As a black NYC resident I'm actually surprised by this. Stop and frisk is a major violation of the rights of those stopped without cause but I have generally viewed it as more of a class issue than a race issue. I have never been stopped by the police in this manner. I was once stopped by the police on the iffy charge that I was in the park after dark while walking home late and I told the officer I was cutting through the park because I had work in the morning and I heard about muggings in the neighborhood and the park seemed the fastest and safest way home. The cop seemed to be caught off guard and quickly ended the confrontation. Furthermore, none of my (very middle to upper middle class) black friends have complained about being victims of stop and frisk.
My studiomate who is a filmmaker actually spoke with some local teens who were frequently harassed by the stop & frisk policy and I felt guilty that a few meager class signifiers seem to get me off the hook so easily [0].
That said the author's other accounts of having to be cautious of unintentionally provoking police do ring true my experience and stories from my family and friends.
I don't like anecdotes like this because they back the assertion Stop and Frisk does societal good.
It implies that police are able to discern the difference between "good people" and "bad people", and that "stopping the bad ones" doesn't harm society at large because "the good ones" don't get stopped.
This is hurtful to those who have experienced it first hand, and to those who are seeking equality of all people under the law.
The lower classes get the benefit of extra law enforcement in most places in the world. I suspect that that is mostly by default; the upper class people are much more difficult to enforce laws against. In many places the classes are colour coded for convenient identification. As a result it is pretty much impossible to separate race and class. People will assume either prejudice as required to support their opinion of random shakedowns.
Typical Americans.
You have a growing problem with police corruption in your country and you can only talk about race relations. Cops who do the things described in the article are breaking the law in other ways when you aren't watching. Recent events in New Mexico are a case in point.
You should be thankful that corrupt cops are racist because they can't help giving themselves away by mistreating blacks. Until you folks break up the corrupt police brotherhood and take back control of law enforcement, things will only get worse.
Fix the root problem and minority males will cease to have problems like this.
Actually the stop & frisk policy the author is writing about is legal in NYC & ex-Mayor Bloomberg was a big proponent, going as far as saying New York police stop whites too often and nonwhites not often enough[0].
The author's observation is that racial profiling is at the heart of why we have problems with police corruption.
The end of the article argues that racial profiling allows a majority of citizens to ignore problems with policing because abuses are highly concentrated on "other people". This makes police corruption "not my problem".
The problem isn't complacency with the abuses; the problem is that abuses are concentrated on minorities of the population so that the majority of voters/stakeholders don't have enough skin in the game to care.
> You have a growing problem with police corruption in your country ....
Do we? I'm not sure.
Certainly in recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of well publicized incidents of police corruption (and use of excessive force and various rights violations). But is this because such incidents are becoming more common, or because they are more likely to be reported and/or publicized effectively?
I honestly don't know the answer. I'd be interested in hard evidence on either side.
NYPD doesn't really fit your narrative of the rogue police department where the racism is just a symptom. If you look at, for example salaries, it clear that the city has a pretty good handle on the police union. Stop and frisk is legal (so far), and an explicit policy of the city government. And its a policy that's largely supported by the upper classes that run the city. And the public has largely supported the increased police presence under Guilliani and Bloomberg.
> You have a growing problem with police corruption in your country
I don't know. With advancements in technology, it's easier to catch and share such incidents. That doesn't necessarily mean there is more corruption though.
If those stop-and-frisk are really needed, then, in my view, they should be applied to different cohorts in the same proportion as those cohorts perform crimes: maybe it's 60% for ages 18-30 and 30% for 30+, could be 90% males and 10% females. Only for population groups where crime rates change significantly, of course. (Race may or may not be one of those.)
I don't believe that Stop and Frisk is effective, but even if it was, I don't want to live in a society which trades our liberty for that benefit.
It's not about the efficacy, it's about the sort of society we want to live in. Because there will always be those that make arguments from pragmatism.
Freedom isn't easy or pragmatic, if you think about it like that.
I just got my first taste of HN censorship from my earlier comment about the reason why a white father insisting on describing his mixed race son as black is quite wrong and the subconsciously racist intent underlying it, love of offspring notwithstanding. I am rephrasing it and restarting it.
If the writer is white then the son is arguably as white as he is black, and probably more white than black if the mother is an African American, as opposed to an African immigrant. So why the insistence on the father labeling him as black just because society sees him as such? Society can learn to see him as white if white fathers insist on claiming whiteness for him. Why does the notion of whiteness exclude any racial mixture when black does? Why should whiteness be exclusive and the father go along with that?
The real issue is the way society is programmed by calculated use of language. If the One Drop Rule was switched around most racial discrimination would end, because discrimination would then be based on shade of complexion not race.
Whites would be light-skinned whites, mixed race people would simply be medium-skinned whites and most African Americans would be dark-skinned whites from their slave-owning fathers. Or the definition could be reversed and white people would be very light-skinned blacks. The idiocy of this defacto continuation of the ODR is that is that it makes whiteness exclusive and black becomes some kind of genetic taint, some kind of condition/affliction which causes lots people who are 'white' socially, genetically and culturally for all practical purposes to be labelled as 'black'.
That rule was made to ensure that wealth and privilege remained in the hands of white people, to ensure the formation of a predominantly and visibly white aristocracy and check the breeding preferences of resident or immigrant European nobility whose appearance was visibly that of light-skinned blacks.
Take this instance of a prince of Liechtenstein http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LMfYsqYUdxY/UCaj_85tH2I/AAAAAAAAEU.... If American had more men like his father in ranking positions, his complexion might even be identified with aristocracy and how often would police harass males like him and risk losing their jobs? By being labeled as black it only helps rationalize the harassment.
What is there to stop white fathers insisting that their sons be seen as white and have all the privileges that come with it and punish policemen who stepped out of line? This father's refusal to view and label his son as white masks a hardly unconscious reluctance to demand the same privileges he has for his son and by extension any other men of a similar appearance. If they got to be seen as white and also married black females the same privilege would be extended to their even darker sons and this issue would simply go away.
The continued use of black to describe mixed race people, even multiple generations of 'blacks' who are mixed is simply a refusal to accept the fact that a white and Nordic-oriented exclusivity in a multiracial America is a myth, downright anomalous and is actually Nazism of the worst kind. Isn't it glaringly obvious how Hispanic is used to pull in lots of people who would be Black, Native American or both under the One Drop Rule, ie 'light-skinned blacks'?
Unfortunately the use of the term black by that white father is just a sop to white exclusivity supremacists.
If you are white your son is mixed-race not black. Why does the notion of whiteness exclude any racial mixture when black does? Why should whiteness be exclusive?
If the writer is serious about racism a good start should be to admit that your son is also white then you could write an article entitled "What I learned about stop and frisk from watching my white son" and a generation later your white grandson by his black mother of course. That would get white people to take notice.
I remember a comment I heard along similar lines about Obama when he was running for president. Some people were saying that he's not actually black, etc...
The simple rebuttal is: In 1950s America, which water fountain would he be made to use? Which school would he be put in? Where on the bus would he sit?
Mixed race individuals get treated every bit as badly. So making the distinction is not helpful when talking about racial abuse, it only serves to distract from the core issue at hand.
I think to the author it boils down to: "when people see my son walking down the street, they would describe him as a black person." For example, with Barack Obama or Halle Berry, it's unlikely that anyone would pass them on the street and say, "Oh look at that white guy/lady."
I just got my first taste of HN censorship from my earlier comment about the reason why a white father insisting on describing his mixed race son as black is quite wrong and the subconsciously racist intent underlying it, love of offspring notwithstanding. I am rephrasing it and restarting it.
If the writer is white then the son is arguably as white as he is black, and probably more white than black if the mother is an African American, as opposed to an African immigrant. So why the insistence on the father labeling him as black just because society sees him as such? Society can learn to see him as white if white fathers insist on claiming whiteness for him. Why does the notion of whiteness exclude any racial mixture when black does? Why should whiteness be exclusive and the father go along with that?
The real issue is the way society is programmed by calculated use of language. If the One Drop Rule was switched around most racial discrimination would end, because discrimination would then be based on shade of complexion not race. Whites would be light-skinned whites, mixed race people would simply be medium-skinned whites and most African Americans would be dark-skinned whites from their slave-owning fathers. Or the definition could be reversed and white people would be very light-skinned blacks. The idiocy of this defacto continuation of the ODR is that is that it makes whiteness exclusive and black becomes some kind of genetic taint, some kind of condition/affliction which causes lots people who are 'white' socially, genetically and culturally for all practical purposes to be labelled as 'black'.
That rule was made to ensure that wealth and privilege remained in the hands of white people, to ensure the formation of a predominantly and visibly white aristocracy and check the breeding preferences of resident or immigrant European nobility whose appearance was visibly that of light-skinned blacks. Take this instance of a prince of Liechtenstein http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LMfYsqYUdxY/UCaj_85tH2I/AAAAAAAAEU.... If American had more men like his father in ranking positions, his complexion might even be identified with aristocracy and how often would police harass males like him and risk losing their jobs? By being labeled as black it only helps rationalize the harassment.
What is there to stop white fathers insisting that their sons be seen as white and have all the privileges that come with it and punish policemen who stepped out of line? This father's refusal to view and label his son as white masks a hardly unconscious reluctance to demand the same privileges he has for his son and by extension any other men of a similar appearance. If they got to be seen as white and also married black females the same privilege would be extended to their even darker sons and this issue would simply go away.
The continued use of black to describe mixed race people, even multiple generations of 'blacks' who are mixed is simply a refusal to accept the fact that a white and Nordic-oriented exclusivity in a multiracial America is a myth, downright anomalous and is actually Nazism of the worst kind. Isn't it glaringly obvious how Hispanic is used to pull in lots of people who would be Black, Native American or both under the One Drop Rule, ie 'light-skinned blacks'?
Unfortunately the use of the term black by that white father is just a sop to white exclusivity supremacists.
To those who down voted deedubaya, I have a question. Do you disagree with either or both of the following assertions, and if so, why?
Assertion #1: common street and property crime, such as mugging, burglary, robbery, car theft, car jacking, and such is more likely to be committed by people who have limited money and limited advancement prospects than they are to be committed by people who have plenty of money and plenty of advancement opportunity.
Assertion #2: due to slavery followed by almost 100 years of legal and often state enforced discrimination against black people, black people have historically been significantly overrepresented among those with limited money and limited advancement prospects. Although this has been improving since the Civil Rights Act and other protections against discrimination, things have not leveled out yet and blacks are sill very overrepresented at the lower ends of the economic spectrum.
If you agree with both of these assertions, then why did you down vote deedubaya? If both those assertions are true, it necessarily follows that black people will be overrepresented among muggers, burglars, car jackers, and the like. When a group is overrepresented in some activity, good or bad, stereotypes tend to develop about that group and that activity. If we pretend there isn't some reason behind the stereotypes, it is harder to address those conditions that led to the stereotype.
Racial stereotypes are a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy. If people keep treating you as a criminal, and you have trouble getting accepted as a decent citizen, crime starts to become a more attractive option, because you already carry the associated social stigma anyway, and it's the only place where you can gain acceptance.
[+] [-] ritchiea|12 years ago|reply
My studiomate who is a filmmaker actually spoke with some local teens who were frequently harassed by the stop & frisk policy and I felt guilty that a few meager class signifiers seem to get me off the hook so easily [0].
That said the author's other accounts of having to be cautious of unintentionally provoking police do ring true my experience and stories from my family and friends.
0. https://vimeo.com/87532909
[+] [-] kylewpppd|12 years ago|reply
It implies that police are able to discern the difference between "good people" and "bad people", and that "stopping the bad ones" doesn't harm society at large because "the good ones" don't get stopped.
This is hurtful to those who have experienced it first hand, and to those who are seeking equality of all people under the law.
[+] [-] upofadown|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] memracom|12 years ago|reply
You should be thankful that corrupt cops are racist because they can't help giving themselves away by mistreating blacks. Until you folks break up the corrupt police brotherhood and take back control of law enforcement, things will only get worse.
Fix the root problem and minority males will cease to have problems like this.
[+] [-] ritchiea|12 years ago|reply
0. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/nyregion/bloomberg-says-ma...
[+] [-] nmrm|12 years ago|reply
The end of the article argues that racial profiling allows a majority of citizens to ignore problems with policing because abuses are highly concentrated on "other people". This makes police corruption "not my problem".
The problem isn't complacency with the abuses; the problem is that abuses are concentrated on minorities of the population so that the majority of voters/stakeholders don't have enough skin in the game to care.
[+] [-] jamesriver|12 years ago|reply
Must you begin your comment on an article about discrimination by using a stereotype?
[+] [-] ggchappell|12 years ago|reply
Do we? I'm not sure.
Certainly in recent years there has been a notable increase in the number of well publicized incidents of police corruption (and use of excessive force and various rights violations). But is this because such incidents are becoming more common, or because they are more likely to be reported and/or publicized effectively?
I honestly don't know the answer. I'd be interested in hard evidence on either side.
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kawliga|12 years ago|reply
Am I the only one getting extremely tired of the anti-american trolls?
[+] [-] Casseres|12 years ago|reply
I don't know. With advancements in technology, it's easier to catch and share such incidents. That doesn't necessarily mean there is more corruption though.
[+] [-] owenjones|12 years ago|reply
Seriously, please take this nonsense elsewhere, many of us are well aware of the issues regarding law enforcement in this country.
[+] [-] espinchi|12 years ago|reply
If those stop-and-frisk are really needed, then, in my view, they should be applied to different cohorts in the same proportion as those cohorts perform crimes: maybe it's 60% for ages 18-30 and 30% for 30+, could be 90% males and 10% females. Only for population groups where crime rates change significantly, of course. (Race may or may not be one of those.)
Would that make sense?
[+] [-] judk|12 years ago|reply
There are your ratios.
See the problem?
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lsiebert|12 years ago|reply
It's not about the efficacy, it's about the sort of society we want to live in. Because there will always be those that make arguments from pragmatism.
Freedom isn't easy or pragmatic, if you think about it like that.
[+] [-] vfclists|12 years ago|reply
If the writer is white then the son is arguably as white as he is black, and probably more white than black if the mother is an African American, as opposed to an African immigrant. So why the insistence on the father labeling him as black just because society sees him as such? Society can learn to see him as white if white fathers insist on claiming whiteness for him. Why does the notion of whiteness exclude any racial mixture when black does? Why should whiteness be exclusive and the father go along with that?
The real issue is the way society is programmed by calculated use of language. If the One Drop Rule was switched around most racial discrimination would end, because discrimination would then be based on shade of complexion not race. Whites would be light-skinned whites, mixed race people would simply be medium-skinned whites and most African Americans would be dark-skinned whites from their slave-owning fathers. Or the definition could be reversed and white people would be very light-skinned blacks. The idiocy of this defacto continuation of the ODR is that is that it makes whiteness exclusive and black becomes some kind of genetic taint, some kind of condition/affliction which causes lots people who are 'white' socially, genetically and culturally for all practical purposes to be labelled as 'black'.
That rule was made to ensure that wealth and privilege remained in the hands of white people, to ensure the formation of a predominantly and visibly white aristocracy and check the breeding preferences of resident or immigrant European nobility whose appearance was visibly that of light-skinned blacks. Take this instance of a prince of Liechtenstein http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LMfYsqYUdxY/UCaj_85tH2I/AAAAAAAAEU.... If American had more men like his father in ranking positions, his complexion might even be identified with aristocracy and how often would police harass males like him and risk losing their jobs? By being labeled as black it only helps rationalize the harassment.
What is there to stop white fathers insisting that their sons be seen as white and have all the privileges that come with it and punish policemen who stepped out of line? This father's refusal to view and label his son as white masks a hardly unconscious reluctance to demand the same privileges he has for his son and by extension any other men of a similar appearance. If they got to be seen as white and also married black females the same privilege would be extended to their even darker sons and this issue would simply go away.
The continued use of black to describe mixed race people, even multiple generations of 'blacks' who are mixed is simply a refusal to accept the fact that a white and Nordic-oriented exclusivity in a multiracial America is a myth, downright anomalous and is actually Nazism of the worst kind. Isn't it glaringly obvious how Hispanic is used to pull in lots of people who would be Black, Native American or both under the One Drop Rule, ie 'light-skinned blacks'?
Unfortunately the use of the term black by that white father is just a sop to white exclusivity supremacists.
European is a culture not a race.
[+] [-] vfclists|12 years ago|reply
If the writer is serious about racism a good start should be to admit that your son is also white then you could write an article entitled "What I learned about stop and frisk from watching my white son" and a generation later your white grandson by his black mother of course. That would get white people to take notice.
[+] [-] adwf|12 years ago|reply
The simple rebuttal is: In 1950s America, which water fountain would he be made to use? Which school would he be put in? Where on the bus would he sit?
Mixed race individuals get treated every bit as badly. So making the distinction is not helpful when talking about racial abuse, it only serves to distract from the core issue at hand.
[+] [-] robertwalsh0|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devindotcom|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soperj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nightcracker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lsiebert|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vfclists|12 years ago|reply
If the writer is white then the son is arguably as white as he is black, and probably more white than black if the mother is an African American, as opposed to an African immigrant. So why the insistence on the father labeling him as black just because society sees him as such? Society can learn to see him as white if white fathers insist on claiming whiteness for him. Why does the notion of whiteness exclude any racial mixture when black does? Why should whiteness be exclusive and the father go along with that?
The real issue is the way society is programmed by calculated use of language. If the One Drop Rule was switched around most racial discrimination would end, because discrimination would then be based on shade of complexion not race. Whites would be light-skinned whites, mixed race people would simply be medium-skinned whites and most African Americans would be dark-skinned whites from their slave-owning fathers. Or the definition could be reversed and white people would be very light-skinned blacks. The idiocy of this defacto continuation of the ODR is that is that it makes whiteness exclusive and black becomes some kind of genetic taint, some kind of condition/affliction which causes lots people who are 'white' socially, genetically and culturally for all practical purposes to be labelled as 'black'.
That rule was made to ensure that wealth and privilege remained in the hands of white people, to ensure the formation of a predominantly and visibly white aristocracy and check the breeding preferences of resident or immigrant European nobility whose appearance was visibly that of light-skinned blacks. Take this instance of a prince of Liechtenstein http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LMfYsqYUdxY/UCaj_85tH2I/AAAAAAAAEU.... If American had more men like his father in ranking positions, his complexion might even be identified with aristocracy and how often would police harass males like him and risk losing their jobs? By being labeled as black it only helps rationalize the harassment.
What is there to stop white fathers insisting that their sons be seen as white and have all the privileges that come with it and punish policemen who stepped out of line? This father's refusal to view and label his son as white masks a hardly unconscious reluctance to demand the same privileges he has for his son and by extension any other men of a similar appearance. If they got to be seen as white and also married black females the same privilege would be extended to their even darker sons and this issue would simply go away.
The continued use of black to describe mixed race people, even multiple generations of 'blacks' who are mixed is simply a refusal to accept the fact that a white and Nordic-oriented exclusivity in a multiracial America is a myth, downright anomalous and is actually Nazism of the worst kind. Isn't it glaringly obvious how Hispanic is used to pull in lots of people who would be Black, Native American or both under the One Drop Rule, ie 'light-skinned blacks'?
Unfortunately the use of the term black by that white father is just a sop to white exclusivity supremacists.
European is a culture not a race.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] deedubaya|12 years ago|reply
This is a treatment of a symptom, not of the cause.
[+] [-] tzs|12 years ago|reply
Assertion #1: common street and property crime, such as mugging, burglary, robbery, car theft, car jacking, and such is more likely to be committed by people who have limited money and limited advancement prospects than they are to be committed by people who have plenty of money and plenty of advancement opportunity.
Assertion #2: due to slavery followed by almost 100 years of legal and often state enforced discrimination against black people, black people have historically been significantly overrepresented among those with limited money and limited advancement prospects. Although this has been improving since the Civil Rights Act and other protections against discrimination, things have not leveled out yet and blacks are sill very overrepresented at the lower ends of the economic spectrum.
If you agree with both of these assertions, then why did you down vote deedubaya? If both those assertions are true, it necessarily follows that black people will be overrepresented among muggers, burglars, car jackers, and the like. When a group is overrepresented in some activity, good or bad, stereotypes tend to develop about that group and that activity. If we pretend there isn't some reason behind the stereotypes, it is harder to address those conditions that led to the stereotype.
[+] [-] Kluny|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulannesley|12 years ago|reply
Maybe you accidentally hit reply before elaborating on “racial stereotypes exist for a reason”.
[+] [-] EricaJoy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcv|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kjs3|12 years ago|reply