The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

mod note: split and moved all non-Sterling-related posts to a new thread

Yes, you can boycott a business or vote someone out of office. However, as noted in the previous post, those type people are a small percentage of racists, homophobes, or whoever else's opinions or positions you choose to disagree with. You can only make those high profile people suffer a little. If someone walked up to you on the street and said that they don't like you because of your race, there is absolutely nothing you can do. You can do nothing to 99.9% of the racists out there, it is their right to dislike or hate anyone they please. That is the price we pay for living in a free country.
So you can force a company to agree with politically correct sentiment, but how are you going to make regular citizens comply? You're focused on a small percentage of high profile people. What about the rest of America?

The opinion of the racist that lives down the block from you is just as acceptable as your opinion on the matter, you just don't like it.

^^^ So is your point to ignore things you can have an affect on because you cannot have an affect everywhere?

I wonder if Knicks’ Larry Johnson will be fined, fired, or suspended for his calls for all-black basketball league. Seems just as racist and discriminatory to exclude all races except blacks. Not only that, he said it in public and wasn't set up and illegally recorded in private. Lets see if the media crucifies him like they did Sterling.  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/28/knicks-larry-johnson-calls-all-black-nba-league/  (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/28/knicks-larry-johnson-calls-all-black-nba-league/)

Yes, and by highlighting the examples of these high-profile people, three things are accomplished:

1) People with sympathetic beliefs (who are willing to publicly defend him) are also criticized
2) People with sympathetic beliefs (who are not willing to say them out loud) are driven further underground
3) Younger generations see that these kinds of beliefs are Not OK

Again, wrong.  I can take a picture (or video) of this person and post it on Twitter, Facebook, etc.  Social pressure can be applied, to both him personally and his employer (or business partners).

Wait... who is forcing the NBA to agree?  Its players?  Its owners?  Its commissioner?  Its customers?

You say this as if all of the above would actually prefer to just ignore Sterling's racism and move on with their life, but because of the Politically Correct Police, they have to act like this bothers them.  If this is what you believe, you need to escape your echo chamber.

As has been the case since the founding of this nation, the rest of America is progressing forward.  Just as the abolitionists drove the narrative on slavery, just as the women's suffrage movement drove the narrative on the vote, and just as the civil rights movement drove the narrative on Jim Crow, the narrative continues to be driven further, and each generation is less bigoted than the last.  (Just look at the dramatic reversals on same sex marriage in America over the last 10 years.)

Consider that when Donald Sterling was a boy, his statements wouldn't even have been notable.  In the 80 years he's been alive, we've went from an openly racist culture to one where even racists (like Donald Sterling!) have to insist that they are not racist or immediately be exiled to the fringes of society.

The racists lost the culture war.  They lost badly, and they lost absolutely.  The only way they are even allowed to play the game any more is to say, "Listen, I'm no racist, but..."

It sounds like you're saying that you find racism "acceptable."  Not "regrettable," not "unavoidable," not "legal"... acceptable.

Have you heard that there is an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?  How incredibly racist is that?!  I can only imagine the media firestorm that would surround a National Association for the Advancement of White People.  But the lamestream liberal media happily ignores this clearly racist organization because it doesn't fit their narrative.  They actually treat this group of racists like a respectable, mainstream organization!

You also never hear from the media about the race-baiting Black History Month and Hispanic Heritage Month, but if you even mention creating a White History Month, suddenly everyone is calling you a racist!

Will no one stand up for the oppressed majority?  Or will this just be another repeat of the war on (the overwhelming majority population of) Christians in this nation?

i see what you did there

Why is it ok to oppress the majority? I mean ... eventually white Christians will not be the majority so will it still be ok to bash them at every turn? Wouldn't it be far more positive and effective to unilaterally stop anything that segregates our society?

Show me a single instance of the majority being oppressed and not the oppressor.  And who's bashing white christians anyways?

contrary to what you've probably heard .. a teller saying "happy holidays" rather than "merry christmas" isn't a "war" on christmas

Can't we all agree that if a white person did/said the same thing as a minority, he'd be in trouble? I don't remember if there was any repercussions for Sean Combs when he yelled "Black Power" during the NBA All-Star games. I'm sure if Larry Bird yelled "White Power" he'd be crucified. Besides, won't white people be a minority in a few years anyway? So we can finally pull the race card in that instance?  ;D

P.S. Most of this is a joke but some isn't.

The majority isn't being "oppressed."  Certain political elements have seen the success of various civil rights movements, and have decided to co-opt their language.  This is why you see anti-gay bigots complaining about the intolerance of people who insist they treat homosexuals like normal humans.  "Religious freedom" is the new "states' rights;" no one bought it as an excuse for racism in the '60s, and no one buys it as an excuse for homophobia today.

I think more work still needs to be done to protect those who are vulnerable to the majority and/or the powerful.

Pretty much anything that comes out of Spike Lee's mouth or any cause Jesse or Al are making money off of is insulting to white people. If Jack Nicholson spoke like Spike Lee in reverse or did the things he did then he would have been hanged by now. I'm speaking metaphorically but literally probably isn't too far off.

So in your opinion it's OK to bash the majority because they have the upper hand. so when the tables flip whitey can then join in.  Anyone who disagrees is a bigot? Funny how one side can have opinions and yet the other side is always a negative name just because they disagree. seems to me you aren't calling individual people bigots but Jesus himself. Why sugar coat that?

I obviously disagree with you but I applaud the honesty of your opinion.

If Jesus were actually a real person, as well as some form of "Divine" Son of God, then I believe that, if he had been around to read the finished version of the Bible, he would have either performed massive edits or just condemned the entire thing outright.

However, since he wasn't, and He wasn't, then the individual people being outed for bigotry when it comes to the Bible are the archaic people who actually wrote it...as well as those who blindly follow those archaic writers despite the fact that they are, well, archaic.

I no longer support affirmative action.  If you asked me on Nov.  3, 2008 if I supported AA I would have not hesitated to have said yes.  But on Nov 5th, only 2 days, later I supported repealing every single program that gives a preference based on race.  

This wasn't based on being bothered by what happened on Nov 4, in fact I was thrilled with what happened on Nov 4.  

In case you are wondering what caused this radical shift in opinion, here is what happened on Nov 4th:  The vast majority of Americans decided to elect the person best suited to lead this nation without regard to the color of the skin of people running for office.  Was it 100%?  No there were some racist white democrats that voted for McCain because they didn't want to see this country run by black, and there were some racist black republicans who crossed party lines just because Obama was black (e.g. Condi Rice) But most Americans voted for to hire the person that they thought was best suited for the job and most matched their political ideology.  

For the most part people who voted for Obama did so because he matched their political views.  Yes, very few blacks voted McCain, but very few blacks ever vote Republican.  

It is time to finally realize MLK's dream.  Any organization that favors blacks over whites is just a racist as any organization that favors whites over blacks.  

This doesn't mean affirmative action was wrong or a mistake.  It served an important purpose, we would not have gotten were we are without it.  It helped us move closer to becoming a race blind society, now it is preventing us from moving further in that direction.  

Yes, absolutely.  If you wanted to talk to me about the oppression of white Christians in, say, China, I'm totally receptive.  In America?  Not so much.

No, you can disagree without being a bigot.  It's just difficult to separate the two because, much like with "states' rights," the people who crowed the loudest about state sovereignty are the same people who wanted to use that sovereignty to enact racist laws.  So "states' rights" is just a convenient middleman.

Are you talking about the America-hating unpatriotic socialism-loving liberals, or some other group?

Not that I necessarily agree with your interpretation of the Bible (are homosexuals more of a problem than shellfish or clothes with mixed fibers?), but no, I don't really have a problem with calling someone from 2000 years ago a bigot.  Racism, slavery, and rape were readily accepted customs of that era.  They are not today.

Are you saying that somehow "Do the Right Thing" is insulting to white people?

Spike Lee proudly admits to not liking interracial couples and giving them the evil eye when he sees one.

All class and tolerance that guy.

I feel that this is like saying, "Allen Iverson was MVP of the NBA and he's 5'11", therefore height is no longer an advantage in the NBA."

It is difficult for me to accept the idea that the playing field has been leveled when (for example) whites and blacks use marijuana at roughly the same rate, yet blacks are arrested for marijuana far more often (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/).  While I generally do favor assistance based on socioeconomic status over race, I do not agree that the (re-)election of a one individual proves that racism is largely defeated.

I think that Hoodie's position on AA is not exactly mine, but is in the same direction.  I don't support AA.  I think it's lived its usefulness, but now things are close enough that AA will cause more division and harm than good by driving a wedge.  I think the wind is blowing this direction and most people, even liberals, want to see AA gone.

AA meant well.  But with or without it, there would always be a qualified candidate who would be left out in the cold.

I don't claim racism doesn't exist, nor would I claim that height is not an advantage in basketball.  If I was to make the claim, "NBA teams are biased they won't sign the best basketball player only the tallest" Than Iverson is a great counter example to disprove that. 

Fact: Tall people are more prone to have the skills to be a great basketball player than short people. That doesn't mean that someone less than 6 feet tall will never be considered a first round draft talent in the NBA. But it does mean that more 6 feet tall people will be draft in the first round than people less than 6 feet.   

Fact: White people are more prone to have the skills necessary to competently perform high paying jobs than black people.  That doesn't mean that blacks can't get good paying jobs that they are qualified for, but it does mean that on avg, they are going to make less money.



Based on personal experiences, I don't doubt your stats.  But I don't agree with the conclusion.

My personal experiences: 

1) While I don't smoke pot, I have friends who do.  They are white.  The smoke in the basement of their home or deep in the woods.   

2) I frequently walk in the local city park.  Occasionally I will see white people smoking
in the woods when hiking on the trails.  I have NEVER seen a white person smoking pot at the picnic tables, ball fields or near the playground at the park.  I frequently see blacks smoking in such public areas.  And sometimes I see them get arrested.  I have never seen a cop on the hiking trails. 

3) Last week I saw a black man get arrested for smoking pot.  It was a weekend afternoon, he was on the park bench next to the playground that had about 30 children playing. 

4) At an outdoor free music concert I saw the same two cops bust four different groups for smoking pot.  The cops were both black.

group A - a group of blacks.  When the cops approached the smokers were respectful the smokers turn over their pot without incident, the cop ran their licences and let them off with a warning.

group B - a group of whites.  Exact same outcome as group A

group C - single black.  When the cop told him to put out the joint, he responded "fuck you, you pig."  He was arrested.

group D - one white, one black. They also were respectful.  When the cops ran the ids the black showed up as having an open a warrant.  He was arrested; the white who did not have an open warrant was given a warning. 

So I don't doubt the data that more blacks get arrested than whites for smoking pot.  However the conclusion I have drawn is the following: 

1) You are less likely to get arrested if you smoke where you are unlikely to encounter cops than if you smoke in the areas the cops patrol.

2) You are less likely to get arrested if you are polite to a cop, cooperate and call him "Sir" than if you call him a "pig"

3) Most white potheads have figured out the above; while many black potheads haven't or don't care.

Bad example.  But let me give you a comparative personal example. 

Do I feel that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences should force Mel Gibson to sell Icon Productions and if he refuses to do than make any film produced by Icon  ineligible to be nominated for an Oscar? 

No, I don't.  While I personally will not see a movie staring Gibson or one he directs, forcing him sell his production house or be banned from having any movie produced not be recognized by the award monopoly would be an overreach.   

I feel that Swift's unilateral action without any benefit of due process because he was personally offended by Sterling's comments is a gross misjustice. 

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/08/mj_stopsbyrace.jpg)
There is only so much you can chalk up to poor attitude.  (And I humbly submit that if you were regularly harassed by the police when you had done nothing wrong, your attitude towards them might be much less positive.  Hell, in NY, kids are required to carry ID when in their own apartment building or risk being arrested (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mike-bloombergs-new-york-cops-in-your-hallways-20120403).)

When the police regularly go into low-income neighborhoods (which is frequently synonymous with "minority neighborhoods") to sweep for drugs, where are the corresponding sweeps in upper-class neighborhoods?  Why aren't they stopping and frisking bankers or stock traders?  And what part of any of this changed solely because Obama was elected?

Like I said, socioeconomic status is a big part of it, but the policies create a cycle where kids in white neighborhoods are not stopped, not frisked, and do not accumulate prior offenses.  Kids in poor minority neighborhoods are stopped all the time, so two kids in two different neighborhoods with exactly the same illegal behavior wind up with vastly different records.

Has Icon Productions agreed to a business contract with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences?  If not, then the situation is not analogous.

Furthermore, can you conceive of any statement for which the Academy would be justified in disqualifying an entity from receiving awards?  If so, then you are not really concerned with protecting free speech as much as you are dismissing the severity of Sterling's statement.

Your right.  Much of it can be attributed to the fact that blacks commit more crimes than whites.  Or least did last time we kept the stats on that.  For some reason it has been determined that reporting of the race of criminals is racist.  

And much can be attributed to stupidity of the criminals.

Does drug use occur in the wealthy areas?  Yes.  Does street corner dealing?  No.  

Cops can drive around my neighborhood all day long they aren't going to catch anyone doing drugs inside their own home.  But every time I drive downtown I see folks dealing in the open.  Pretty easy to make bust.  

And what are we going to stop and frisk a stockbroker for? You aren't going to find evidence of stock fraud that way.  But if you see people casing a liquor store it is good police work to determine if they are armed.  

I can't think of any statement that ought justify banning awards nor justify ending a basketball owner for losing a team.

The Colts owner (NFL) has done something criminal as opposed to something that is offensive -- that I can see justifying this type of action.  But alas it hasn't.

Also Gibson is an interesting case.  His antisemitic rant didn't end his Hollywood career.  But his subsequent use of the N-word did.  How is it that one is forgivable and the other isn't?   

...except that this very discussion shows that while whites admit to using illegal drugs at the same rate (or even higher (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-drug-use_n_3941346.html)) than blacks, blacks are arrested far more often.  Your explanation for this is that the black people have poor attitudes and are using drugs in the open?  What would that have to do with stopping someone, frisking them, and finding concealed drugs on their person?

It is impossible to separate convictions from enforcement.  When two groups of people openly admit to committing the same crime at the same rate, and yet the police systematically target one group over the other, saying that one of them "commits more crime" is a circular argument.

You realize that drug dealing and drug possession are two different crimes, right?  Are you claiming that the huge difference in arrest rates are all dealers?

Illegal drugs?  I mean, that's exactly the point: when you arbitrarily stop and frisk one group of people (but not another), of course you will catch more of the former hiding illegal drugs.

When just 6% of your 4.4 million stops (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/racial-discrimination-in-stop-and-frisk.html) result in arrests, it's obvious that you are just stopping people with no reason.  When you cite stopping violent crime as the justification for these searches, and only 1.5% of your frisks find weapons, you're clearly just fishing.  And when black suspects are found to possess a gun half as often (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/) as white suspects, and found to possess drugs 1/3 less than white suspects, the purported impartiality of these stops is exposed as fraudulent.

And while I'm happy to discuss all of these things in more detail, it is your position that the singular event of the election of Barack Obama instantly made these things non-factors.  In other words, if Hillary Clinton beats Obama in the Democratic primary, then minorities still face an uphill battle in America and need the extra assistance they can get, but since that didn't happen, minorities across the republic now have a level playing field?

They do have a pretty good reputation for carrying some white powdery substance. I'd say the suspicion should be just the same.

So wait... is it your position that private organizations must not consider any outside factors when issuing awards?  Well, not exactly... you said could see Irsay losing his team for criminal actions (that were totally unrelated to his business).  But NBA owners taking action against Sterling (who made statements that had a significant and tangible impact on the NBA's ability to do business) is crossing the line?

So when did Gibson's career "end" in this timeline?  He's been in a new movie every year since 2010.

This has go to be a joke. There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start.

I'll assume that this statement means that you think it's perfectly OK to have an all black basketball league and other assorted all black groups. And also think that it's OK for various famous black people to say things that would cause a Caucasian person to be labeled a racist.

Take a look at the current state of affairs in Africa and then tell us how slavery and rape aren't accepted customs.

I guess here is the fundamental difference.

I don't considered African Americans an OPPRESSED minority. 

Oppressed minorities don't have representation at the highest levels of government.  Such as President or Justice of Supreme Court.

Oppressed minorities have legal barriers to their success.  (e.g. segregation)  Not granted legally mandated favoritism (e.g. affirmative action)

Rosa Parks had a legitimate complaint.  You don't.

Sorry, but when Obama was elected you lost the what little right still had to call yourself an oppressed minority.     

other than the fact that blacks get arrested at a much higher rate for the same crimes as whites do .. or that black defendents receive on average harsher penalties for the same convictions than whites .. other than you know .. facts .. you're right

So then, why did you pick November 2008 instead of October 1967 (when Thurgood Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court)?

Can you explain how segregation is a legal barrier to success?  Specifically, the "separate but equal" kind.

Why do you consider Rosa Parks' complaint legitimate?  Does the bus not take all of its occupants to every destination?  What does it matter what part of the bus you are sitting on?

I suppose we can also repeal the Civil Rights Act now, as racism has been eradicated?

The idea that the election of one man negates millions of people still being harassed by police because of the color of their skin is rather silly.  Furthermore, as Obama is not Hispanic, do you believe (as you claim you did prior to 2008) that affirmative action is still A.O.K. for non-black races?  Or are we supposed to believe that Sonia Sotomayor means that Latinos also live in a post-racial society, but Thurgood Marshall didn't mean the same for black people in the 1960s because ...?

Very significant reason. Thurgood was not elected by the masses.  Nor was his election private.  If we still lived in a society where the majority of whites claimed not to be racist but were in fact private were, then Obama would have won lost the election (even if he won the exit polls) as people could have privately not voted for him while still claiming to be color blind.  That didn't happen.  Plus one justice out of nine isn't the leader of the country.  President is.


There never was separate but equal.  


Rosa Parks wasn't told to sit in another section of the bus.  She was required to stand in the back of the bus.  


While I am not calling for that.  I think we could.  If the CRA was repealed I doubt very many restaurants would bar blacks from sitting at counter etc.  Maybe a handful would, but it would be very few.

I never said racism had been eradicated.  It still exists.  I have said that AA once helped reduce it, now it fuels it.  And therefor AA should go away.


I don't think we should have ever had affirmative action for Latinos in the first place. Blacks were a special case because of slavery and segregation.  If Latinos deserve AA then so do the Irish, (Irish need not apply),  the Italian (WOPS), the Jews (many colleges had policies of excluding Jews, etc), and Asians.  Latinos haven't had it any worse, in fact they have had it easier then most other immigrant groups.  There was no ESL for my grandparents.    

You're the one that just said that "oppressed minorities" don't have representation on the Supreme Court.  So if Supreme Court justices are appointed and don't count, why did you bring them up?  Did blacks cease to be an "oppressed minority" when Marshall made it to the Supreme Court, or not?

Can you explain how that is a legal barrier to success?
Is it because of the poor treatment?  Or maybe the inferior facilities?

Other people were already standing on the bus.  Does the bus not still take its occupants to every destination?  How is her complaint legitimate?

How does AA fuel racism only now?  Whites were being excluded to make room for more minorities since the start of AA; that is its function.  So if you believe that giving a minority candidate a leg up at the expense of a white candidate engenders resentment today, you should have believed that well before November 2008.

So you don't believe that non-black minorities suffered from the effects of racism, then?

First off: Asians did benefit from AA, just as Latinos, Native Americans, Arabs, etc. did.
Second: I'm amazed I even have to explain this, but it's a lot easier for a person with caucasian appearance (e.g. Irish, Polish, Russian, many Jews and Italians) to pass as "white" than it is for most blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

The rest of your post of both this is just bullshit and already addressed you know it.

But this point is worth responding to.


So it is your stance that anti-antisemitism is different than racism, because a Jew can change his name, cease going to shul, join a Christian church and likely avoid the discriminate effect by ceasing to be Jewish. 

That is saying that http://skinlighteningcreamlabs.com/lightening-cream-for-african-american-and-asian-skin-types/ will solve any remaining race issues.   

Not really; it's just inconvenient to your position.

You claim that the kinds of conditions that resulted from discrimination (e.g. inequal treatment by law enforcement, inferior public facilities) were a "legal barrier to success" when explicitly codified into law.  But when they are not codified into law, but still enforced in practice (under different rationale), suddenly they are not a big deal and people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

I can make the same kind of argument for Jim Crow: "The law doesn't say that blacks can't vote... it just says that if you had a relative that could vote before 1860, then you can vote without having to take a poll test.  That's not race specific!"

I'm not saying that things are anywhere near as bad today as they were prior to the CRA; they are not.  But I don't understand your reliance on 11/4/08... either conditions across the country were still bad enough to warrant AA on 11/3/08, or they were not.  The election of one man does not instantly mean that kids being stopped in their own apartment buildings and being forced to prove they live there is now OK.

Well, yes.  That's how some Jews during the Holocaust were able to survive; by passing as Christian (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hidden.html).  Of course, not all Jews had this option; some had language barriers, while others appeared too ethnic to pass as "Aryan."  Asians can't exactly grab a Bible and pretend to be white.

I'm pretty sure that skin lightening cream doesn't change your hair, nose, lips, or eyes, nor is it passed on to your children.

It seems like you're saying that Irish/Italian/Jewish people in segregated America had to use the Colored facilities and go to Colored schools.  Is this your claim?  If not, you're really just wasting your time; the fact that there was discrimination between different caucasian groups doesn't really prove anything.  The defining line in this country was "colored" and "white"; while there were still hierarchies within those groups, the lowest white group was still above the highest colored group.

Bullshit.  A law based on your rights prior to 1860 is based on race.  Give me one example of a law that substitutes for race in such matter that is still on the books or was on the books in the last 30 years.  Stop living in the 1950s.


The need for AA has been declining for quite some time before 11/04/08.  But that was a watershed moment and proof positive things have changed. 

Hypothetically: Let say tomorrow congress repeals CRA and on Tuesday the MLB announces it is up to individual teams if they wish to be all white, all colored or mixed there is no requirement regarding if a team owner discriminates or not.   

Do you think we would go back to the days before Jackie Robinson?  Or do you think that baseball teams would draft and play players based on their talent? 

That is the difference.  The majority of people (not all, but most) judge people based on their skills and character not color.  That was true in October of 2008, but unproven, in Nov it was proven to be true


Actually I am not.  I think AA had a purpose for blacks, native americans and women, but the country has moved past it, because we did at one time have specific laws against them.    But there was never had legitimate purpose for Hispanics.

But a law that gives different sentences for crack cocaine vs. powdered cocaine is not?

No, but given that baseball voluntarily integrated well before the CRA, that seems a particularly poor example. 

In contrast, do I think that businesses that have to at least appear to have non-racial guidelines in hiring could feel free to completely abandon them... to summarily discard any resume that has an ethnic-sounding name, or has an address in the wrong part of town (without even the pretense of a reason)?  Why, yes, I do.

Do you know what percentage of people even vote in this country?  And of those, how many voted against Obama?

Obama received 69,498,516 votes in a nation of >300 million.  Of those ~70 million votes, over 28 million were from non-whites.  The majority of whites voted for McCain, 55% to 43%. (http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html)  And these facts PROVE that AA is no longer needed?

Do the majority of Americans judge others based on the content of their character?  Yes, I believe so.  But if you're telling me that 51% of police believing that Hispanics are just as innocent as anyone else is good enough?  That's absurd.  A simple majority is not even close to enough.

When we stop having policies that disproportionately target blacks and Hispanics, then I can believe that the playing field has been leveled.  Whether or not Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court is irrelevant.

So again, you believe that Hispanics were not impacted by segregation?

You just said that Rosa Parks had a "legitimate complaint."  Had Rosa Parks been Hispanic, the outcome in her scenario would have been exactly the same.  So which one is it?

An interesting article that I read today that actually makes the opposite argument of Hoodie's (racial division has become more prevalent since Obama's election):

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/2/5671792/race-and-obama

The article presents several examples of poll results from Democrats vs. Republicans on six racially-charged topics.  These three are pre-2008:

(http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4390083/teslersterling2.png)

And these three are post-2008:

(http://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/assets/4390073/teslersterling1.png)

Another interesting graph is this one, which tracks the opinion of self-identifying Republican voters on interracial marriage and affirmative action:

(http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4390153/teslersterling3.png)

If Obama's election proved that this country has moved past the oppressing racism of yesteryear, why has there been such a sharp increase in racial division since Obama's election?  The argument that this is solely driven by resentment towards affirmative action does not explain the sharp uptick in sentiment against interracial marriage; that fact also deflates the idea that the cause is a sharp leftward turn by liberals (instead of a sharp rightward turn by conservatives).

^ I don't think that's a fair graph, because it breaks down specifically Republicans and Democrats.  But I'd argue that the makeup of the GOP is very different now than it was just 10 years ago.  It's a fringe party for the most part and those that were part of it 10 years ago probably are identifying as independents.

What is that inter-racial dating question asking anyway, it is ambigous?  "If we should amend the constitution to overturn Loving?" or "would your prefer your son/daughter go out with some one of the same color?"  or something in between.  If it is former the numbers seem high if the later the number seems low.  If the wording of the question change in the surveys and hence the difference. 

Actually an right-wing up tick in being less than thrilled with Loving might have little to do with race, but right wingers being up set with Loving being an argument for the doing away with the requirement that married people have different  genders. 

I am not surprised that there is an up tick in white opposition to AA and in general worsening race relations.   Only one of which has to do with Obama.   It is easy for me to see a need for AA in the 1960/70s.  Not so much when the President is black.

But the second reason is if you look at the chart, increases in opposition of AA matches a decline in the economy.  If you are a white male working for a company in a growing economy you are unlikely to be bother that a new employee coming in is black or female because of AA.  However, in a declining economy if a company is laying off equally qualified white males and keeping the blacks and women because they fear a risk of a discrimination suit if they lay off a black but a free to lay off a white, then resentment become quite strong. 

This is the foundation of the issue.

If one believes that Obama's election proves that racism has been mostly eliminated, is it any wonder that one would also dismiss the racial aspects of the Zimmerman homicide, or downplay the significance of Sterling's comments, or feel that a movie about slavery is dredging up old, irrelevant problems?

This isn't happening in a vacuum.  Assigning such a value to the election of one man and using that specific event to infer immediate, sweeping changes to society as a whole directly leads to the kind of disconnect on race that is shown in those charts.

I don't dismiss the racial aspects of Zimmerman.  I am certain if it had been a white on white or black on black shooting it would have never gone national.  Had it been black on black which one would Obama declare could have been his son?

Sterling's comments are racist.  But not any worse than Jessie Jackson calling NYC Hymietown.  Clearly there is a racial aspect to the different reception those comments got. 

Holding the opinion that Gravity was the best picture of 2012 is not racist.  Just like holding the opinion that The Fugitive was the best picture in 1993 is not antisemitic. 

The thing that gets me about the Zimmerman discussion is that people still leave the word Hispanic out of the discussion and insinuate or outright say it is a white on black crime. George Zimmerman refers to himself as Hispanic but misleading news reports still have Americans ignoring that.

Was Jesse Jackson much more racially tolerant on 11/3/08?
Why do so many more Republicans like Gravity (or whatever stand-in you want to use) than Democrats?
Why didn't the white-on-black Goetz shooting (back during a time when you say AA was still justified) have the same kind of racial divide (by party affiliation) as the Zimmerman shooting?

Here's the thing... the Obama election as definitive racism indicator mindset not only allows for, but actively contributes to the following beliefs:

"We have a black president and NBA players are still complaining about racism?"
"We have a black president and people are still complaining about racial profiling?"
"We have a black president and people still want to obsess over slavery?"

It's like for any possible racial aggrievement, the categorical response is, "but we have a black president now, so that can't be true" (or, alternatively, "Hey, I voted for Obama, but...").

FYI, I'm planning on locking this unless it goes anywhere...it's the same two people arguing for 5 pages.

Why is that unfair?

I think their policies are out of the mainstream, but they have control of the House and are within striking distance of the Senate, so it's hard to call them a fringe party.

Zimmerman has repeatedly been referred to by the media as a "white Hispanic."

Hispanic itself can be a complicated way to categorize someone.  Most people would also categorize David Ortiz or Sammy Sosa as simply "black" in similar circumstances.

Which doesn't match to how Zimmerman describes himself.

It's a fair graph, but it's not representative of the point you're trying to make, if I'm understanding you correctly.  The makeup of the GOP has changed a lot and shrunk in that time. 

Most people categorize Tiger Woods as black, even though that's not how he categorizes himself.

The most recent of the "before" examples is 2007.  If the GOP has changed dramatically since then, what reason do you have for that?

If the cause is Obama's election, then I'd say it is exactly representative of the point.  Keep in mind that one of the "before" examples is from 1995 (during Clinton's first term), so "Democrat wins presidency" is not a sufficient explanation.

If the point you are trying to make is that much of white America agreed with MLK, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  And that white America views the election of a black president as a watershed moment that means that we can begin to dismantle the policies of AA that due in fact judge a person by the color of their skin, black America views the election of a black president as reason to expand AA.  And that white America resents the idea that black America doesn't actually want  MLK's dream they want preferential treatment.  And this resentment of black America rejecting the MLK dream speech in favor for skin color based programs is causing a backlash and race relations problems.  Then I agree with your point.     

I think that it's not because of Obama.  I think that there's been a social swing that really turned off the moderates and the GOP (especially in the conservative areas) had to double down on their conservative social stuff with the base to keep elected, which really hurt them as a viable national party.  So...stuff like marijuana, all the weird laws with women and birth control and stuff, slut shaming, etc.  Now, Obama does play into it, but it's just correlated.  The same base that the GOP has been targeting for these other reasons probably don't like a black guy in the white house.

And how, exactly, would you distinguish what you have just described above from people who become newly alarmed when a black President is elected?

The purpose of AA was not to get one black Senator, or one black CEO, or even one black President; the purpose was to try to level the playing field.  To argue that Obama's election singlehandedly proves that the playing field is now level is to say that Bill Gates' success proves college degrees are now superfluous and unnecessary.  Obama is but one example, and when I provide reasons as to why I believe the playing field is not level, the responses I receive (blacks commit more crime!  whites are more respectful to police!  blacks do drugs out in the open!) are no less applicable today than they were before Obama was elected.

If you're going to tell me that there are reasonable, rational explanations for the vastly different law enforcement experiences that minorities and whites still have today, those explanations have NOTHING to do with Obama's election.  I can respect the argument that AA has gradually become unnecessary, but the idea that the election of one man should singlehandedly flip a switch is not credible; it's a convenient excuse.

I think it's unbelievably coincidental that this extreme social swing took place at precisely the same moment that Obama took office (particularly since we did not see a similar effect under Clinton).

But the big difference is Woods is not being called a racist black which he does not identify himself as. Zimmerman is being called a racist white and he does not even identify himself as white.

Zimmerman does not claim himself as what he is portrayed and the people he is portrayed as being do not claim him either. I know racist whites. The type who cannot discuss black people without saying N. The types that identify every racial group with some derogatory remark. Believe me, they are not happy to see Zimmerman get off his charges. In their perfect world he would have gotten a death penalty. Two more minorities off the table is how they would feel about it. Unfortunately, I've heard them say it while this case was in the news.

You are right on the money Hoodie. I think that this is the core problem. Blacks don't want equality, they want superiority and preferential treatment. Current generations think that they are owed for things that happened in the past, like slavery and segregation. Even though NONE of them went through slavery and most of them haven't experienced the true and extreme racism that happened in the past. Generations of blacks are being raised with this sense of entitlement and they know no different. Any minority in any country is not ever going to get treated as the majority is treated. Go to any other country in the world and I'm sure that you will find that minorities in that country are treated somewhat different in a negative manner, no matter how small it is. I'm not going to look it up and I could be wrong, however I would venture to say that blacks have it as good or better in the US than any other place on earth.

Well, do blacks commit more crimes? Do blacks do drugs out in the open more? Do blacks commit more murders?

I was not alarmed that the Obama was elected.  I was thrilled.

I was alarmed that it didn't resulted in AA coming to an immediate end.  

How is that a "big difference"?  Tiger Woods was frequently categorized as black man marrying white woman (even though he does not identify as black).  In Tiger's case, it's convenient for him to be a black man when talking about the inroads of blacks into golf, or when talking about the propensity of black men to date white women.  In Zimmerman's case, it's convenient for him to be a white man when talking about racial profiling.

Not a particularly good argument to make, given a) the lack of an outpouring of Hispanic support for Zimmerman and b) the racial composition of the cohort of Zimmerman supporters.

So I take it from this post that you still think Zimmerman is guilty? Would it also be safe to assume that most blacks also think he is guilty?

I think Zimmerman was found Not Guilty of murder, in exactly the same sense and to the extent that Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson were found the same.

Well since that's the case. If I remember correctly the black community celebrated the acquittal of OJ much more than the white community did with Zimmerman. Even though the prosecution could have done better in the OJ trial, there was enough evidence for a guilty verdict. It could have gone either way. Not so much in the Zimmerman trial, since there wasn't much evidence against him at all. So, a black person complaining about the Zimmerman verdict is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, no pun intended. This is the hypocrisy of the black community, they don't want equal treatment, they want "payback"

 

If you want to compare number of media personalities who openly defended OJ and celebrated his acquittal to those who did the same for Zimmerman, I'm happy to take that bet.

But even that comparison is flawed; OJ is a famous football star and TV celebrity, while Zimmerman is a random citizen.  If we are going to compare apples to apples, we would have to compare the insane media coverage of a random black man accused of murdering white(s) under very questionable circumstances who was then acquitted to that of Zimmerman.  Feel free to let me know when you find one.

shorter: "OJ was actually guilty but Zimmerman totally wasn't"

How convenient that you get to ignore the verdicts you don't agree with.

The lack of support from the Hispanic community should not shock anyone. Zimmerman was labeled white from the first reports to push the racial angle of the story. As soon as photos came out and people could clearly see he was Hispanic they altered their reporting to use the term white Hispanic. Hispanic organizations have aligned with black organizations frequently in the past. They have both felt racism from the white community and Zimmerman is not the best spokesperson for an ethnicity. The best way for each group to push an agenda, refer to Zimmerman as white.

No lets just stick to the black and white communities reaction to the OJ and Zimmerman verdicts.

They were both declared not guilty, but lets just assume that they were both clearly guilty according to the evidence and that the jury got them both wrong. Since you keep bringing up whites defending Zimmerman even though he was guilty. How is it any different for the black community to defend a clearly guilty OJ?

Your claim was that Zimmerman was being labeled as white, yet whites were not claiming him as such.  But Hispanics weren't claiming him either, and the overwhelming majority of his supporters were white.

So bringing up who claimed whom as what is not really useful to your point.

Actually, many of us are not Zimmerman supporters. We are supporters of the ruled of law as well as evidence and the proof or lack of proof of it. I have met Zimmerman and did not care for the guy (this was years before this incident). On the other hand, I can accept that the prosecution was not ale to show that Zimmerman committed murder. He killed someone, of that there is no doubt. That is a long way from proving it was a murder though.

That is the point people on your side of the argument miss. Your argument is simply that an unarmed black person was killed. Therefore it had to be murder. People on my side of the argument look at the rules of law in that the evidence must be beyond the shadow of doubt. I could clearly see where they did not have enough evidence to get to that level of certainty.

Speaking for myself, calling me a supporter is way off base.

As for who claimed who not being useful to my point, it really is. My original point being that Zimmerman is Hispanic but is being called white by the media and black community. Hispanics really are not denying his heritage. They just did not support his case. There is a difference.

What, exactly, is the "white community"?

I mean, I can give lots of examples of white people (in fact, almost entirely white people) supporting Zimmerman, just as you can presumably give examples of black people supporting OJ.

You're free to assume that they are clearly guilty; I already stated that my opinion is that he was found Not Guilty in court, which is what matters.

I wasn't even the person who brought up Zimmerman, and you'll notice that I also mentioned Casey Anthony (a white woman accused of killing her white child) in the same sentence.

When you can find me an OJ supporter that says, "I supported OJ only because of his race, and not because I think he didn't do it," I will be able to appreciate the value of the above statement.

Until then, saying "I only support justice and the rule of law" is so vague and malleable as to be useless.  Everyone thinks they are on the side of the rule of law.

Given that Zimmerman does not deny the fact that he killed Martin, if that was the entirety of the argument against him, the trial (and the previous threads in this forum) would have been much shorter.  You're obviously oversimplifying.

You supported his argument that his actions were justified under Florida law, which is why I called you a supporter.  (Unless I have misinterpreted your position and you actually believe that he is guilty, but that the prosecution did not do a good job of proving it?)

This is a rather silly application of semantics.  What sort of label should we invent to describe someone who thought Casey Anthony was not guilty and should go free, but is not a Casey Anthony supporter?

Are whites denying that the classification of "white Hispanic" exists, or that it applies to him?

Your point appears to be that both sides are trying to classify him in a way that frames the story to better suit their interests.  This is not really news.

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. White people are not supporting Zimmerman because of race. The reason, he isn't white. Have you even seen a picture of the guy?

As for OJ, here is one person (all you asked for) pointing out the community's views on this. It was rather simple to find.

There are a lot of black people in this town that have told me privately, "You know, I agree with you. I think he did it, but I'll never tell anybody that." Because there's this kind of like racial code or something, this camaraderie, there's a line: If you cross that line, somehow you're not in sync with the thought process in the black community. You're not loyal, or you're a sellout. …

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/blacksoj.html

Anyway, I'm not really here to discuss the OJ verdict. it was so long ago all I can really remember was the Furhman racist comments and the farce of the glove not fitting (over another glove on a stretched out hand). No other evidence really stands out so I can't comment.


Not the people evidenced above


I would say it is more accurate at this time to position my feelings as the prosecution was unable to prove it was unjustified. Different thing entirely.

Some people are supporters of Zimmerman. I am not. I don't even like the guy but I don't feel they could convict him based on that evidence. Having not met Anthony I can give the same basic description of how I feel. I told you guys she was going to get off while the trial was happening. I think she did it though.


To be honest I had never heard "white Hispanic" before this. I won't deny it exists but it does not equate to white, especially when he does not appear white and does not consider himself white.


My point is more that the story was misrepresented from the start and has stayed that way in many circles.

Zimmerman killed a black teenager who allegedly attacked him.  I think everyone can agree that if Trayvon Martin was a blond-haired, blue-eyed teenager, the national perception of this story would have been radically different.

That example is of a person saying that someone else told me blahblahblah, which is not quite the same thing as saying "I personally supported OJ specifically because of his race."  (I'm sure you would regard secondhand testimony of "well, I know white people who said that Martin was obviously a criminal because blacks usually are" with equal skepticism.)  The particular person you are quoting says that he personally believed that OJ was guilty and that he was troubled that a guilty person got away with it.

Interestingly enough, from the same page:

"… It's not that we couldn't conceive that O.J. would be guilty; the question is, one, can you legally prove that the man did what was claimed that he did?; two, did the prosecution make a compelling case to substantiate their claim that Mr. Simpson was guilty?; and three, there's a difference between being innocent and not guilty.

So black people are not naive enough to think that the proof or the lack of proof of guilt suggests that somebody is innocent. It means that the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof -- to prove the guilt of Mr. Simpson."

Sounds pretty similar to your position on Zimmerman.

How would you classify a person from Spain or Portugal?

^^^I have every reason to believe a black man talking about his own community as much as I have a reason to believe the polls you posted. After all those people did not tell it to me directly either and are anonymous. This guy is on record talking about his community,

As for the quote you posted it was followed by this quote stating that people who celebrated the OJ verdict were not even convinced of the innocence. What were they worried about then? Past issues with the justice system that had nothing to do with OJ and everything about race.

"But did the African Americans rejoicing at O.J.'s acquittal really believe he was innocent?

Absolutely not. I don't think we should make the mistake of believing that black people who celebrated a) thought O.J. was innocent, or b) were even concerned most about O.J. as opposed to their Uncle Charlie or Bubba or their sister Shanaynay or their Aunt Jackie, who had been screwed by a system that never paid attention to them.

Again, O.J. was beyond his body. "O.J." was a term that represented every black person that got beat up by the criminal justice system, and now we have found some vindication, and guess what, white America? It was with a black man that you loved. It was with a black man that you said was better than us. It was with a black man that you said wasn't like us. He was different than we are. He wasn't a troublemaker. He didn't cause racial consternation, or he wasn't controversial. Ha, ha, ha. The very guy you thought was so perfect turns out to be the one who turned the tables on you. That was a delicious irony of the victory as well. …"

As for what I call someone from Spain or Portugal, Hispanic.

So basically, you're saying that an unattributed secondhand comment carries the same weight as a poll?

It's getting pretty tedious trying to explain statements attributed to the nebulous black community, when no one can even define what comprises the white community.  This is the equivalent of me quoting a white person who had some other white people say racist things about blacks to him this one time.  You can't even give me a direct quote from a real person and this is a serious response?  I could fill this thread with direct quotes from real people saying racist things about Trayvon Martin with little effort.

Did you think Zimmerman was innocent, or did you think the prosecution failed to prove that he was guilty?

And again, we have the nebulous attribution of some black people thought with no real person attached to it.  No actual person in that article agreed with the verdict strictly because of OJ's race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic

Hispanic is an ethnonym that denotes a relationship to Spain or, in some definitions, to ancient Roman Hispania, which roughly comprised the Iberian Peninsula including the contemporary states of Andorra, Portugal, and Spain and the Crown Colony or British Overseas Territories of Gibraltar. [...]

Due to the technical distinctions involved in defining "race" vs. "ethnicity," there is confusion among the general population about the designation of Hispanic identity. Currently, the United States Census Bureau defines five race categories:

    White
    Black or African American
    Native American or Alaska Native
    Asian
    Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

According to census reports, of the above races the largest number of Hispanic or Latinos are of the White Race, the second largest number come from the Native American/American Indian race who were the indigenous people of the Americas. The inhabitants of Easter Island are Pacific Islanders and since the island belongs to Chile they are theoretically Hispanic or Latinos. Because Hispanic roots are considered aligned with a European ancestry (Spain), Hispanic/Latino ancestry is defined solely as an ethnic designation (similar to being Norse or Germanic). Therefore, a person of Hispanic descent is typically defined using both race and ethnicity as an identifier—i.e., Black-Hispanic, White-Hispanic, Asian-Hispanic, Amerindian-Hispanic or "other race" Hispanic.
--

To categorize Zimmerman as "white" (without mentioning that he is Hispanic) is no less accurate than to categorize Donald Sterling as "white" (without mentioning that he is Jewish).

I'm simply going to ignore this. Go ahead and feign ignorance if you want. You and I both know there were some people who absolutely felt that way. Respected black men have said they heard it. I'm sure they are just lying about it to prove the point of a white guy.

I've never attributed anything to the entire black community so go ahead with the straw argument if you want. The white community argument is a moot point. Do I know there are some white assholes? Absolutely. Have I once said anything about blacks as a whole? No.
He was found not guilty. I'm not sure what to believe except there was a lack of direct evidence of murder.

I already addressed your feigning ignorance here. Believe what you want to believe. The fact of the matter is these are people speaking about their own neighborhood and experiences while being on the record. What purpose could they have in not telling the truth? Why would they want to bring down their own people in this instance? What purpose could it possibly serve?


You missed several races listed on the census form, or I guess Wikipedia did. There are actually 15 races listed on the form (and multiple selections can be made) with one of them being "Some other race" which by the government's definition on the form includes mixed race. Some other race was actually the second highest reported race by Hispanics. Zimmerman's ancestry according to Wikipedia is from a Peruvian mother (with an Afro-Peruvian mother of her own) and a German descended father. So why is it correct to say he is white (or white Hispanic) while ignoring his African roots then? Why ignore the Peruvian aspect which would fall under the Some other race category?

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

I think we've spent too much time on a very minor point ("supporters") anyway.  I believe we can both agree that people exist who wanted OJ or Zimmerman acquitted to the exclusion of all facts or rule of law.  I don't think those people carry significance (in either case); maybe you disagree.

--

There's a larger point in the context of this conversation to be made about the whole "white Hispanic" thing: whether Zimmerman is actually treated as a minority.  You say it's obvious that he's Hispanic, but I disagree; if the people on Jersey Shore are classified as white, then I don't think someone of his appearance with the last name of Zimmerman would have any problem passing as, say, Jewish.  Similarly, I think that Mariah Carey (who identifies as black) could easily pass as white (http://media.santabanta.com/gallery/global%20celebrities%28f%29/mariah%20carey/mariah%20carey2v.jpg) if she cared to; the same goes for Vin Diesel or Derek Jeter.

So from the standpoint of racial profiling (which is really the point), I think it's entirely plausible that this not-extremely-ethnic-looking man of mixed white and Hispanic heritage (with a white father) with a history of conservative beliefs could easily have racially profiled Martin, without having the life experience of being racially profiled that might cause one to think twice about such things.

OK, but I have to disagree with all of your examples completely. I do not think any of them pass for the suggested race you mentioned (at least as a singular race) as they are all clearly mixed race.

Also, as for Martin being racially profiled I would not argue that in the least. But what you seem to miss is that a white person is not the only race that can profile someone of color. An Asian person can just as easily profile a black person walking down the street. There is also profiling within the same race (and if you are suggesting I've not been profiled you are mistaken). There are subcultures within the same race which can lead to the profiling efforts. My own example, there have been periods in my life where I have appeared very much the hippy when I wanted to. Bare and dirty feet, long hair, a beard so long I wanted to punch the next baffoon who asked me about those idiots on Duck Dynasty,scraggly clothes, etc. You don't think I haven't been pulled aside and questioned, searched, etc. I know exactly what it means to have been profiled.

If TM was white it would have been a three day local story, and the national perception would have been zero.   

So true.

The interesting thought experiment would be if TM had shot GZ (though I don't know if minors can have CC permits in FL).

Mariah Carey disagrees (http://www.mariahjournal.com/infozone/magazines/1991/jet/).

(http://www.mariahjournal.com/infozone/magazines/1991/jet/0a_.jpg)

I've seen many people who identify as white that look a lot more ethnic than any of the people I mentioned.  But whatever, I suppose.

That's true, and there are many complex issues dealing with affirmative action as it relates to Asians.  I'm not sure I'd say that Asians have the same lazy welfare moochers stereotype than many blacks and Latinos suffer.

Being profiled due to factors under your control is not the same thing.  If someone discriminates against me because I'm filthy and I stink, that's not remotely similar to discriminating against me because of my skin color.

And if a cop does more stop and frisks on African Americans wearing gang colors than whites sporting football jersey's does that mean he is racist or is discriminating against gangs?

Do you mean football jerseys like these?

(http://www.raiderfans.net/forum/gallery/data/12010/367great_guys.jpg)

To answer your question: I'm pretty sure that black people don't have access to more or different clothing colors than anyone else (red is no less a "gang color" when a white person is wearing it), so when you say "gang colors," I presume you mean urban clothing?  In that case, to permit stop-and-frisk based solely on that is to create a literal fashion police.

Depending on the area ... gang colors are different. It's not always even a color as much as types of clothing etc. A bandanna, wristband, tattoos, hats, the way you wear clothing etc. I'm sure local police are familiar with what gangs identify themselves as.

One person could wear a Raiders jersey and not be flying the colors while another would be depending on how they are wearing it or their accessories.