You’re a woman. The mere physical presence of a woman is almost never perceived as a threat.

Unless you’re a Black woman.

it’s about people being unable to see white vandals as criminals even when they are committing criminal acts.

it shows that people will call the police on black people (not just black vandals), regardless of whether or not they are committing criminal acts.

on a different note:
– getting assaulted without cause and being confronted by police without cause, have different consequences.
in the first case, you might be able to press charges against the perpetrator. in the second case, you are assumed to be a perpetrator…you “fit the profile.”

– people who “fit the profile” experience a greater chance of being put in jail than those who don’t, even when crime rates are the same (as in this ABC exercise), and the statistics on racial diaparities in incarceration bear that out.

As for the fear being exaggerated, you must be kidding. Walking while white
was dangerous in quite a few black neighborhoods in Boston in the mid-nineties.
I have been personally attacked (as in having been actually touched) three
times. Once on Central Square, halfway between MIT and Harward, and once
barely out of the MIT campus itself, by a group that ended up being arrested,
and turned out to contain a MIT student. I have been insulted and harassed
every single time more than two black men have noticed me near Charles River
as I was walking back to campus after visiting my girlfriend in Jamaica Plains.

In North Carolina, I missed an exit off Independence, and had to drive through
a few blocks in broad fucking daylight. I got more stuff thrown at my truck
than I could identify. It turned out that there had been some race trouble that
week, and that I looked Hispanic enough…

In South Carolina, I was visiting a student (I was volunteering as a teacher) in
his house, because he had been injured in a car accident… as I was getting back
in my car, someone smashed a bottle which more than half-severed my finger.

Of course, there is no way to make you believe me, but in none of these cases
have I done more than walking through a place where a rational white person
would not be. I am short, I like walking, and there was a time where I cared
more about my pride than about my safety. Today, I would not walk, alone
and unarmed, across Compton at night for a million dollars.

And yes, I am well aware that I may have been in places where a black person
would be assaulted, and have no way of knowing, because I am white. That’s
why I said it. But white people do not usually have to assault black ones…
calling the cops works. I believe that given the chance, most people will act
against those who are different, and that the easier it is for them to deny their
motivation, the more likely it is that they will act on their racism.

As fas as I am concerned, the value of the above experiment is not that it shows
that white people are racists, but that it can make people aware how we lie to
ourselves. And I will refrain from my regular litany of how insulting people
is counterproductive unless you have the upper hand. I know that Mandolin
and I would not agree on methods even if we could theoretically agree on goals.

*”Even if our worst, darkest, most evil fears are true, even if there are uncivilized animals walking around among us in the shape of men and those animals disproportionately wear dark skin (and I don’t believe it, but even if), then America should be harshly judged by the gods for our cowardice.”

(part of it is undoubtedly classism as well. But it’s mostly racism. or racial profiling, if you prefer.)

– i don’t get the sense that white people in a black neighborhood would be more likely to have the cops called on them just for being there.

(but racial profiling does happen to black people in white neighborhoods — this is a legacy of segregation)

Racial profiling is about how black people and other minority groups are mis-percieved by society and about how the mythology that surrounds race has a negative impact on the experience of minority groups in this country.

Of course, I may have been in plenty, but how would I know?

This is a very odd end to an “I must disagree…” statement.

It is, in fact, literally what someone was complaining about upthread. “I must disagree that it’s more dangerous for a black person to be in a white neighborhood than a white person to be in a black one. I know this to be true because I have been in places where it was dangerous for a white person to be, but I don’t know of any places where it’s dangerous for a black person to be. By the by, I’m white.”

Why are these threads being hijacked by people wanting to deny racism? What is the point, exactly?

The intent on the part of the individuals is unclear. Sometimes, it is undeniable mockng, sometimes masturbating, sometimes what must be a far greater tolerance (enjoyment?) for repetitive argument than I have. (Gee, Robert says thing A, RonF says thing B, Amp says thing C, and I say thing D. Wasn’t that fun? Yahoo.)

The effect of the individuals over time is, unfortunately, extremely clear. Conversations are prevented from ever retreading anything but the same territory, over and over again. And eventually progressives are driven off the site as they grow weary of throwing themselves against the same, unyielding, unchanging rhetorical walls. This allows the effect to magnify as the proportions shift.

Why does this happen here? The civility stuff. Which many of us like, on the surface. It unfortunately facilitates this style of dilettante argumentation and favors the privileged over the oppressed, for reasons enumerated previously by other posters in other threads.

All of which describes why I have not posted here in several days, and been happier for having not done so, and why I am unlikely to post here again until the moderation policy changes. As another moderator said to me the other day, this space has become what Ginmar accused it of being years ago. The signal to noise here is like listening to a channel of static.

Those who wish to discuss the moderation implications of this, rather than the implications for progressive discussion of racism and sexism, should head to an open thread. And no, I don’t consider myself obligated to answer your questions, though I may do so if I consider them worth my time.

Anyone who claims different must be very different from me. I am sure
that upbringing and education, and especially exposure to multiracial
people of the same class can prevent racism from taking root in a child’s
mind. I do not think this happens that often in the States. As for myself,
it took me less than an year here to start catching myself acting on
prejudice I would have swore I did not have back in Bulgaria.

But I have to disagree with Ampersand about a white person being safer
in black neighborhoods, than a black person in a white one. I can name
off the top of my head ten places in California and South Carolina that I
could not cross on foot at 10pm without getting harassed, and very likely
attacked. I could not name one where a black person would suffer the
same fate. I am sure there are such places, but I have never known of one.
Of course, I may have been in plenty, but how would I know?

But what racism really is, is the belief that one “race” is superior to another. (Someone is going to probably chime in with how racism is “prejudice and power”, which I’ve seen stated many a time. While that’s a good working definition, I’m dealing with a more theoretical issue at the moment.)

And like many beliefs, what counts is not what you profess to believe, but what actually influences your actions.

The really painful thing about this is that it doesn’t tend to be a conscious thing. It tends to live under the surface. These people honestly don’t feel that they have any racist feelings, and because of that, will probably resist (sometimes angrily) the suggestion that they might.

You could find nonracist reasons for this phenomenon: the white couple came early in the day, the black couple came at the end of the day when the realtor was tired and just wanted to go home, the realtor just happened to be having a bad day, yata yata. It’s even possible that the realtors/bankers/agents were unaware of being racist. But I don’t see how you can argue that these people “weren’t really racist” in the face of evidence like this.

I once had a long conversation with a coworker wherein she claimed to be entirely innocent of racism; I didn’t believe her, and eventually got her to admit that if alone on the subway late at night with just one guy besides her in the car, she’d be more nervous (other things such as age and dress being equal) if he were black than if he were white. At the risk of being flamed until crispy I will admit that I’d feel the same way; I’d feel bad about it, but I wouldn’t be able to help it. I’ve read all the crime statistics that are perpetuated by the overreporting of black crime (or noncrime such as sleeping) and underreporting of white crime, among other factors, and I’m also hard-wired to be more afraid of people I perceive as different from me.

I don’t mean that people should heighten their rate of reporting suspected criminals until it averages out across all races/genders.

But I do think the “benefit of the doubt” could be spread more evenly. The people sleeping in the car could have used more.

On average, 1 out of every 100 americans in in jail, but 1 out of every 9 black men is in jail. Black women are jailed at the average rate, but only 1 out of every 355 white women is in jail. If, as this ABC excercise shows, americans are more likely to report the activities of black parkgoers to police, it makes sense that the police confront and ultimately incarcerate black people at a greater rate than white people.

A new form of profiling - sleeping while black. Who knew?

It’s not new.

You’re a woman. The mere physical presence of a woman is almost never perceived as a threat.

That’s not really true. See above.

No, that’s not my argument. I’d say it’s wrong to assume that racism is a factor absent a determination of motive; see the arguments above where various other scenarios, etc. are put forward as to why the pattern of calls were what they were. Although in a given context it may certainly be reasonable to suspect it. A determination of motive may well show that racism was the cause.

my argument is that this segment shows how it’s possible that racism could exist that would be impossible to acknowlege under RonF’s, Robert’s and other’s views.

I would think that racism exists in numerous situations where it’s not possible to prove it. The fact that a) racism exists, and b) it’s hard to prove in a given context doesn’t mean that you should go ahead and assume racism in such a context anyway. I’m not trying to be obtuse, but I’m not sure what you mean by “acknowledge” in this context.

So, Ron and others: Is it wrong to say that there’s anything racist about a society in which random passerbys are more likely to call the cops on black teens than white teens for identical behavior?

Should an actual controlled study show that effect, showing it to be independent of the various factors raised up-thread, then I would say that there’s some racist people out there. “Racist society” is a rather different concept than “racist individuals” and not one that I’d consider proved by that.

The practical consequence of the “deny it could possibly be racism unless there’s ironclad beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence” view is to deny that racism exists at all, nearly all of the time.

The view you describe in this sentence is one I have not seen previously in these threads. I do hope that you don’t think that I hold it.

RonF and others argue that it’s wrong to believe racism is a factor when the individuals involved have a plausible, non-racist motivation for their actions. That means there’s no racism here: Every individual person who called 911 denies that there was any racism in their choice. If anything, they say, they would have been quicker to call 911 if the vandals had been white. And no one denies it’s legitimate to call 911 when one sees a crime being committed, regardless of the criminal’s race.

So, Ron and others: Is it wrong to say that there’s anything racist about a society in which random passerbys are more likely to call the cops on black teens than white teens for identical behavior? Let’s say that having black teens do the crime generates 10 times as many 911 calls, whereas white crimes doing a crime is only as likely to generate a 911 call as black people taking a nap are. But in no case can we prove that any individual making a 911 call had a racial bias.

From your point of view, there’s no racism going on here. Right?

Ultimately the answer to this question boils down to definitions. Here we have [intended to create] a situation involving similarly-situated people who differ only by race, and we observe people acting differently. When asked, the people who acted differently offer rationales that have nothing to do with race, but the rationales conflict with the evidence. Is “racism going on here”? Sure. Can I identify any specific individual’s conduct as “racist”? No.

If you define racism to focus exclusively on results, then motives are irrelevant. If you define racism to depend exclusively on motives, then results are irrelevant. The different definitions support different conclusions. My conclusion: the terms “racism” and “racist” obscure more than they clarify.

When I (reluctantly) use the term “racism,” I use it in contrast to an implied assumption of meritocracy – that is, an assumption that people act for good reasons, and that there is rarely a good reason to discriminate on the basis of race. I strive to demonstrate racism by 1) identifying an apparent disparity between people of differing races, and 2) considering and ruling out any possible good reason for the disparity. (This step often involves putting the burden on the allegedly-racist actor to identify a bona fide reason for his or her actions.)

Now, might people postulate and embrace non-racial theories to explain racial disparities out of a self-interested desire to avoid the discomfort of having to confront racism? Yes. Does this fact eliminate the merits of considering non-racial theories to explain racial disparities? No. I seen no conflict between these propositions.

Also, even if it’s true — and I doubt it is — that the results would have been exactly reversed had the experiment been conducted in a mostly-black neighborhood, what does that tell you about life in the US? Which is more likely — for a white person to spend their life rarely happening (or having) to be in a black neighborhood, or the reverse?

Here Amp postulates that minorities and majorities have different experiences PURELY AS A RESULT of being minorities and majorities – either without regard to group animus, or at least without regard to unreciprocated animus. Yes, the average black American will spend more time being surrounded by whites than the average white American will spend being surrounded by blacks. This has real consequences for both black Americans and white Americans, and many of these consequences can be explained without the need to postulate racial animus. Whether you choose to call these consequences “racism” depends on whether you choose to define the word in terms of outcomes or intentions.

There is rarely 100% absolutely certain proof of racism in real-life situations. The practical consequence of the “deny it could possibly be racism unless there’s ironclad beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt evidence” view is to deny that racism exists at all, nearly all of the time. Which is, of course, a painless and beneficial conclusion for white people to come to.

I acknowledge that proving that a specific individual’s actions were motivated by racial animus is, in most instances, neigh unto impossible. And…?

My presumption-of-innocence posture may well reflect my white (or majority) privilege, although I wouldn’t want to deny that members of minorities can embrace this view as well. My privilege arguably contributed to my willingness to extend the benefit of doubt to the Duke lacrosse players, for better or worse.

I believe that people may be able to secure political advantage by alleging racism even when alternative rationales exist. And, after some reflection, I must concede that I don’t expect to be very patient with the inevitable whisper campaigns that will follow Obama (or Clinton) into the election, and I may be quicker to allege racism (or sexism) than otherwise. Political campaigns are not model forums for justice, as we are all too, too aware. Raw political might does not make right, but political weakenss don’t neither. So I’ve already got my finger on that trigger.

Yet I don’t intend to use campaign tactics as a guide for living the rest of my life. Why the different standard? Not sure. Maybe that’s just my white privilege speaking….