history is used as a crude sledgehammer, and plenty of other cases where it's a useful reminder. Obviously the issue is where to draw the line.

And the line with the Glanville's, particularly Ms. Glanville, is on the wrong side of "crude sledgehammer," for the reasons several of us have said.

A useful rule of thumb would be that the history only becomes relevant if there is independent evidence of racialism, otherwise it's virtually always being used as a sledgehammer. Even bringing it into the conversation can be a sledgehammer -- as it was in re The Glanvilles.

The answer to that is that they understand the meaning of context. You might learn to do the same.

The context is that R_____n fans (and Whitey generally) have decided sua sponte to exonerate themselves. What other context is there? The word is a slur and there has now been sufficient notice given to users of the slur that they can be deemed to be knowing users.
   430. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 21, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4690270)
There are certainly racists in the world, of all shapes, sizes, and colors.


OK then. How about you answer the questions:

So what percent of interactions like this are partly motivated by racism, do you think?
What do you think an acceptable percentage for that is?
Assuming the percentage is currently higher than you would like, how do we (as a society) reduce that percentage?
   431. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4690286)

OK then. How about you answer the questions:

So what percent of interactions like this are partly motivated by racism, do you think?
What do you think an acceptable percentage for that is?
Assuming the percentage is currently higher than you would like, how do we (as a society) reduce that percentage?


I'd just as soon not base policy decisions on a trumped up "incident" of which there is zero evidence of racism, racial bias, or racial profiling. Instead, it seems quite clear that this became an "incident" due mainly to the hysteria of Glanville's ever-connected wife, who fired off her "shoveling while black" e-mail to her senator-friend despite not having any facts from law enforcement as to the reason for the officer's question, and through that email was able to secure preferential treatment for her and her husband, the likes of which 99.X% of people never see.

Your inquiries read more like this progression:

"Racism!!!!"
"No, there's no evidence of that. Here's what happened."
"Well, let's pretend then that it was motivated by racism. How should we address that pretend version of what happened?"
   432. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 12:58 PM (#4690289)
How so? Are they unaware that it's a racial slur? If someone's aware that something is a racial slur and they use it anyway, they've knowingly used a racial slur.
If a race is slurred in a forest and no one is there, is it a slur?
   433. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4690296)
I'd just as soon not base policy decisions on a trumped up "incident" of which there is zero evidence of racism, racial bias, or racial profiling.


Answering some simple questions about someone's opinions regarding the prevalence, acceptability and possible methods to reduce racism is "Policy"? Individual incidents are commonly used to spark a broader discussion about topics.
   434. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:08 PM (#4690303)
Individual incidents are commonly used to spark a broader discussion about topics.

OK, then how in the future should we treat people who act like the Glanvilles did? And who's to blame for their actions -- they themselves, or modern liberals?

Those are the salient topics raised by this episode, which as Ray noted doesn't bring anything regarding "racism" to the fore. You might as well have said, "I see that you had a chicken sandwich for lunch, now how do you propose we reduce racism???"
   435. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4690310)
Andy has been focusing on the fact that the cop could have phrased his question less rudely. Well, what about Mrs. Glanville, who could have asked for the actual facts of the matter from law enforcement before firing off her "shoveling while black" email? What about Doug Glanville himself, who, even after having all of the facts and being aware that there wasn't the slightest evidence of racism or racial profiling, decided to pen a column about how he was racially profiled in his driveway?
   436. GregD Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:21 PM (#4690319)
OK, then how in the future should we treat people who act like the Glanvilles did?
People who shovel their driveways?

People who contact elected officials?

Andy has been focusing on the fact that the cop could have phrased his question less rudely. Well, what about Mrs. Glanville, who could have asked for the actual facts of the matter from law enforcement before firing off her "shoveling while black" email? What about Doug Glanville himself, who, even after having all of the facts and being aware that there wasn't the slightest evidence of racism or racial profiling, decided to pen a column about how he was racially profiled in his driveway?
The differential rates at which black people are stopped by the police, arrested upon stops, and subject to violence are well-documented, and exist even after controlling for differential neighborhood patterns and differential crime rates. The age of first encounter with police differs dramatically for blacks and whites.

Police departments were trained to keep blacks out of particular neighborhoods explicitly.

None of this is in dispute.

But in the face of a homeowner getting questioned for being black, your goal is to denounce them for responding by contacting an elected official?
   437. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4690320)
Answering some simple questions about someone's opinions regarding the prevalence, acceptability and possible methods to reduce racism is "Policy"?


Umm, yes? Is this a trick question? You offered a discussion on policy, i.e., how to deal with racism in these "interactions" despite zero evidence that there was racism involved here. I didn't expect that the things we said here in reply would immediately been enacted into law, if that's what your point is.

   438. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4690321)
Andy has been focusing on the fact that the cop could have phrased his question less rudely. Well, what about Mrs. Glanville, who could have asked for the actual facts of the matter from law enforcement before firing off her "shoveling while black" email? What about Doug Glanville himself, who, even after having all of the facts and being aware that there wasn't the slightest evidence of racism or racial profiling, decided to pen a column about how he was racially profiled in his driveway?

Replete with all the buzzwords in the modern liberal template -- the "offense" he took, his "justifiable outrage," how am I going to explain police treatment to my kids and otherwise have "the talk," how his experience makes "class and race barriers" more "impenetrable," how the officer still has the potential to be "unbiased," yadda yadda.

   439. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4690323)
But in the face of a homeowner getting questioned for being black

Premise fail.

All the rest of your post is a species of collective guilt, of the type that would let us conclude a black person is a criminal because people of his race are more likely to be criminals. Either we're judging people as individuals and incidents on their own facts -- all people and all incidents -- or we're not.(*) Which is it?

(*) My vote: We are.
   440. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4690324)
But in the face of a homeowner getting questioned for being black,


This is hopelessly misleading, and essentially dishonest. He was questioned because he fit a description (black male in his 40s) of a principal of a complaint. He was even holding a shovel.

your goal is to denounce them for responding by contacting an elected official?


I criticized his wife for rushing to judgment despite not having all of the relevant facts, and I criticized him for writing that he was a victim of racial profiling despite knowing that he was not. THOSE things are what the Glanvilles should "explain" to their children. Unfortunately, it seems clear that their "explanations" were of a different nature.
   441. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4690325)
Those are the salient topics raised by this episode, which as Ray noted doesn't bring anything regarding "racism" to the fore. You might as well have said, "I see that you had a chicken sandwich for lunch, now how do you propose we reduce racism???"


So basically I asked a couple questions that terrify you (and Ray) and so you run at high speed from them.

You admitted racism exists. You said it was possible racism was part of this event. this whole thread has talked about the event in terms or racism or a lack therein. So why is it crazy to ask your feelings in general about racism.

How often does racism influence events like this? Is that a reasonable level for society to tolerate? in general, in the past and going forward what techniques are effective at reducing racism?

These are not trick questions and they are not irrelevant to the thread.
   442. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:30 PM (#4690332)
So basically I asked a couple questions that terrify you (and Ray) and so you run at high speed from them.

You admitted racism exists. You said it was possible racism was part of this event. this whole thread has talked about the event in terms or racism or a lack therein. So why is it crazy to ask your feelings in general about racism.

How often does racism influence events like this? Is that a reasonable level for society to tolerate? in general, in the past and going forward what techniques are effective at reducing racism?

These are not trick questions and they are not irrelevant to the thread.


The conversation moved beyond your irrelevant "questions" long ago. You don't get to scream "racism," get called on it, and then demand that people drop everything and answer your questions about racism.
   443. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:34 PM (#4690338)
The conversation moved beyond your irrelevant "questions" long ago. You don't get to scream "racism," get called on it, and then demand that people drop everything and answer your questions about racism.


Where exactly did I scream racism? And then "get called on it"?

But yeah, clearly my questions confuse and frighten you. I did not demand you drop anything, and in fact you could have answered the questions in place of the "I am too scared to answer your questions" posts you did make.
   444. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:35 PM (#4690341)
You admitted racism exists. You said it was possible racism was part of this event.


It's "possible" that the cop had it in for people who painted their houses green. But absent any evidence of that, it's silly to conclude that as a reasonable possibility.

We know there was an actual complaint. We know the complaint described a black male in his 40s. We know that Glanville is a black male in his 40s. We know that the cops later located what appears to be the actual subject of the complaint, a black male in his 40s who was soliciting shoveling, and warned him.

We know that the cop, after getting Glanville's answer, turned around and left. We know that the cop didn't ask for ID; didn't frisk him; didn't cuff him; didn't arrest him; didn't beat him. It appears that when law enforcement located the actual subject of the complaint, they simply warned him without incident.

So the "possibility" that racism (or anything) played a role here always exists, but it's not a reasonable possibility given everything that we know.
   445. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4690345)
But yeah, clearly my questions confuse and frighten you.

Yeah, clearly.

So what should we do to prevent actions like the Glanvilles' from repeating themselves? Certainly you can't be in favor of such things. Or are you?
   446. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:45 PM (#4690353)
Racism harms society. And false charges of racism harm society.

False charges of racism also have the effect of getting people to take less seriously real charges of racism. One should think that would be self evident.
   447. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 01:53 PM (#4690359)
There are plenty of cases where history is used as a crude sledgehammer, and plenty of other cases where it's a useful reminder. Obviously the issue is where to draw the line.

And the line with the Glanville's, particularly Ms. Glanville, is on the wrong side of "crude sledgehammer," for the reasons several of us have said.

A useful rule of thumb would be that the history only becomes relevant if there is independent evidence of racialism, otherwise it's virtually always being used as a sledgehammer. Even bringing it into the conversation can be a sledgehammer -- as it was in re The Glanvilles.


Glanville's evidence of relevance is that the policeman accused him of solicitation without even explaining to him that there'd been a complaint about anything, and didn't apologize after the facts had been explained to him. Glanville also isn't blind to the fact that policemen often act differently towards blacks than whites.

Again, if the policeman had acted differently to begin with, the incident would have ended right there. This policeman may possibly treat all people he encounters with equal brusqueness, but if that had been the case in a neighborhood like Glanvilles, I strongly doubt that he wouldn't have been subject to complaints before.

And again I note that Glanville's neighbors supported him. Must be nothing but a bunch of modern liberals, no other possible explanation.

The answer to that is that they understand the meaning of context. You might learn to do the same.

The context is that R_____n fans (and Whitey generally) have decided sua sponte to exonerate themselves. What other context is there? The word is a slur and there has now been sufficient notice given to users of the slur that they can be deemed to be knowing users.


I love the way that this self-professed racially calm and objective Primate thinks that throwing around "Whitey" in a non-ironic way is supposed to advance the conversation. Perhaps you should change your moniker to "The Id of H. Rap Brown, Official BTF Monitor of Racially Insensitive Language."
   448. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 21, 2014 at 02:10 PM (#4690373)
So what should we do to prevent actions like the Glanvilles' from repeating themselves? Certainly you can't be in favor of such things. Or are you?


What actions specifically?

Racism harms society. And false charges of racism harm society.


So what is the relative ratio between actual racism and false charges of racism? Has it changed in the past 10, 20, 50 years? What caused this change in ratio, racism decreasing, false charges increasing, or both? Are the damages from racism and false racism the same in type and amount of harm, or is there a qualitative difference between them?
   449. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4690378)
And again I note that Glanville's neighbors supported him. Must be nothing but a bunch of modern liberals, no other possible explanation.


Yes, none of their neighbors told them "You have created a racial incident out of whole cloth." Shocking.

What's happened here is that the Glanvilles, in their rush to claim that they had been victims of racism, didn't stop to realize - or frankly even to care - that the whole "racism" element was missing.

But the rush to declare oneself a Victim is, unfortunately, nothing new. Take the "Boston Strong" thing. There's something sort of cult-ish about it. And it feels like a bizarre push from people who were not affected by the tragedy to brand themselves some combination of victims and survivors. It also seems a bit pointless. I mean, the bombings happened, and innocent people were victimized, some killed, and there are stories of people coming together and helping each other and overcoming.... Not to sound crass, but what else would we expect? Would people in Seattle have reacted differently? Houston? Denmark? The phrase "Boston Strong" seems to impute something special about the people of Boston -- something that gives them a higher character -- as opposed to people in any other civilized city. But when tragedies happen in any city, people respond similarly.

(As well, I can't figure out why "Boston Strong" involves or relates to the Red Sox, who just happened to be in the same city playing a silly game and by sheer coincidence happened to win the World Series in the same year that the bombings happened. But yet we had to withstand endless linking of the Red Sox World Series win to the marathon bombings via "Boston Strong," and the Red Sox themselves were happy to credit themselves saviors of the city.)
   450. GregD Posted: April 21, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4690380)
All the rest of your post is a species of collective guilt, of the type that would let us conclude a black person is a criminal because people of his race are more likely to be criminals. Either we're judging people as individuals and incidents on their own facts -- all people and all incidents -- or we're not.(*) Which is it?
Pointing out that police departments explicitly, as policy, instructed officers to keep blacks out of areas, and then continued to have disproportionate records of stopping black people once they policies "disappeared" is the same thing as enacting those policies themselves? Brilliant! Orwell regrets he died too soon to see this sophistry.

What's especially amusing about the fainting couches on display here is that nothing in the articles suggest the Glanvilles sought to punish the officer or name him. But we can't even engage with policies and procedures, lest someone somewhere read that as an accusation, unmade, of personal racism. The only thing we have to fear is the possibility that someone could interpret a reform as a claim of racism

   451. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 02:22 PM (#4690391)
What's especially amusing about the fainting couches on display here is that nothing in the articles suggest the Glanvilles sought to punish the officer or name him.


Laughable. The Glanvilles had a senator, the chief of local police, local attorneys, security officers from the neighborhood civic association, people at a Town Hall meeting, all discussing what should be done in the aftermath of the cop allegedly questioning Glanville for "shoveling while black." They had internal affairs scrutinizing the cop's actions to recommend him for punishment if warranted. (None was warranted, which kind of gets glossed over.)

But I'm sure the cop wasn't "named" throughout all of these discussions. Sure.

You're not a serious person in discussing this.
   452. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 02:35 PM (#4690412)
The Glanvilles had a senator, the chief of local police, local attorneys, security officers from the neighborhood civic association, people at a Town Hall meeting, all discussing what should be done in the aftermath of the cop allegedly questioning Glanville for "shoveling while black." They had internal affairs scrutinizing the cop's actions to recommend him for punishment if warranted. (None was warranted, which kind of gets glossed over.)

And the end result of all this horror was----the police were told to clean up their act. Oh, the humanity!

As for all the subject of "Boston Strong" overkill, I'll let you take that up with Red Sox fans. All I know about Boston right now is that Pedroia died on third, thank God.
   453. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 02:38 PM (#4690414)
And the end result of all this horror was----


That a cop was smeared as a racist.
   454. CrosbyBird Posted: April 21, 2014 at 02:40 PM (#4690419)
The "other side" is simply that using the name "Redskins" in the context of talking about a football team doesn't make someone a "racist", whatever you think of the name itself.

Andy, I usually have a very high level of respect for your civil rights advocacy, but I think you're really on the wrong side here. The team name is a harmful slur in the eyes of a very marginalized group. So if you support the name, you're supporting something that is harmful to people.

In fact, the worst part is that Native Americans are so marginalized that a lot of people don't even think of how awful a slur the team name is. Let's not forget that it wasn't so long ago that people were buying Darkie Toothpaste or Niggerhair cigarettes, or getting a family-friendly meal at the Coon Chicken Inn. I don't see how a person could be uncomfortable with those names and have such a blind spot for the Washington Redskins or Chief Wahoo.

I don't know that you have to be "a" racist to be okay with stuff, but you have to at least be willfully blind to the racism of others. In fact, I can't think of anything that approaches the overt racism that is tolerated to the degree that we tolerate Native American slurs and cultural appropriation. I guess we did a much better job of keeping the red man in his place than we did the black man in this country.
   455. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 02:41 PM (#4690422)
And the end result of all this horror was----

That a cop was smeared as a racist.


In a sense, the shoveling incident was a painful reminder of something I’ve always known: My biggest challenge as a father will be to help my kids navigate a world where being black is both a source of pride and a reason for caution. I want them to have respect for the police, but also a healthy fear—at least as long as racial profiling continues to be an element of law enforcement. But I also want them to go into the world with a firm sense of their own self-worth.

After talking to my own mother, I found myself thinking back to something that happened at summer camp when I was 5 years old, my son’s age now. During one exercise, we were asked to form a circle, and the boy next to me recoiled, saying, “I don’t hold hands with darkies!” I could have felt humiliated, but I just shrugged the whole thing off. It seemed obvious that he had the problem, not me.

My parents had instilled this confidence in me since birth. They’d given me pride in my ancestry and raised me in Teaneck, New Jersey, a diverse community whose school district was the first in the nation to voluntarily integrate. I’d grown up seeing all kinds of people treat each other with a respect that transcended race, religion, class, and every other social or demographic construct.

That upbringing is what enabled me to deal with this incident in a slow, communicative, and methodical way. And it now allows me to see the potential in the officer who approached me. He’s still young, and one day he could become a leading advocate for unbiased policing practices. But I wish he would sit down with my kids and answer their questions. That might help him understand how hard it is to be a father—let alone a father in a black family. And I’d like him to know how much my children—and all children—expect from the officers trained to protect them. At the end of all my conversations with my kids, there were many things they still didn’t understand. But my 5-year-old son reassured me: “That’s okay, Dad. I still want to be a police officer.”


What a monster is this monster, Doug Glanville.
   456. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4690432)
How does the portion you quote refute my statement that the cop was smeared as a racist?

And if apologies are what you are seeking, then sure, the cop could issue one to the Glanvilles for asking a question rudely. But if apologies are what you are seeking, then the Glanvilles should apologize for doing something worse: smearing the cop as a racist. ("Shoveling while black.")

Agreed? As long as apologies are in order should the Glanvilles apologize to the cop, in your view?
   457. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4690433)
The "other side" is simply that using the name "Redskins" in the context of talking about a football team doesn't make someone a "racist", whatever you think of the name itself.

Andy, I usually have a very high level of respect for your civil rights advocacy, but I think you're really on the wrong side here. The team name is a harmful slur in the eyes of a very marginalized group. So if you support the name, you're supporting something that is harmful to people.


I don't have any problem with changing the name, but calling football fans "racists" who disagree is not only wrong but stupidly counterproductive.

I don't know that you have to be "a" racist to be okay with stuff, but you have to at least be willfully blind to the racism of others.

The "willfully" part presumes the worst in people, a presumption I'm not inclined to agree with. Is it necessarily "racist" for a white person to say "black boy" when referring to a high school student? The word is loaded with nasty history, but the person using it may be wholly innocent of malicious intent. Same thing for an older black person who uses "white boy" to describe a white adult who's half his age. Sometimes an age description is just an age description.

The problem is that there's no simple hard and fast rule or metric to determine "racist" intent. You really do have to know a person's history before making that sort of a snap judgment. In the West Hartford case, Glanville noted the racial history that led up to his interpretation of his encounter with the policeman, but he didn't call the policeman a "racist", because he understands the distinction. I don't know why this sort of thing seems so hard for some people here (not you) to understand, but knowing their history here, I suspect it has much to do with their personal issues with liberals, modern and otherwise.
   458. GregD Posted: April 21, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4690437)
That a cop was smeared as a racist.
Where is the evidence of this? Does Glanville use his name? Has Glanville requested the cop be disciplined?

Your unserious position is that it is immoral to consider any policy changes lest those changes be read as suggesting that someone was racist in the past.
   459. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4690439)
How does the portion you quote refute my statement that the cop was smeared as a racist?

And if apologies are what you are seeking, then sure, the cop could issue one to the Glanvilles for asking a question rudely. But if apologies are what you are seeking, then the Glanvilles should apologize for doing something worse: smearing the cop as a racist. ("Shoveling while black.")

Agreed? As long as apologies are in order should the Glanvilles apologize to the cop, in your view?


Again, the contention is over actions, and in using "shoveling while black", Glanville described a variant of a problem with an unfortunately long history. He never called the policeman a racist, but if he had, of course he'd owe him an apology. But he didn't call him any such thing.

I also don't see any personal apology by the policeman to Glanville, which is also fine, since the point of the protest was about future actions, not humiliating any individual. That point was explicitly stated by Glanville in his article.
   460. JE (Jason) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4690441)
The phrase "Boston Strong" seems to impute something special about the people of Boston -- something that gives them a higher character -- as opposed to people in any other civilized city. But when tragedies happen in any city, people respond similarly.

I would hope the authorities in my city wouldn't respond to a manhunt for a single individual by ordering hundreds of thousands of citizens not to leave their houses for 24 hours.
   461. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4690445)
Andy, I usually have a very high level of respect for your civil rights advocacy, but I think you're really on the wrong side here. The team name is a harmful slur in the eyes of a very marginalized group. So if you support the name, you're supporting something that is harmful to people.

In fact, the worst part is that Native Americans are so marginalized that a lot of people don't even think of how awful a slur the team name is.
Including Indians¹ themselves! Notwithstanding the efforts of a handful of activists, the handful of relevant polls that have been done Indians don't think of it as a slur, either. And a slur isn't a slur if people don't think of it as one.


¹ Polls show a small preference for that term over "Native American."
   462. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4690446)
To me "Redskins" is like "Blue Jays" or "White Sox" or "Giants." I don't associate the name with Indians when I hear the name. And the only time I ever see or hear anyone discussing "Redskins" they're either talking about the team or about the racial issue.

It seems much ado about nothing.

Is it more the logo that offends people?
   463. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 21, 2014 at 03:41 PM (#4690468)
Is it more the logo that offends people?


Can't really see anything wrong with the logo itself, at least not when compared to Cleveland, of course as someone whose ancestry is 100% Irish should I be offended by this?

Seriously, while "redskins" sounds like a slur to my North Eastern Liberal eardrums, if the Amerindians themselves don't care who am I to care on their behalf?
   464. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 21, 2014 at 03:56 PM (#4690479)
If a race is slurred in a forest and no one is there, is it a slur?


Try it! Go to Yellowstone National Park, hike into the deep wilderness, smear yourself with raw hamburger (just for fun),start slurring, and wait a few hours.
   465. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 04:11 PM (#4690488)
of course as someone whose ancestry is 100% Irish should I be offended by this?

For "Irish" logos, I've always liked this one. Only person I ever heard complain about it was an underachieving 7'1" black dude from Overbrook High in Philly.
   466. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 21, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4690495)
underachieving 7'1" black dude from Overbrook High in Philly.
4 NBA MVP awards, 2 NBA championship rings, University of Kansas All American, MVP of the NCAA Final Four, 3 Big Seven high jump championships, Basketball Hall of Fame, Volleyball Hall of Fame, 20,000 women sexed.
   467. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4690503)
But still only 2 rings. Eat your heart out.

P.S. I hope you're not really taking this seriously.
   468. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: April 21, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4690508)
Is it more the logo that offends people?


No, the name "Redskins" and the logo for the Cleveland Indians are the offensive parts. If the name "Indians" were paired up with the Redskins' logo, things would be fine.
   469. CrosbyBird Posted: April 21, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4690509)
The "willfully" part presumes the worst in people, a presumption I'm not inclined to agree with. Is it necessarily "racist" for a white person to say "black boy" when referring to a high school student? The word is loaded with nasty history, but the person using it may be wholly innocent of malicious intent. Same thing for an older black person who uses "white boy" to describe a white adult who's half his age. Sometimes an age description is just an age description.

The "willfully" comes up when it has been brought to your attention and you trivialize it. If I find out that a significant number (which may or may not be a majority) of black high school students would consider it insulting for me to refer to them as "black boy," then it's up to me to decide what sort of person I want to be.

For the team name, I center less on the idea that Redskins fans are horrible racists, and more on the idea that the Redskins name is hurtful to a significant group of people. I'm not angry at Redskins fans or think they're evil. It's more embarrassment at the defense of the name than anything else. I'd like to think in this day and age that we'd know better.

Including Indians¹ themselves! Notwithstanding the efforts of a handful of activists, the handful of relevant polls that have been done Indians don't think of it as a slur, either. And a slur isn't a slur if people don't think of it as one.

I'm aware that a majority of people, and even a majority of NA/Indians don't have serious problems with the Redskins name. But there are people who do, and it's not four hypersensitive lunatics in the corner. Last I heard, something like 79% of people don't favor a name change, but I don't know the exact question on the poll. If the question is "should the Redskins change their name?" I'm with the 21%; if it's "should the NFL require the Redskins to change their name?" or "should the Redskins be forced to change their name?" I'm with the 79%.
   470. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 05:07 PM (#4690532)
The "willfully" comes up when it has been brought to your attention and you trivialize it. If I find out that a significant number (which may or may not be a majority) of black high school students would consider it insulting for me to refer to them as "black boy," then it's up to me to decide what sort of person I want to be.

I suspect you'd find a lot fewer black high school students who'd take offense at being called "boy" than you'd find Indians / Native Americans who'd take offense at hearing you discuss an upcoming Redskins-Cowboys game. OTOH I think you'd see that percentage in the latter group soar to nearly 100% if you called them "Redskins", because in that case the context would be completely different.

For the team name, I center less on the idea that Redskins fans are horrible racists, and more on the idea that the Redskins name is hurtful to a significant group of people. I'm not angry at Redskins fans or think they're evil. It's more embarrassment at the defense of the name than anything else. I'd like to think in this day and age that we'd know better.

I don't find anything a bit unreasonable about that take, but IMO it's more like the dispute between using "black" vs "Negro" in the mid-60's, when the use of the two terms split the AA community down the middle, than it is about equating the name of the Redskins football team, used only in the context of discussing football, to the use of the N-word.

Now in the years to come it may be different, as general usage can change over time, as we've seen with the name favored by black Americans over the years. But at this point I hardly think that it's all that clear cut when the Indian community itself is still divided over (or indifferent about) the issue.
   471. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4690534)
I'm aware that a majority of people, and even a majority of NA/Indians don't have serious problems with the Redskins name. But there are people who do, and it's not four hypersensitive lunatics in the corner.

I've never said that it was, but it doesn't mean that the 21% (or whatever) are necessarily right. I'd rather see it play out within the Indian community and then respect whatever decision evolves into a broad consensus, which up to now it hasn't. This is pretty much exactly why, to use my previous analogy, nearly nobody uses "Negro" today in other than air quotes contexts.
   472. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4690539)
I'm aware that a majority of people, and even a majority of NA/Indians don't have serious problems with the Redskins name. But there are people who do, and it's not four hypersensitive lunatics in the corner.
Yeah; it's one hypersensative lunatic; this whole non-controversy has been driven by one person, Suzan Harjo. But your original post didn't say, "have problems with"; it said, "how awful a slur" it is. If it were really that awful a slur -- if it were the equivalent of the n-word, as some have suggested -- you wouldn't get any support from Indians beyond rounding error.

Last I heard, something like 79% of people don't favor a name change, but I don't know the exact question on the poll.
For that poll, the question was, "Some people say that the Washington Redskins should change its team name because it is offensive to native American Indians. Others say the name is not intended to be offensive, and should not be changed. What about you: Should the Redskins change their team name, or not?" That gave 79/11/10 for Yes/No/Don't Know or No Response. That was directed to the general public.

The 2004 Annenberg poll, directed to Indians, asked, “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?” The split was 90/9/1 No/Yes/No Response.

I haven't found the exact wording of the 2002 SI poll, but it was reported thusly: "Asked if they were offended by the name Redskins, 75% of Native American respondents in SI's poll said they were not, and even on reservations, where Native American culture and influence are perhaps felt most intensely, 62% said they weren't offended. Overall, 69% of Native American respondents—and 57% of those living on reservations—feel it's O.K. for theWashington Redskins to continue using the name. .. Only 29% of Native Americans, and 40% living on reservations, thought Snyder should change his team's name. "
   473. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 21, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4690556)
P.S. I hope you're not really taking this seriously.
I never take your assessments of Wilt seriously :)
   474. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 05:53 PM (#4690570)
Again, the contention is over actions, and in using "shoveling while black", Glanville described a variant of a problem with an unfortunately long history.

And said it applied to him and his encounter with the policeman, when it did not.

He never called the policeman a racist, but if he had, of course he'd owe him an apology. But he didn't call him any such thing.

He didn't call him that exact word, but he did say/strongly infer that the policeman was racially biased in his treatment of him -- see, e.g., his statement that he holds out hope, given the officer's youth that he can learn to be "unbiased" in his policing.(*) There's no evidence that is the case.

(*) Thus making yours a distinction without a difference.
   475. Srul Itza Posted: April 21, 2014 at 07:10 PM (#4690621)
To me "Redskins" is like "Blue Jays" or "White Sox" or "Giants." I don't associate the name with Indians when I hear the name.


Sounds like a gap in your programming. Time to upgrade.
   476. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 07:27 PM (#4690627)
Sounds like a gap in your programming. Time to upgrade.


That's original. Did you think it up all by yourself, or did the guys in your frat house help you?
   477. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 07:59 PM (#4690650)
Again, the contention is over actions, and in using "shoveling while black", Glanville described a variant of a problem with an unfortunately long history.

And said it applied to him and his encounter with the policeman, when it did not.


But you have absolutely no way of knowing this. You have no idea how this policeman approached white misdemeanor suspects. Neither did Glanville, but he had a fair amount of history on his side in making his assumption, not to mention once again that his motive in bringing his encounter to greater attention was to deter future incidents like this, not to punish anyone.

He never called the policeman a racist, but if he had, of course he'd owe him an apology. But he didn't call him any such thing.

He didn't call him that exact word, but he did say/strongly infer that the policeman was racially biased in his treatment of him -- see, e.g., his statement that he holds out hope, given the officer's youth that he can learn to be "unbiased" in his policing.(*) There's no evidence that is the case.

(*) Thus making yours a distinction without a difference.


In fact Glanville said that he hoped that the policeman "could become a leading advocate for unbiased policing practices." He never attacked the policeman personally, never called him a "racist", and in fact never even called him out by name, which would have been easy to do if he had been seeking to humiliate him before the greater community. The truth is that no matter how strenuously you try to paint Glanville as some sort of rabblerouser with a streak of gratuitous vindictiveness, the facts just don't back you up.
   478. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 21, 2014 at 08:11 PM (#4690657)
Neither did Glanville, but he had a fair amount of history on his side in making his assumption

In other words, he made the paradigmatic "sledgehammer" use of history -- assuming racial animus in people without evidence, and seeking sympathy (*) therefor.

In fact Glanville said that he hoped that the policeman "could become a leading advocate for unbiased policing practices."

Thus clearly implying that he'd used biased policing practices in his interaction with Glanville. If that wasn't the implication, there would be no need for the word "become." On the record as it stands, and as was known to Glanville ex-incident, the policeman already was an advocate and practitioner of unbiased policing practices.

Not that that line was the only one. The litany has already been recited -- "justifiable outrage," "offense," etc, etc -- words that only apply to situations where the writer assumes racial animus. It's hard to believe you're still pretending Glanville wasn't writing as if he'd been the object of racial profiling/animus, since he obviously was.

(*) And I do sympathize with him to a degree -- it's never easy dealing with a rude policeman, regardless of race.
   479. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 08:17 PM (#4690663)
And said it applied to him and his encounter with the policeman, when it did not.

But you have absolutely no way of knowing this. You have no idea how this policeman approached white misdemeanor suspects. Neither did Glanville, but he had a fair amount of history on his side in making his assumption, not to mention once again that his motive in bringing his encounter to greater attention was to deter future incidents like this, not to punish anyone.


Do you understand how despicable it is to make a serious charge without evidence to support it?

To use frivolous subject matter as an example, let's say I accuse Mariano Rivera of using steroids. "You have absolutely no way of knowing" that Mariano Rivera did not use steroids. "You have no idea" what Rivera did when nobody was watching. "Neither do I, but I have a fair amount of history on my side in making my assumption" (the prevalence of steroids in MLB during the time period Rivera played), "not to mention once again that my motive in accusing Rivera" is not to smear him specifically, "but to deter future players from using steroids, not to punish anyone."

In fact Glanville said that he hoped that the policeman "could become a leading advocate for unbiased policing practices." He never attacked the policeman personally, never called him a "racist", and in fact never even called him out by name, which would have been easy to do if he had been seeking to humiliate him before the greater community.


This might be the most ridiculous thing you've ever said. The Glanvilles had a senator, the chief of local police, local attorneys, security officers from the neighborhood civic association, people at a Town Hall meeting, all discussing what should be done in the aftermath of the cop allegedly questioning Glanville for "shoveling while black." They had internal affairs scrutinizing the cop's actions to recommend him for punishment if warranted. Glanville himself publicized the non-incident to the world in a newspaper column, approvingly quoting his wife's "shoveling while black" email, while painting himself as a victim of racial profiling.

Glanville "never called the cop a racist?" What does accusing a cop of questioning someone for "shoveling while black" suggest to you?

And the despicable thing is that Glanville knew, by the time he wrote his column, that the cop was investigating a specific complaint and had a legitimate reason for questioning him and that there was no evidence of racism or racial profiling. At least his wife's "shoveling while black" email was sent in a moment of anger before she had all the necessary facts. Glanville has no such excuse. And yet he re-printed his wife's e-mail containing her erroneous conclusion and painted himself as a victim of racial profiling anyway.
   480. CrosbyBird Posted: April 21, 2014 at 09:02 PM (#4690698)
The 2004 Annenberg poll, directed to Indians, asked, “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?” The split was 90/9/1 No/Yes/No Response.

Let's say nothing has changed, and the sub-800 people polled were indeed representative. That's still around 500,000 people that find the name offensive.

That sounds like a lot of people to me. I'm not saying we need to pass laws or force the NFL to do anything, but I think it's really insensitive to say that all those people are paper-thin sensitive and should be ignored. For the sake of a football team's name.
   481. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 10:37 PM (#4690786)
Give it up, SBB and Ray. You keep repeating the same points and getting more worked up with each successive post. I'm sure you've convinced those who already agree with you. But keep repeating your talking points ten more times if it makes you feel any better, which clearly it does, and declare yourselves the winners if it'll help you sleep more soundly.

Meanwhile, life goes on, the West Haven police department is a little wiser than it was before, and I seriously doubt if this policeman is half as angry at Glanville as you are. He's young and can learn from his mistake, which is more than I can probably say for the two of you, given the increasingly hysterical tone of your comments.

   482. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 10:40 PM (#4690788)
That sounds like a lot of people to me. I'm not saying we need to pass laws or force the NFL to do anything, but I think it's really insensitive to say that all those people are paper-thin sensitive and should be ignored. For the sake of a football team's name.

Just for the record, though I'm not convinced the name needs to be changed, I don't think that the people protesting the name are paper-thin sensitive. As I said above, I see it more like the old "Negro" vs "black" split than anything else, a dispute that time will almost certainly settle one way or another.
   483. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 21, 2014 at 10:51 PM (#4690804)
That sounds like a lot of people to me. I'm not saying we need to pass laws or force the NFL to do anything, but I think it's really insensitive to say that all those people are paper-thin sensitive and should be ignored.
Not to sound like Sam, but I think sensitive people should be ignored as long as possible, and then forcibly desensitized. Repeatedly.
   484. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 21, 2014 at 11:10 PM (#4690813)
Not to sound like Sam, but I think sensitive people should be ignored as long as possible, and then forcibly desensitized. Repeatedly.

I'd settle for the government stealing about another 30% of your life, which we could label a Sensitivity Test. You could then choose to ignore yourself if you flunked.
   485. Rob_Wood Posted: April 22, 2014 at 01:47 AM (#4690854)

I cannot believe the vitriol some have brought to this thread. This minor incident brought up bad "memories" to Glanville and his family, so they brought attention to the issues involved as they pertain to police behavior. The result was that there was an investigation into what happened, the mayor publicly apologized to Glanville, and the police force was reminded again what is proper procedure.

To those questioning whether "racism" was involoved, I honestly don't think so. But there are sub-forms of behavior which adversely take race into account where not appropriate. Imagine that the original complaint was that a white man in his 40s and wearing a blue coat was going around the neighborhood soliciting snow shoveling jobs. Suppose the same cop came across one of Glanville's neighbors out shoveling his driveway in a blue coat. What do you think the cop would have done or said?
   486. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 05:47 AM (#4690868)
Meanwhile, life goes on, the West Haven police department is a little wiser than it was before, and I seriously doubt if this policeman is half as angry at Glanville as you are.

No one's "angry." That's yet another effort to deflect attention from the substance of the matter.

"Life goes on" with another phony, divisive claim of "racism" standing uncorrected and unamended on the public record -- with the full support of the racially divisive modern liberal contingent.
   487. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 07:42 AM (#4690879)
Meanwhile, life goes on, the West Haven police department is a little wiser than it was before, and I seriously doubt if this policeman is half as angry at Glanville as you are.

No one's "angry."


You sure could have fooled a lot of people here with your rhetoric, but then self-reflection has never been one of your strong points.

Meanwhile, since many of the usual suspects here have shed copious crocodile tears about how the policeman's name and reputation have been thrown to the wolves, I challenge anyone here to find his name anywhere online, either posted by his detractors or his supporters. Good day and good luck.
   488. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 07:58 AM (#4690883)
You sure could have fooled a lot of people here with your rhetoric, but then self-reflection has never been one of your strong points.

Those with little to add substantively often resort to name calling and personal attacks, and that form is typically holding here as well.

Are you going to call the Glanvilles to account in any way, shape, or form for their (still uncorrected and unamended) documented falsehoods and exaggerations?(*) Or do they get a full pass? If they get a full pass, is it because they're black? Sure seems like it.

They obviously didn't tell the truth, right? Do you value truth? Or are you ok with falsehoods and exaggerations in pursuit of what you perceive to be valid ends?

(*) Racially divisive falsehoods and exaggerations, at that.
   489. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 08:09 AM (#4690887)
Those with little to add substantively often resort to name calling and personal attacks, and that form is typically holding here as well.


This post is awesome. Most amusing thing I have read in weeks. I laughed out loud. Thanks!
   490. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 08:15 AM (#4690889)
RACIST!!! ANGRY!!! I KNOW YOUR KIND!!!!!



   491. formerly dp Posted: April 22, 2014 at 08:24 AM (#4690891)
No one's "angry."
The fact that you and Ray are continuing to repeat the same points over and over again suggests otherwise-- you need Glanville's claim to be stronger than it was, so you're continuing to build it up to be more than it was, and then attacking *him* for daring to bring attention to what was clearly inappropriate behavior by the cop in question.

Denying race: still the new racism. And SBB's preferred flavor.
   492. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 08:29 AM (#4690894)
Jon Chait, cover story, New York magazine:

"Few liberals acknowledge that the ability to label a person racist represents, in 21st-century America, real and frequently terrifying power ... Though the liberal analytic method begins with a sound grasp of the broad connection between conservatism and white racial resentment, it almost always devolves into an open-ended license to target opponents on the basis of their ideological profile. The power is rife with abuse."
   493. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 08:32 AM (#4690897)
The fact that you and Ray are continuing to repeat the same points over and over again suggests otherwise-- you need Glanville's claim to be stronger than it was, so you're continuing to build it up to be more than it was, and then attacking *him* for daring to bring attention to what was clearly inappropriate behavior by the cop in question.

Denying race: still the new racism. And SBB's preferred flavor.


The "angry" people are the ones emoting and not looking at the words and substance of what the Glanvilles said.

Hint: That's not us.

Glanville attributed the cop's inappropriate behavior to racial profiling/animus with no evidence, and that was not true.(*) Since truth is a just and noble end, and falsehood its opposite, we should come out in favor of truth and against falsehood. The modern liberal obsession with race blurs the obvious validity of this principle -- as it has done here. That's not "anger" or "racism" talking, much as your dreams tell you it's so.

(*) And therefore was inappropriate behavior by a citizen in a pluralist, multiracial society.

   494. formerly dp Posted: April 22, 2014 at 08:41 AM (#4690904)
Hint: That's not us.
Hint:
self-reflection has never been one of your strong points.

The cop presumed guilt *because he was black.* This is the whole point of Glavville's essay: to use his status to call attention to the broader issue of racial profiling practices in the US policing. I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to wrap your head around, other than your myopic insistence on denying race and playing the victim card every time the subject comes up.

But go back and count posts in this thread: you'll find the bulk of the ones on-topic are from you and Ray beating up on Glanville for daring to call inappropriate behavior inappropriate in a public forum, rather than from the supposedly race-obsessed lefties demanding justice for the cop's actions. The two of you sound quite agitated. Maybe you're not, but that's the tone being communicated.
   495. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 22, 2014 at 08:41 AM (#4690905)
real and frequently terrifying power


It needs a dark soundtrack, in a minor key.

See it is hard to take someone seriously regarding racism, when they are terrified of answering a couple questions about the subject.

I would (again) ask you about racism and false charges of racism, and how you view their relative commonness and impact, but that it totally off topic*.

* The topic seemingly being how the REAL victims of racism are those accused of it, and only them.
   496. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 22, 2014 at 08:57 AM (#4690918)
The two of you sound quite agitated. Maybe you're not, but that's the tone being communicated.

That's because modern liberals are congenitally unable to deal with objections to modern liberalism's excesses on their merits.

The cop presumed guilt *because he was black.*

No he didn't. He questioned a black guy about a nothingburger "crime" who bore a strong match to the person that had been described to him. And then when the black guy answered one question, the cop left him alone.

you and Ray beating up on Glanville for daring to call inappropriate behavior inappropriate in a public forum,

We aren't beating him up for anything; we're criticizing him for attributing the inappropriate behavior to racial profiling/animus. A point made now at least five times, and ignored because of your side's relentless anger and emotionalism. You're emoting, not focusing.

The cop behaved inappropriately. But he wasn't animated by race.

The Glanvilles also acted inappropriately for citizens in a pluralist, multiracial society, by making racially divisive false and exaggerated claims about this incident. No question about it. Tough for you guys to confront -- you still haven't come close to doing so -- but true, nonetheless.
   497. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4690933)
So what was the name of the policeman whose name has allegedly been slandered from here to the moon?

And exactly how has this nameless policeman been punished by this virtual lynch mob?
   498. formerly dp Posted: April 22, 2014 at 09:39 AM (#4690949)
No he didn't. He questioned a black guy about a nothingburger "crime" who bore a strong match to the person that had been described to him.
Again, because he was black. That is the point of Glanville's article, and the point of complaints about profiling, that seems to elude you. You can go on ranting all you'd like. It's amusing, the same way it's amusing that the people who claim to be above race always get so passionately invested in these sorts of discussions. I'm not going to dance with you on it, I'm just going to enjoy pointing out the irony.
ignored because of your side's relentless anger and emotionalism.
Check your post count in this thread. Then get back to me on who's showing "relentless anger and emotionalism".
The cop behaved inappropriately. But he wasn't animated by race.

Denying race: still the new racism, 6 posts later.
   499. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 22, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4690965)
Denying race: still the new racism, 6 posts later.

I wouldn't call it the new racism, more like the old cluelessness and indifference, fortified by resentment towards imaginary boogeymen.
   500. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: April 22, 2014 at 10:02 AM (#4690968)
Flip!
Page 5 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-2-2014
(5 - 8:06am, Sep 02)
Last: Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(34 - 8:04am, Sep 02)
Last: Misirlou's been working for the drug squad

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(8 - 8:02am, Sep 02)
Last: Rants Mulliniks

NewsblogSources:  Cubs cut grounds crew’s hours to avoid paying health benefits
(42 - 7:58am, Sep 02)
Last: Rants Mulliniks

NewsblogNo-hitter! Four Phillies pitchers combine to blank the Braves
(15 - 7:58am, Sep 02)
Last: Colin

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(104 - 7:38am, Sep 02)
Last: zonk

NewsblogHBT: Jorge Soler with an extra-base hit in each of his first five games
(3 - 7:26am, Sep 02)
Last: zonk

NewsblogRobothal: Changed [Manny] Ramirez enjoyed helping Cubs prospects grow
(14 - 6:41am, Sep 02)
Last: Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(8 - 5:50am, Sep 02)
Last: Bourbon Samurai in Asia

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(6 - 2:36am, Sep 02)
Last: RollingWave

NewsblogNitkowski: Wanted: Major League manager...sort of.
(8 - 2:07am, Sep 02)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-1-2014
(40 - 2:01am, Sep 02)
Last: MNB

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(57 - 1:54am, Sep 02)
Last: base ball chick

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Ballot
(10 - 1:12am, Sep 02)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogRon Roenicke rips into home-plate umpire
(17 - 12:18am, Sep 02)
Last: Bunny Vincennes

Page rendered in 1.6145 seconds
54 querie(s) executed