Since the passage of laws that struck down the de jure aspects--meaning the publically upheld by law aspects--of racism and racial segregation,none of these actions are actually "legal".However,you're not the only one who's worked in law enforcement: both my brother and my cousin have worked for the LAPD and the LASD in elite divisions and the separation is clear cut.Furthermore,you need look no further than Census Bureau data to see that this behaviour is a nationwide epidemic,not the actions of just a few bitter souls.And these actions span centuries,not just specific moments or days.Are most police officers racist? No,not imho.Is law enforcement riddled with the same kind of institutionalized racism that hamstrings the rest of the country? As an institution primary to the operation of the U.S.A.? Absolutely and without doubt.Again...look no further than governmental reports charting nationwide behaviours like the Census Bureau.This is NOT individuals at work,this is the PROOF OF INSTITUTIONAL RACISM AT WORK.
And yet, neither you nor those articles can point to one specific practice that is an example of institutional racism. What you do, as I see in many people who advocate a position similar to yours, is in the absence of tangible proof otherwise, you immediately turn to a racist cause.
As an example of the racism that you seem to be refering to, I know for a fact (at least in that I believe what my wife, a deputy sheriff told me) that in LA County custody facilities segregate themselves based on race. But that is an individual, not an institutional issue.
I have trained with LASD, SEB, SWT on numerous occassions. They have many Black people amongst them. Again, however, even if there wasn't a single one, though many may have passed the basic requirements, that still does not show that there is a rule, policy, or proceedure which makes it institutional as opposed to individual. I can tell you one that they have, however. They turn down all first time applicants. I can tell you that, not even working for them, but I can't point you to one racist one.
Read government reports like the Census Bureau.You don't know me so you don't know that I don't open my mouth and make direct blunt statements without having the data on-hand to back it up.Every syllable I have uttered is verifiable by the most objective methods.
And, at your suggestion, I have looked for the Census Bureau's reports on racism. I found statements in their reports attributed to researchers not working for them, but nothing from the Census Bureau itself.
If you have something to show where the Bureau says it for itself, then please, point me to your source.
I was referring to the general ignoring of,or co-opting of African history.For instance,the original ancient Pharoahs are all Black,the people and populace of ancient Kemet are a Black achievement,and in fact the Pharoahnic Dynasties are merely the traditional cultural methods of ancient Black Africa applied on a national level.And yet...most of the depictions that we have of all of these are of anyone BUT Black people.That's about as accurate as saying that King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table,and Renaissance Europe were ALL BLACK achievements.Sure there were SOME Black people,but NOWHERE NEAR 100% Black.Furthermore,the long held assumptions about Black civilizations only achieving worthy achievements when "influenced" by White civilizations is another spurious lie exploded by many many documents.
I don't buy this one. There are a few reasons. First, Egypt, although a part of the Continent of Africa, shares hardly any cultural attributes with the countries south of it, to include the countries where the African slave is from. I hardly think that depicting people from Egypt will somehow enlighten the Blacks in America. Not only that, though you call them Black, the Egyptian skin tone is akin to those of the Middle East, hence the association with the Middle East.
Your position,mine and everybody else's position in the USA would undoubtedly be affected toward a more knowledgeable and positive perception about Africa and her people were Africa not so maligned for so many centuries.
I guess. Although I could certainly see your point when it comes to Black history, I don't see it with African history. Unless one could trace one roots back to a specific georgraphical area within the vast continent that is Africa, I don't see it as being all that beneficial. For instance, the difference between the culture of Egypt, the Maasai Tribe, and Etheopians are so vast that it does not give the individual Black American insight into their own past.
You must not have read my quote very well,despite the fact that it's just above your quote (the one I'm responding to now) in your original post.I didn't say that there AREN'T high achieving Blacks; what I said is that there are MORE INSTANCES OF MEDIA COVERAGE ASSOCIATING NEGATIVITY WITH BLACK (and also Latino,gotta say that) FACES.Very much different than inferring that there are no high achieving Blacks or there aren't frequent high achieving Blacks who aren't in sports.I think Obama would qualify as high achieving Blacks who aren't in sports per se (lol Pres.Obama DOES get his b-ball on though).Sijo Muhammad would qualify.Reginald F. Lewis (R.I.P.) would qualify.Maya Angelou would qualify.You get the point,I hope.Dr.Chancellor Williams (r.i.p.) Dr.Cornel West,would qualify.You get the point.
[/quote]
I got your point perfectly fine. My point is that there are high numbers of places to see a positive portrayal of Blacks in media. There are all of the things that you point out, and more. We can quibble over the "amount" of coverage seen, and to some extent, I will agree with you. But it also depends on the medium to which you are referring.
I will also point out that we do it to ourselves, also. Take, for instance, Oprah. She has the star and money power to make any movie that she wants, and she produces "Precious".
Did you just SERIOUSLY ask me where the cocaine and drug problems originate or are you kidding with me?
I did.
I think the facts will prove that your breakdown is actually broken down.I'm fully aware of Germany's requirements to payback the Allies at the Treaty of Versailles after WWI.That amount would break down to about 780 billion USD 2011. As of 2009,the U.S. deficit was 1.4 trillion USD
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aA8lChe4zUQU And President Obama's handling of this scenario,and the incredible accomplishments of President Obama are nothing short of historic:
Until the U.S. Dollar becomes 1 trillionth of what it is now, there is no comparison between the economy of Germany after WWI and the U.S. economy now. I don't see people burning their money for heat because the cost of heating oil is worth more then the dollar, or it being cheaper to wallpaper your house with the dollar as opposed to buying actual wallpaper. So no, his handling of it is not historic, especially considering that he
is doing what Bush did (TARP II)
.
Not only that, but besides economics, he pushed for the PATRIOT Act renewal, refuses to close down Guantanamo Bay, is pushing for military tribunal for prisoners there, and so on. He is, with few exceptions, some of them major, a Bush clone.
And uh...there's a difference between wingnut opposition groups Left and Right and RECORD LEVELS of reactionary nutcase action,gun and ammo runs,stupidities like Birthers and Deathers,etc.On top of that? When there was previous concerns about Presidents reenacting slavery or reparations or swigning ironfisted blows at our freedoms prior to Obama? The times they were TRUE,they were regarding White Presidents WHO DID DO SUCH A THING or ALLOWED such a thing or similar things and HAD A HISTORY OF DOING SUCH A THING.I'm very,very well informed and would be more than happy to engage you and anybody else on any aspect of history on this matter.I find these discussions to be stimulating and I don't look at them as adversarial exercises.
I'm not at all sure what you are refering to here, perhaps due to typos.
That's a good thing,actually.We Black folks aren't monolithic,and most folks aren't monolothic.However,there are differences borne of personality and personal life experiences and then there are differences borne of knowledge regarding specific facts.I can only be unequivocal about the latter.The factual statements I made are exactly that: factual.You have the choice and the right to accept whether or not you believe them,but their rigorous accuracy is beyond reproach.
Your "factual" statments are interpretations of data which can have alternate conclusions, as well as regurgitations of what others (researchers) have said. Not necessarily all bad, but still can be subject to flaws.