Pants-of-dog wrote:If the goal is to keep police from being held accountable for racist violence, then it is very successful. But I mean that every step of the way, all legal professionals involved agreed that the law was followed.
If the goal is to keep police from being held accountable for racist violence and racism is socially acceptable, then there would be a law which says "The police are not to be held accountable for racist violence". Where is your proof that such a law exists?
And if the law was followed every step of the way, then either a given incident is an instance of racist violence or it is not. If it is, then that is a failure, since the laws as they are written guarantee equal rights to all citizens.
Part of the process for making racism acceptable is by denying that it is racism. One Degree is doing it in this very thread. This is so widespread that there is even a name for it: dog whistle politics.
If one needs to use coded language to communicate a certain ideology, then it is not an ideology which is considered socially acceptable.
Yes, western nations are currently engaged in ethnic cleansing of indigenous people. They do this through a variety of methods. Taking children from families, making indigenous cultural practices illegal, seizing land, etc.
No, ethnic cleansing is the deliberate killing of people of a given ethnicity with the goal of achieving ethnic homogeneity. This is certainly not happening anywhere in the West today.
Children can be legitimately taken away from abusive families, cultural practices which harm people (such as FGM) can be legitimately criminalized, and private land can be legitimately seized.
This actually goes back to my original point: it never ended. Can you tell me when government action against indigenous people supposedly ended?
This is a red herring. If it isn't happening, it really doesn't matter when it ended. On the other hand, if it never ended, then why do indigenous people still exist? You'd have to believe that western governments are currently engaged in the most ineffective ethnic cleansing program ever devised.
And I did answer your question. I pointed out that when governments enact eminent domain against white people, they are required to provide a rational basis for the appropriation. For example, a new road or installation of infrastructure. This basis shows that it is not racism.
What is the basis for the appropriation of indigenous lands, complete with the ethnic cleansings, and imprisoning them on reservations, etc.?
Loaded question. With regard to land appropriation, there is no reason why the government couldn't or wouldn't give a rational basis for seizing indigenous lands even if it was actually racist. This proves nothing one way or the other.
If that had been my point, you would have been correct here.
My point was that their actions (i.e. the cops who lied and covered up for the racist violent one) ended up supporting government racism.
Again, you have misunderstood. Now that I have explained that I did not argue that, you seem to be ignoring what I explicitly said in order to continue with this strawman.
No, that would be overt support of racism.
Let's review here. You've said:
1) The cover-up by police officers of a fellow officer's racist actions is support for racism whatever the motive.
2) Saving the life of a Nazi when you're a government doctor is not support for racism.
3) Naming a Nazi as a friend when you're the President of the United States is support for racism.
If the outcome is all that matters, then all three are support for racism. But you disagree that 2 is support for racism. So it cannot be that the outcome is all that matters. On the other hand, you've also said that 1 and 3 prove that the government supports racism but denied that 2 does as well for some unknown reason. Furthermore 2 is clearly worse for minorities than 3, so, really, neither I nor anyone else has any clue what is going through your head here.
This is no strawman. Your positions are clearly inconsistent.
In an initial investigation, the police service's professional standards branch determined there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges against the police officers or a need for a disciplinary hearing.
But new evidence introduced by Engel prompted a review of the case that concluded there was enough evidence to warrant a disciplinary hearing.
Three witnesses provided statements and interviews after El Hallak put handwritten notes in his neighbours' mailboxes.
In his letter, Knecht offers a summary of those witness accounts.
One neighbour said he heard a person call someone the N-word outside his window. He said he saw El Hallak slowly jog down the sidewalk followed by the officers, one who shouted: "I'll shoot you motherf--ker. I'll taser you."
The neighbour said El Hallak dropped to the ground, saying " 'yes, officer, I'm not resisting. Please don't hurt me.' "
Edmonton police sergeant charged with obstruction of justice
Edmonton teen's complaint of excessive force, racial profiling under investigation
Another witness said she saw police put El Hallak in the back seat of the cruiser.
"The officer on the passenger side looked around and started to swing his right arm," wrote Knecht, summarizing her account. "The upper back end of the arm swung approximately three to five times. While this was happening she could hear [El Hallak] saying 'No — stop — you are hurting me.' The other police officer walked in front of the vehicle and did nothing."
The third witness was El Hallak's wife. Jasmine Flaig said she didn't realize it was her husband in the cruiser as she peered out a bedroom window, saw an officer standing by an open door and heard a man shout: "Stop, you are hurting me."
Again, I don't see anything that proves that what you said was an accurate description of what happened. Who is the prosecutor you mention? Who is the supposed criminal you mention? Where does it say that this supposed criminal approached the prosecutor?
Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.
The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior. Historical examples of institutional racism include the Holocaust, the apartheid regime in South Africa, and slavery and segregation in the United States. Racism was also an aspect of the social organization of many colonial states and empires.
This is a good start, but I still don't see your list of necessary and sufficient conditions for what counts as support for racism.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/ ... iety-study
Contrary to what some have suggested, white millennial Trump voters were not in more economically precarious situations than non-Trump voters. Fully 86 percent of them reported being employed, a rate similar to non-Trump voters; and they were 14 percent less likely to be low income than white voters who did not support Trump. Employment and income were not significantly related to that sense of white vulnerability.
So what was? Racial resentment.
Even when controlling for partisanship, ideology, region and a host of other factors, white millennials fit Michael Tesler’s analysis, explored here. As he put it, economic anxiety isn’t driving racial resentment; rather, racial resentment is driving economic anxiety. We found, as he has in a larger population, that racial resentment is the biggest predictor of white vulnerability among white millennials. Economic variables like education, income and employment made a negligible difference.
This is not an article published in any reputable scientific journal. The links provided only lead to further Vox or Washington Post articles. Neither of these publications is a reputable scientific journal.