I fucking hate people like Barrett. “I’m not a racist, I just don’t like black people.” WTF ever. Go fuck yourself you racist piece of shit.

</rant>

Sorry. Just NOT in the mood for this stuff today.

“I’m not a racist because I’ve never burned a single cross, and I don’t even own a pointy white hood OR a swastika armband.”

“I don’t even own a striped rugby shirt, much less a domino mask, and when I broke into your home, I was carrying a revolver, not a blackjack, so put down that phone and quit calling me a burglar, dammit!”

We solved the racism problems in this country, once and for all.

We re-defined the word (Oxford English Dictionary be damned) so it no longer means the same thing.  There are actual racists, but they’re the ones unfairly calling other people “racists”.

Quick, clean, no muss, no fuss, and it’s all over.  Simple.

The Civil War would have been over in minutes if we could have re-define “slavery” as a positive relationship between a worker and his/her employer, who have agreed among themselves that money would not be exchanged for labor, and that room and board would provided…

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Racism is Love

Not just a racist—a misogynist as well. He was writing a woman columnist with the Globe and telling her at least twice that she ought to get him a cup of coffee instead of, you know, having a job and such. Classy guy.

If Officer Justin Barrett’s that transparent in his racism and yet doesn’t consider himself racist, what in his mind constitutes racism? Burning a cross on a lawn? Lynchings? Unleashing dogs and training high-blast fire hoses on people?

It actually took me quite a while to figure out that discourtesy was not the same as racism.  So long as I wasn’t discourteous to anyone, then I wasn’t a racist.  Simple, see?  Fortunately, hanging out at places like this and Shakesville and Womanist-Musings have helped me figure out that reality is a little different than my perceptions of it.  I still have a long way to go.

/relurks

I don’t think the “let’s have a beer” thing has class overtones. I do a small favor for someone and they say “I’ll have to buy you a beer next time you’re in town.” I wouldn’t deliberately invite two arguing people over to my house, but I guess a beer sounds about right. Wine is either not even mentioned—just invite someone over and break out a bottle when they arrive—or it’s a special wine and the whole premise of the visit is to partake.

What will these three talk about today, as they chug a cold one? I venture they will touch upon race in some, hopefully productive way, but I can put money on it that class won’t be on the table.

That’s because we still can’t say that there is such a thing as class in our awesome meritocracy of a society.

But these things are intertwined: You can’t tell me anyone cares what kind of beer John McCain drinks.

John McCain drinks Anheuser-Busch beverage products and enjoys exciting Anheuser-Busch theme parks.

Help me out here—If Officer Justin Barrett’s that transparent in his racism and yet doesn’t consider himself racist, what in his mind constitutes racism?

That’s pretty easy. In his mind, he isn’t a racist because he believes quite righteously that black people are capable of being polite, intelligent, clean, articulate, authority- and god-fearing people. I’m sure sees plenty of the good kind on TV, probably even personally knows more then a few, and recognizing them as the good kind gives him a nice affirming sense of just how not-racist he really is.

Sure, black folk don’t tend to be the good kind, but our not-racist Cop understands that nothing about their race precludes them being so. The racists are the ones who deny this, and feel that all dark people are jungle bunnies. The not-racist knows better.

What we fail to grok is that white not-racist police officers must bear the terrible burden of differentiating between the good ones and the jungle monkeys, right on the spot, in stressful and dangerous circumstances. The reason that they are so angry at Professor Gates and his supporters, is that a) we don’t really appreciate how tragic and terribly unfair it is to be a not-racist and still be forced to make instant life-or-death judgments about which dark people are the jungle bunnies, and b) Professor Gates is clearly not a jungle bunny, but he screwed up because he easily could have eased the White Cop’s Burden and instantly identified himself as one of the good ones, but chose instead to act all uppity. Because he’s just an angry reverse-racist.

“John McCain drinks Anheuser-Busch beverage products and enjoys exciting Anheuser-Busch theme parks.”

...as do all Good Americans.  He and America also enjoy watching sports sponsored by Anheuser-Busch…

While there are clearly much bigger, more important issues tied up in this—I’m embarrassed to admit that my first thought after reading Pam’s first graf was:

A cop drinking a Blue Moon? Seriously?

This is a wheated beer usually served with a slice of orange. Despite being a Coors product, fruit in beer, in and of itself, disqualifies it from the realm of “real Amerikun.”

Sometimes, people just don’t know when to spray mace in their own faces to shut themselves up.

Maybe he thinks it’s a fancy beer because you can put fruit in it.

Let’s not beat around the bush: Barret’s intent was to offend Gates and all the “upity” people who think it is alright to talk back to a cop. He used a racially charged term with the intent to offend. Can’t get more VERBALLY racist than that.

“John McCain drinks Anheuser-Busch beverage products and enjoys exciting Anheuser-Busch theme parks.”

...as do all Good Americans.  He and America also enjoy watching sports sponsored by Anheuser-Busch…
MikeEss on 07/30 at 01:14 PM

He does especially because Cindy, upon her father’s death in 2000 “inherited majority control and became chair of Hensley & Co., one of the largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributors in the United States.” (Wiki)

.. .it’s equally damaging for blacks to throw down the race card at the drop of a hat in a confrontation; do so is signaling that the slight automatically presumes intent and malice when it may be simple ignorance and the defense shields go up because one must avoid being labeled a racist at all costs because it is toxic. The escalation rate is high, and damage is hard to undo, so both sides need to take care when assessing a situation.

Blacks’ throwing the race card is not equally damaging as Barrett’s rant.  You’re being overly solicitous there, Pam.  Barrett’s rant is old-fashioned racism and most civilized. educated people recognize that.

Where the indiscriminate pulling of the race card is damaging is at the edges of integration where white folk are not only conscious of the potential of racial discrimination but eager to avoid or prevent it.  So, when Gates’ assumption that Crowley was motivated by race becomes refuted when Crowley’s background, activities and coworker support show he has a good history rather than a bad one on racial issues, we see that even at the highest level of sophistication and education, a hurtful accusation can be made.  Try asking some white folk if they have ever been unjustly accused of racism or have been close enough involved in a situation to know the truth of an unjust accusation against a friend or coworker.  You might be surprised at how many yes answers you get. 

I’d love to observe today’s meeting to see if both men will stand behind their own walls of self-righteousness and attempt to justify their own actions or if they will understand how they themselves over-reacted on the the day of the arrest and apologize to each other for not being able to resolve it better, at the time or in the aftermath.

So, when Gates’ assumption that Crowley was motivated by race becomes refuted when Crowley’s background, activities and coworker support show he has a good history rather than a bad one on racial issues

Refuted? Good history?

Crowley acted exactly like a racist cop would act. Cops always defend fellow cops; his coworkers’ words are worth absolutely nothing. Teaching a class means little; somebody has to do it, and if most of the cops are racist, then a racist cop will probably end up teaching the class.

asdf, have you seen this set of interviews of Crowley’s co-workers?  http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2009/07/26/nr.comrade.in.arms.cnn
It’s only three minutes long and worth a look.  Do you think they’re faking it?

It’s hard to believe that someone you have a positive working relationship with could be a racist. That’s most of what’s going on in the video. I’m hesitant to say they’re all lying, because I don’t know how conscious they are of their own biases.

However, at one point, the woman blatantly lies, when she says “we would not support anyone in blue doing the wrong thing.” That’s a lie and everyone in the room knows it.

Would any of these cops be willing to start naming the cops they know to be racist? We could take their words about Crowley more seriously if they would demonstrate that they have some reasonable frame of reference.

By the way, this was a ridiculous suggestion:

Try asking some white folk if they have ever been unjustly accused of racism or have been close enough involved in a situation to know the truth of an unjust accusation against a friend or coworker.  You might be surprised at how many yes answers you get.

Racist white folks will lie and say they aren’t racist, so of course the accusation was unjust.

White folks oblivious to their privilege will be unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that they acted in a racist way, so of course the accusation was unjust.

And that’s a majority of white folks already, between those two categories.

The only white folks who can hope to speak with any authority on the matter are those who both understand white privilege and can identify an instance when they were accurately accused of racist behavior.

Lucia Whalen, the 911 caller, says she never said the men were black. The release of the 911 call upholds her story. James Crowley says he talked to her in front of the house before going in, and she told him then that the men were black. She says again that she never said that, not on the phone, and not in front of the house.

So, MiddleAgeLiberal, someone is lying. Maybe it’s Ms. Whalen. We don’t know anything about her. It’s certainly possible that she’s lying. On the other hand, we know something about Mr. Crowley: he works professionally in a field where lying daily, on police reports and in court testimony, is expected of officers like him as a job requirement.

It’s hard to believe that someone you have a positive working relationship with could be a racist. That’s most of what’s going on in the video. I’m hesitant to say they’re all lying, because I don’t know how conscious they are of their own biases.

asdf,

You’re being way too kind here.  There has been a long established history of cops attempting to cover up along with the fact they can never believe their good friendly coworkers could ever be capable of [negative/unethical/criminal act here].  Not too hard to find recent examples…some of which has been covered on this very blog…...

As for the “Beer summit”....wonder if there will be any donuts served…..

According the the transcript of the 911 call, when asked the race of the men, Whalen said she didn’t know - one might be Hispanic, the other was in the house so she didn’t know.

The 911 operator relayed to the responding officer that one person may be Hispanic.

http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m7d30-Lucia-Whalen-911-Gates-call-audio-and-transcript

And that’s a majority of white folks already, between those two categories.

Nice open mind you’ve got there. 

The only white folks who can hope to speak with any authority on the matter are those who both understand white privilege and can identify an instance when they were accurately accused of racist behavior.

That combination of requirements narrows the field considerably; might even be close to impossible to have the same characteristics in the same person.  Expand it to being able to identify and regret past racist behavior or thought not caught and you might have a useful pool.

I was suggesting that an unjust accusations alienate white folk of good faith and that’s damaging overall to race relations.  You seem to suggest that white folk of good faith are rare as hens’ teeth.  I doubt very much that Gates goes that far.

I’m a professor and I drink beer all the time.  Lots of it in fact.  I’m not sure if the “beer insetad of wine” decision is some class-related thing, as opposed to simply recognizing that lots of people from all backgrounds like beer.  In any case, I’m always hestitant of any analysis that buys into the whole “wine-track vs. beer-track” idea.  It’s a BS meme pushed by lazy media types.  In the small town liquor stores I’ve been into recently, I’d bet over half the floor area of the store consists of wine, while beer will be tucked into some coolers around the edge of the store.  Simple economics says there’s no way all that store area would be used for wine if it was only consumed by hoity-toity types.

@MiddleageLiberal
That seems like a useful expansion of the pool, but it’s also worth pointing out that the following two statements are not equivalent:
1)White folks of good faith are rare as hen’s teeth (almost non-existant).
2) White folks who both act in good faith (assumed to mean ‘try not to be racist’) and are sufficiently self-aware to notice racist behavior are the minority of white folks.

First statement, false. Second statement, probably true.

Unjust accusations do alienate people, and I’m sure that instances where unjust accusations were made have happened. Unfortunately, a lot of perceived-as-unjust accusations are completely justified - the accused is simply oblivious (willfully or not) to the implications of their own actions.

On the ‘I’m sorry you were offended/OMG how dare you call me a racist?’ sentiment: Distinguishing racist actions by well-meaning but ill-informed people from racism perpetuated by people who do or should know what they’re doing seems like a useful thing to do as a culture. Because sometimes ‘I’m sorry you were offended’ does actually mean ‘I did not know I was being offensive. I’m sorry that it turns out I was (and you were, consequently, offended).’ And sometime it just means ‘I’m not sorry at all, but my PR person says I have to apologize’, but not always (disclaimer: I think this particular story falls obviously into the ‘racist jackass’ category).

It’s when people start thinking that ignorance is an excuse for racist actions that you start getting ‘unjust accusations’. Because if you don’t realize you’re being racist, it can seem unjust to be accused of it.

That non apology apology reminds me of this incident:

Do you all remember how bizarrely Former Senator George Allen defended the term “macaca” as having no real racist overtones, and how eagerly the right lapped that up. When it was clearly a term he’d learned from her mother and it came straight out of France’s racist/colonialist history with non whites in Algeria?

I do think that white working class (or imagined working class like O’Reilly etc…) think that they are excused from “racism” by “experience” as in—I’m not a *racist* because I think I don’t hate black people on principle, I just hate this one that I know, and that other one, and that other guy that I might run into. Or they think they are excused from the charge of racism because they are working class and all the blacks they know are either of lower class, or higher class, and they think class resentment is just fine. Or they think that to be classified as “racist” you have to do something really big—like the hoses, or slavery. Anything else is some kind of personal preference that ought to get a pass (they think.)

aimai

Nice open mind you’ve got there.

Don’t be a dumbass. You think most white people are willing to admit white privilege? Then you are completely out of touch.

The only white folks who can hope to speak with any authority on the matter are those who both understand white privilege and can identify an instance when they were accurately accused of racist behavior.

That combination of requirements narrows the field considerably; might even be close to impossible to have the same characteristics in the same person.  Expand it to being able to identify and regret past racist behavior or thought not caught and you might have a useful pool.

Hey, today I learn that I am an impossible person, embodying impossible things. Should I call Stan Lee?

I have never been unjustly accused of racist behavior, except by giggling idiot libertarians who didn’t even believe their own accusation (anyone who supports international trade regulations is a racist, you know the drill).

No one I know personally has ever shared a story with me of being unjustly accused of racist behavior. Never. I’m willing to entertain the possibility that it happens, but I’ve seen no evidence of it.

Unjust accusations do alienate people, and I’m sure that instances where unjust accusations were made have happened. Unfortunately, a lot of perceived-as-unjust accusations are completely justified - the accused is simply oblivious (willfully or not) to the implications of their own actions.

You say that like you’ve never seen an unjust accusation of racism.  Fortunately, I’ve only been the target of one once and I was grateful when a black colleague who knew the full background of the situation came to my defense. 

My spouse works in the HR department of a multi-national corp and all terminations and written disciplinary actions against middle-management come across her desk.  She reports that a large number of AA employees claim, at least at the outset, that the action was racially motivated.  The company has a pretty good record in this area but it, like many large companies has been in a reduction in force mode for over a year.  I assume those making the complaints sincerely believe it and aren’t making the accusation just to seek compensation. 

Unjust accusations happen quite a lot.  Just accusations happen, too.

My spouse works in the HR department of a multi-national corp and all terminations and written disciplinary actions against middle-management come across her desk.  She reports that a large number of AA employees claim, at least at the outset, that the action was racially motivated.  The company has a pretty good record in this area but it, like many large companies has been in a reduction in force mode for over a year.  I assume those making the complaints sincerely believe it and aren’t making the accusation just to seek compensation.

Nothing you have said here suggests that the firings are not racially motivated. You just expect everyone here to assume that they are not. Apparently it just couldn’t happen where your spouse works. Sure, the company is downsizing people of all skin colors. That doesn’t mean black people aren’t being hit disproportionately.

Racial discrimination is common in hiring. Why should it be different in firing?

correction:  middle management and up

What many people don’t seem to get is the huge difference between racial animus and racism. You might never say (or even think) “I’m going to fire that #$%@%^$@ n****r and make sure the white people keep their jobs”, but you don’t have to do that to act in a racist manner. Say you just don’t know the black person as well, or you assume that because affirmative action (because “AA employee” doesn’t apply to anyone who gets hired because of personal connections that just happen to be correlated with majority race) was in force when they were hired, they’re less of an asset to the company, or the just happen to be among the most junior people because not a lot of minorities got hired to management track 30 years ago…

Heck, when I’m walking down a dark street and see that the scruffily-dressed person on the opposite sidewalk is white, I relax a little. Racial animus? Hardly. 40-plus years of ingrained racism? You betcha.

The only white folks who can hope to speak with any authority on the matter are those who both understand white privilege and can identify an instance when they were accurately accused of racist behavior.

I’ve been called a racist bitch and a racist white bitch numerous times.  I was called these epithets for having the gall to walk down the street or for operating under the illusion that I have the right to decline to fuck a guy who propositions me, no matter what his race.  I’ve also witnessed accusations of racism completely from left field where the accuser very obviously had a huge chip on his shoulder and was itching for a fight.

So, really, just stop digging.  There are irrational people of all races out there.  There are angry people out there who take out their anger on anyone and everyone.  There are also knuckle-draggers of all races who think they’re entitled to sex from any woman they’re attracted to and lash out in various ways when they don’t get what they want.  Here’s one example, where a guy seriously accuses a woman of racism because she (being white) won’t fuck any black dude (i.e. him).  Ironically people who behave this way are about as well versed in racism and race relations as Officer Crowley.

White people of good faith recognize that a person who makes off-base accusations doesn’t represent his or her ethnicity or race and realize that one false accusation of racism doesn’t invalidate other accusations of racism.  White people not operating in good faith use false accusations to disparage all people of color and to dismiss all claims of racism.

I’m not sure if the “beer insetad of wine” decision is some class-related thing, as opposed to simply recognizing that lots of people from all backgrounds like beer.  In any case, I’m always hestitant of any analysis that buys into the whole “wine-track vs. beer-track” idea.  It’s a BS meme pushed by lazy media types.

Be that as it may, it’s still a distinction that enough people buy into that it’s an issue.  People are reading significance into the choice of beers because, well, it is significant.  Imagine if Obama was the one drinking Blue Moon… the uproar on Faux News would be deafening.  It is still a fancy-shmancy Belgian style beer, never mind that it’s more an American beer now than Budweiser is, with Bud now being owned by the Belgian-Brazilian InBev.  No, it had to be Bud, or something similarly iconically Amurikan, for the sake of PR.  It couldn’t be Pabst, since he did that during the campaign, and the other brewers would have cried favoritism.  Gates’ Jamacian-made Red Stripe will be seen by some as somehow significantly representing Pan-American black culture, despite the company being owned in majority by Guinness’ parent company.  Crowley is not subject to the same level of scrutiny, so he was free to simply choose a beer he liked.

Or maybe he just likes the taste of Budweiser…

lol… fair enough.  but it’s not important what he likes; just what the world thinks[i/] about what he likes…

wow… did my mis-tag throw off the entire rest of the page for a moment there? 

ok…fixed.

I see where you’re coming from. I can see some hick motherfucker saying “Oh mah gawd he’s uh beer snob! Typical liberal,” if Obama were drinking a microbrew or a Euro beer. We don’t have too many yuppie pricks around here, but the people who usually drink Bud Light/Natty Light are the rural folk.

It makes me wonder though… does the White House have any beer on tap?

John McCain drinks Anheuser-Busch beverage products and enjoys exciting Anheuser-Busch theme parks.

...as do all Good Americans.  He and America also enjoy watching sports sponsored by Anheuser-Busch…

Maybe not so anymore… Anheuser-Busch is no longer Anheuser-Busch, nor is it an American company anymore.  It is now “Anheuser-Busch InBev”, and it is based in Belgium, thanks to all of our wonderful deregulation which allows massive global conglomerations to happen on a daily basis.

-A resident of St. Louis, the city where Anheuser-Busch was formerly headquartered, but now only serves as the North American HQ for ABI.

Idunno about the beer/class issue, in that I tend to see it more as a guy thing. Guys sit down over beer. Guys get real over beer. Real guys sit down and get real over beer, because it’s a real guy drink for real guys who are getting real. Beer is the great guy uniter.

They didn’t invite Lucia Whalen to join them for a beer. If she’d been invited (and she should have been—why the hell not? She was just as impacted. Why was she stuck making a clearly nervewracking public statement about this, flapping in the wind, by herself? She was also key.), it wouldn’t have been a guys over a beer thing anymore.

On the TV, women bond over a bottle of wine, and the men “have a beer.”

If President Obama and Dr Gates “are way above Crowley’s station in their professional and social spheres,” where does that put Vice President Biden, who was there at the same table, but didn’t even merit a mention from you? 

Did we get a media report concerning how many beers each participant consumed?  I think we need to know if any of them got wasted.

Indeed we did, Dana. http://xkcd.com/617/

It still didn’t work as a real man summit.  The picture on the front page of today’s Philadelphia Inquirer shows the four men seated at a white table, with their beer in mugs.  Everyone knows that real men drink their beer directly from the bottle or can.

The only exception is if you are at a bar and the table gets a pitcher.  Since each of the four got a different brand of brew, this wasn’t the case.  Had there been four pitchers, one for each man, so they could keep refilling their mugs, such would have been acceptable.

“Anheuser-Busch is no longer Anheuser-Busch, nor is it an American company anymore.  It is now “Anheuser-Busch InBev”, and it is based in Belgium, thanks to all of our wonderful deregulation which allows massive global conglomerations to happen on a daily basis.”

...so it’s become about as American as all too many “American” firms already are…