I mean obviously there isn't a binary system hence why I tried to always put quotes around 'good/bad apples'. But people often claim it's a few 'bad' cops giving them a bad name or whatever, and others (rightfully in my opinion) that if the so called 'non-bad' (and therefore 'good'?) cops don't do anything about the 'bad' ones, then they themselves join that group.
A contrarian friend of mine, who makes it is business to question established narratives an fashions of thought, pointed me in the direction of Tony Timpa: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...age-kevin-mansell-danny-vasquez-a9030196.html The very valid question we must ask is, why did Tony Timpa's bodycam footage provoke no social media response? No grassroots anger? Why is his name not mentioned when activists now list the names of those unlawfully killed by the police? I can only think of one reason to omit his name, but rather than say what it is, I'd like to see what conclusions other people draw first. Beer and gardening. It's good for the soul.
Perhaps because for a lot of people they're focusing on white on black police brutality. Focusing on one thing doesn't nullify others. There's nothing wrong with being mad about that as well, and most would agree that it's awful as well, but perhaps not what they're focused on at the moment. It's like people who respond to black lives matter by saying all lives matter, they're missing the point. Those who say black lives matter aren't saying other lives don't matter, but that clearly at the moment black lives don't matter as much, and so they're saying they do. I'm sure you've all seen some of the common examples to try and explain it to those who don't understand e.g. you don't ask a fire engine to hose all houses when only one is on fire because all houses matter, and them just hosing the one doesn't mean other houses don't matter, but simply they're not on fire at the moment. You don't go to a friend's dad's funeral and make a thing about your dad who also also died recently, because you're there to celebrate/mourn their dad, doesn't mean your dad dying isn't sad.
Er, yeah, you absolutely do get this sort of qualifier applied to American nationality, all of the time. You just said yourself that your American ex's family were Italian ffs! One side of it is pride in where ancestors came from - you get people who will tell you that they are 1/8 Scottish, for example, and given that almost everyone in the States is at least partially from immigrant stock then you can see the desire to trace roots back. But a far more unpleasant side of it is that certain groups may be American, but they aren't treated equally. Just look back to the experience of Irish immigrants in the mid- to late-19th Century, or Italian immigrants in the early 20th Century, and you'll see that these groups weren't considered true Americans at the time. So by being referred to as Irish American or Italian American they were being othered and set apart from (and below) "genuine" Americans. Over time they've become more accepted and integrated but it's not total. And of course the irony is that the last wave of immigrants can integrate effectively by banding together with those who mistreated them in order to treat the next group badly. But they'll still be "something"-Americans to many.
For the same reason an isolated death of a German citizen at the hands of police wouldn't make the same sort of headlines if German police were disproportionately killing Jews. It's all about the narrative. The key to police reform is first defining a cohesive narrative that needs changed. Given that the America's fascist enforcement style can be directly traced back to slavery, focusing on that cultural shame is the path to changing things for the better.
If I may - to carry on the analogy, it would appear from the case of Tony Timpa that more than one house is on fire. The very valid followup question is, why aren't the activists putting out both fires? They certainly know about both. The circumstances of Tony Timpa's death are exactly what this protest is about, in every detail except one. He's not black. That detail is the only conceivable reason to omit him from the narrative. Why would they omit him from the discussion? They certainly know about his death by now, the footage was released last year. One possible speculation would be that they're trying to build momentum around the narrative of white cops killing young black men, and a wider narrative about ongoing systemic racism in America, and that anything that contradicts that narrative is muddling and undesirable. What if the actual narrative is more complicated than theirs? What if ethnicity is actually a relatively minor factor in the trends of police brutality? Do you still push the racial narrative, or do you step back and reassess and try to tell a different, more nuanced and potentially less mobilizing, angering narrative about socioeconomics? This is why it is more imperative than ever to determine if race is actually a major factor in police brutality and misconduct. Black Lives Matter's website does not link to any statistical analyses or sources. The 'resources' section is actually just pretty graphics designed for sharing on social media and showing support.
Available in spades, stretching back decades. Here's one of the more clear-cut ones showing how economic disparity correlated very closely with violent crime rates for white Americans, but has close to no correlation with black Americans. Quite simply because white-on-white police brutality isn't at the tail end of centuries of continued violent oppression. It didn't end with the civil war, it didn't end with the repeal of the Jim Crow laws, it didn't end with the Race Riots, it didn't end with either of the Civil Rights Acts, it didn't end with COINTELPRO, it didn't end with the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, it didn't end when bombs were dropped on the MOVE compound, it didn't end with the LA riots, it didn't end with the Charleston shooting, it didn't end with the deaths of Amadou Diallo or Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown or Eric Garner...
True enough - I don't have any facts to back up my suspicions, and frankly, I don't care to spend an evening putting the facts together. I think in this instance, though, a white cop killing a black man definitely contributes to the framing of it as a race-related situation. I believe it fits into police brutality, racism, and the belief that police are, by way of being police, above the law they enforce. You mention another person killed by police who were, at the time of his death, joking amongst themselves - I dare say that race had a relationship to why it wasn't picked up in the same way that this has been. Probably the same reason there wasn't this kind of response when the woman I mentioned, who was handcuffed and supposedly stole a gun from a supposedly trained officer and shot herself. She was white, and for a lot of white people the police aren't threatening. I'd suspect that white people are so ignorant, wilfully or otherwise, of what some police officers can, will, and have done to people (Presumably because we're raised with the mentality that they're on our side far more often than people of colour seem to be) that we don't see the racial nuances to the situation that someone who has spent their life trying to avoid giving the same police officers a reason to talk to them for fear of some over the top action would. Regardless of race, this situation is definitely a culmination of some.. Interesting policing strategies often used in America. It disturbs me that so many officers appear to have questionable thought processes, some seeming outright stupid, and yet are still allowed to carry firearms. It disturbs me that the locks for their bigger guns, shotguns, rifles, and so on, are so terrible that a magnet can unlock them. It disturbs me that American police seem to have access to military grade hardware (IE: Anti-Materiel rifles, vehicles designed for war environments, tactical gear for officers that shouldn't have crayons, let alone a grenade launcher), and that so few seemed to be trained in such a way that they can de-escalate situations rather than immediately reaching for a gun. That said. I accept that some tactical gear is going to have military designs because, let's be honest, a tac vest is a tac vest regardless of whether it's for police or for the military. I accept that because of their (In my opinion) broken firearm laws the police will often need to be able to return fire.
I guess to continue the analogy in a similar way to Viper mentioned, in this case you've got a big building on fire and a small shed on fire, whilst yes both should be put out, it may be better to prioritise instead of splitting the resources and potentially ended up with two building burned to the ground. Also there is the issue to a certain extent of using the details as an excuse to avoid change, as I think it has been used in the past 'but what about' type behaviour. By doing that you delay action, you muddy the waters, you often aim to nullify their argument, but not by making a better one. In a perfect world moving forwards yes we could work out exactly what was wrong, the root cause of it all and solve it. In the real world we try to see what issues there are and solve them, to then see what issues are left and solve them, to then see what issues are still left and solve them etc.... By waiting until we know exactly what the root cause of the issue is, it can result it the negative outcomes continuing, without any guarantee that the problem will be solved if/when the root cause is found.
Well, here you go. And do, remember that the demographic split is 72% white, 16% Hispanic and 13% Black.
Yep. Cannot believe that there's a question as to whether policing in the USA differs based on race. It's obvious that it does, and that unless there's meaningful reform, it will continue to do so. Are people actually pushing the narrative that there isn't systemic racism in the police in America? Really?
It's also worth pointing out the UK doesn't have much, if any room to sling mud on the topic. Windrush 'Hostile Environment' ...literally driving vans with 'GO HOME' on them round predominately not-white areas. Basically everything done overseas in the name of or benefit of the British Empire. The fact most parts of the word are war-torn catastrofucks, in part, because some british dude drew some arbitrary lines on a post-WW2 map thinking '**** it, that'll do'. ...and this - Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Just one example: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/31/...systemic-racism-george-floyd-cnntv/index.html And that ain't some far right crank on twitter, he is a National Security Adviser installed by the President.
I'm very much reading that as it doesn't mean he's not a far right crank, just that he's not on Twitter.
On average, the US police shoot dead 19 people a week, figures for how many they kill by other means aren't published at all. I'm sure the angle being leaned on was supposed to be that a white, mentally ill guy being killed doesn't garner the same response as a black guy because it doesn't fit the narrative. But to me the answer is simpler and even more grim, the vast majority of these cases elicit little or no response because there are just so many.
One thing I want to add - and I want to emphasise this is NOT a direct accusation - is to be careful of where you are picking up talking points from. "But there are also white people killed by police" "but black communities are poorer so poverty is why they are arrested more" and "the media is just trying to drum up the racism angle" are extremely common racist dogwhistles, that long predate social media or indeed the internet. ::EDIT:: It may be worthwhile to consider them as memes in the original Dawkins sense: self-replicating or viral ideas/thoughts/concepts/information. Some may be vulnerable as 'asymptomatic spreaders': those who perceive them as genuine concerns and want to address them, and in doing so spread them to a wider audience. Some may be 'inoculated' by previous exposure and dismissal (though self-guided education) or through 'vaccination' (already being exposed to the reality of the situation). But some may be infected and become more vulnerable to similar memes with more dangerous payloads (e.g. 'if black comunities are poorer it's their own fault').
When it comes to rocking up to places and acting like dicks, the British have got form. Historically and presently. How many countries were afforded the chance to argue against our flag being planted and us telling them to do one? Not many. I don't recall being taught how shitty we were as a country, but I don't imagine having half the known world in your empire comes without throwing human suffering around like confetti.
What I was getting at with the 'but what about' type comments, but more nicely put as expected from you Edit: I think in general 'yeah but' is a dangerous road and something you should really think about before you say it. e.g. A - A man was killed by a police officer who would have most likely got away with it were it not for it being recorded and posted on social media. B - Yeah but that doesn't mean they can riot. A - I'm not saying the rioting is good or bad but you're minimising the original problem by focusing on the rioting instead.
