This seems like an extreme characterization of the dialogue that is going on about racial profiling and police behavior.
I don't see a dialogue going on (apart perhaps from this one) about racial profiling and police behavior. I do see one group that is all in agreement that this is a case of racial profiling and bad police behavior, and thus an opportunity to teach about it. The lesson to be taught isn't really about Gates, even if the incident that occurred is true. Then there is another group that is content with pointing out that Gates was not a victim of racism. This group is not discussing racial profiling or police behavior.
sagasend wrote:
What race-hatred is being formented among people who didn't already have it to begin with?
There are many people who may not be particularly prejudicial or bigoted, but are likely to pick sides with a group to which they feel a sense of kinship. I think that this is the case with most people. And when situations arise in which such persons feel that they need to act out of loyalty toward the group with which they identify, they will enact hatred upon other groups.
It is a straw man argument to criticize my usage of the term "race card" as a means of avoiding the discussion that we are having.
That is inaccurate. Please refrain in the future from imputing motive. Imputation is often a form of ad hominem argument
Our discussion was about whether or not the cop had a racial motive. From Wikipedia HERE-
Quote:
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents position Y.
Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
-1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
-2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations which are intentionally misrepresentative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
-3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments - thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
-4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
-5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. 3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
1. My position was that Gates was pulling the race card, by unjustly citing that his race was the cause of the disagreement between himself and the cop. It was quite clear that this was my position. 2. You disregarded that point, and presented the position that-
Quote:
The term "race card," at least as I've seen it used, is an ad hominem code word term that is used by right wing propagandists to appeal to racial resentment among working class, typically rural, typically southern, typically racist whites.
This is a direct illustration of examples 2-1, 2-4 and 2-5 from the wikipedia quote above. You were refuting a "a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument" (from the forum rules HERE).
3. In that same quote of yours, you attacked a position that I did not hold.
Whatever our motive, you were committing a straw man fallacy against my argument. Were you meaning to impute that my motive in illustrating your straw man fallacy was an ad hominem attack on your intentions?
You state:
Quote:
My position was that Gates was pulling the race card, by unjustly citing that his race was the cause of the disagreement between himself and the cop. It was quite clear that this was my position.[/color]
2. You disregarded that point, and presented the position that-
Quote:
The term "race card," at least as I've seen it used, is an ad hominem code word term that is used by right wing propagandists to appeal to racial resentment among working class, typically rural, typically southern, typically racist whites.
Here are my words with the omitted words restored:
Quote:
The term "race card," at least as I've seen it used, is an ad hominem code word term that is used by right wing propagandists to appeal to racial resentment among working class, typically rural, typically southern, typically racist whites. In fact, I haven't seem any evidence that either of these men pulled a card of any kind. Gates reacted with apparently justified anger to the possibly racist disrespect of a police officer who refused to accept that an eminent 58-year-old professor lived in his own home, despite having been shown at minimum a Harvard ID. Obama accurately described as stupid the police officer's actions, and rightly and in mild terms noted the existence of racial profiling without which this incident cannot be interpreted. I see no evidence that the actions of either man had anything to do with pulling a card of any kind. [Emphasis Added.]
I could argue your other points, but I believe this debate is now non-productive and veering off topic, and a waste of time for others in this thread.
Of greater interest perhaps is this column on the question of whether Gates should sue:
This seems like an extreme characterization of the dialogue that is going on about racial profiling and police behavior.
I don't see a dialogue going on (apart perhaps from this one) about racial profiling and police behavior. I do see one group that is all in agreement that this is a case of racial profiling and bad police behavior, and thus an opportunity to teach about it. The lesson to be taught isn't really about Gates, even if the incident that occurred is true. Then there is another group that is content with pointing out that Gates was not a victim of racism. This group is not discussing racial profiling or police behavior.
sagasend wrote:
What race-hatred is being formented among people who didn't already have it to begin with?
There are many people who may not be particularly prejudicial or bigoted, but are likely to pick sides with a group to which they feel a sense of kinship. I think that this is the case with most people. And when situations arise in which such persons feel that they need to act out of loyalty toward the group with which they identify, they will enact hatred upon other groups.
1. There is certainly a dialogue going on (within the media, also between individuals) about racial profiling and to a lesser extent about police behavior. That's what I'm referring to.
2. My question to Frank was answered, and he was referring to what he perceives as the expression of racial hatred in this forum. I am not going to speculate about why people have shared various opinions but I simply do not perceive that posters here are inciting racial hatred by discussing this incident. I know it was not my intent.
1. If you see constructive dialogue going on in media then fine. That is your perspective. I don't see it.
2. I had not interpreted Frank's comment to mean that posters in this thread were inciting race hatred, but that they (or perhaps others in society) were being "swept up" in it and that it was being "fomented" or incited by the likes of Gates. Perhaps I misinterpreted Frank's statements.
I had not interpreted Frank's comment to mean that posters in this thread were inciting race hatred, but that they ... were being "swept up" in it and that it was being "fomented" or incited by the likes of Gates. Perhaps I misinterpreted Frank's statements.
You interpret me correctly. Some members here are sadly credulous. To me, hard evidence is everything; personal experiences are irrelevant; and out-of-court bleating by lawyers is not even on my radar. I am astonished that for others these criteria are reversed. I already used the word "gullible" once or twice. I stopped commenting because it is pointless.
I have not seen any reports that stated he "refused to show any other ID other than the one ID card that does not show an address." I have not seen any evidence to support this claim.
The police report supports that claim. It says that Gates showed only a Harvard ID. Show where the police report mentions a drivers license. Numerous policemen were present at the incident and publicly support that claim. On the other hand, the statement quoted in the Globe about a driver's license is by Gates's lawyer, who was not there. Show any evidence other than a claim by a lawyer (who was not there) that even mentions a drivers license. Even Gates himself has not publicly claimed to have shown a drivers license. He could be punished for lying--his layer cannot. Feel free to believe that all of the police (who were there) are lying. Feel free to believe that Gates's lawyer (who was not there) is telling the truth.
Powell wrote:
What was this incident with Mark Shriver? Was Gates mad because he was unable to persuade him to follow the "one drop rule" and become "black" like the weak-minded Bliss Broyard?
No. It was when Gates agreed to have his own DNA tested as part of a TV show. When Mark showed that Gates had more Euro than Afro autosomal markers, a Euro mtDNA haplotype, and a Euro Y haplotype, Gates became visibly agitated, an agitation which became increasingly severe until Gates finally raised his voice demanding to know if he would have to pay reparations to himself.
I saw that PBS show. Gates actually chortled like a school girl when he revealed that he has 50% Euro DNA (not surprising since his parents are Mulatto Elites and his father looks totally Euro), asking whether he was still qualified to be head of Harvard's "Black Studies" program. Amazing! This is the guy who did everything he could to declare the much whiter Anatole Broyard "black," yet he almost declares himself nonblack. I think that Gates' attack on Broyard was at least partially motivated by racial jealousy. He wishes he "looked white."
1. If you see constructive dialogue going on in media then fine. That is your perspective. I don't see it.
2. I had not interpreted Frank's comment to mean that posters in this thread were inciting race hatred, but that they (or perhaps others in society) were being "swept up" in it and that it was being "fomented" or incited by the likes of Gates. Perhaps I misinterpreted Frank's statements.
Didn't say it was constructive, I said it's occurring. Rhetoric is not a bacterium or equation. It's highly interpretive and most impressive with an emotional component. The only hard evidence in this case is the 9/11 tape. Even the police report is a rhetorical account, albeit an official one.
I don't like to traffic in hyperbole and personally I think the phrase "inciting racial hatred" is overblown when used in this context. IMO part of the reaction on all sides is because HL Gates is the central figure and there are many who already view him with a jaundiced eye. If this had happened to John McWhorter (and he had reacted similarly) I suspect the conversation would be different. If this incident had taken place at UCLA with the LAPD I suspect the conversation would be very different (talk about viewing with a jaundiced eye...). Some people, places and contexts generate more "heat" than others and change the nature of the conversation even though the basic events/occurrences are the same.
Didn't say it was constructive, I said it's occurring.
I can agree that there is a group that is talking about it, but not that there is a dialogue occurring. I would consider a dialogue as something that involves two sides engaging in the same discussion.
sagascend wrote:
IMO part of the reaction on all sides is because HL Gates is the central figure and there are many who already view him with a jaundiced eye.
I don't disagree that this incident would have elicited a very different sort of reaction had the accuser of unfair racial treatment been someone other then Henry Gates (and I should also add- had the president not gotten involved). I also support your point that negative (and I'll add positive) prior opinions about Henry Gates are not constructive to the assessment about this particular situation.
I'm not so sure, though, in what way you consider these prior views to be "jaundiced." I'm assuming that by "jaundiced" you are meaning that they are incorrect views and not simply that they are negative in character. Is my interpretation of your word choice correct?
Also, I'm not sure if it would make sense to compare this particular Gates scenario with some other hypothetical involving John McWhorter or some other. While I take it that you're on the one side of this debate that wants to discuss racial profiling and mistreatment of "blacks" by police, I don't think that the other side - the side that doesn't see race as any sort of factor in this scenario whatsoever, but only that Gates was using his affluence and influence to bully around a good cop - would regard McWhorter differently if he were to behave in kind. But besides, this is not a valid comparison because it is precisely Gates' unique affluence and influence that has allowed him to terrorize this cop and the entire Cambridge police department in a very particular manner to begin with. A manner in which John McWhorter or someone else would not have been able to attempt.
I'll repeat again that I do think that racial profiling and the mistreatment of "blacks" by police are serious issues in America. Perhaps we could start a separate thread to discuss that topic, and not this particular case.
It seems that the woman who made the call has now said that she never mentioned race to the officer:
Quote:
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Lucia Whalen, whose 911 call led to the arrest of the Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. at his home, made her first public comments Wednesday, saying at no time did she ever mention race to the responding police officer.
Ms. Whalen’s statements contradict the police report filed by Sgt. James Crowley, who said Ms. Whalen told him outside Mr. Gates’s home that she had seen “what appeared to be two black males with backpacks” on the porch of the yellow single-family house.
Ms. Whalen said that the only words she exchanged with Sergeant Crowley in person were, “I was the 911 caller.”
It seems that the woman who made the call has now said that she never mentioned race to the officer:...
Does this mean that you now apologize and retract your earlier accusations that she was guilty of "racial profiling?" Just curious.
If I'd made such an accusation, I would apologize. However, it isn't my style to make unqualified accusations where evidence is unclear, and unless I've missed something, I didn't do so here. Here are the germane passages:
Quote:
Sat 25 Jul 2009 17:05:
I think it's widely acknowledge that the initial racial profiling here, if any, was on the part of whoever reported the "break-in."
Sun 26 Jul 2009 06:33:
I don't *know* that this was the case in this incident, which is why I wrote "the initial racial profiling here, if any" above [emphasis added]. But it does occur, and it is commonplace.
Mon 27 Jul 2009 16:35:
Did you noticed, BTW, the language of the police report?
"She went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street."
I can't say for sure, but my sense of it is that this stinks of racial profiling on the caller's part.
Sun 26 Jul 2009 08:17:
Again, I don't know what happened in this particular case. It seems to me entirely possible that the person who made the call would have done so had the people trying to enter the house been white. Or not. To me, it's immaterial, because we do now that this sort of profiling takes place.
Mon 27 Jul 2009 07:15 [after the transcript of the call was released, raising the possibility that the police report had misrepresented events]:
As it happens, the caller didn't even provide that information in the actual call. According to the caller's attorney, neither did she provide that information to the officer in person. It would seem that the police officer misrepresented this in his report.
The caller was also quite clear in the original call that she didn't know if it was a break in, and that she thought the residents might be residents of the house.
Needless to say, the caller's personal statement ads further credence to the possibility that the police report contains a misrepresentation. If that is true, the only apology here should come from the police, since my statement to the effect that "I can't say for sure, but my sense of it is that this stinks of racial profiling on the caller's part" was based upon the officer's claim that the caller "went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street" was correct.
[url]The bottom line for me is that Gates may have behaved poorly, but he did not break any laws. Therefore, the choice to arrest him was based an ego-driven power trip that cops on American streets are notorious for. .
This is my thinking too.
Based on my experiences with police I can well imagine the cop banged on the door, arrogantly demanded ID, didnt clearly explain what happened, and didnt apologize for the inconvenience as in "just doing my job but.....based upon a report of a burglary in progress".
And that's an assumption on your part. I could imagine the same thing based on my experiences with police as well. However, imagining that something must have happened a certain way and it actually happening the way we imagine are two different things.
caribj wrote:
Sometmes its HOW you say things that is as importnat as what you say. Surely if this cop was a diversity expert he would have known about the sensitivities that AA males (and other African looking males too) often have about encounters with cops.
Neither you nor I know how the police officer expressed himself, and for many AAs simply being approached by the (white) cops is enough to set them off no matter how they are approached. Perhaps Gates is one of those people.
caribj wrote:
It seems obvious that with his cane, his limp, his build and his age Gates isnt a threat or a profile of a burglar.
And what is obvious to you isn't obvious to someone else. A man with a cane and a limp and a slight build who immediately gets irate and loud when asked to submit identification may be armed.
Needless to say, the caller's personal statement ads further credence to the possibility that the police report contains a misrepresentation. If that is true, the only apology here should come from the police, since my statement to the effect that "I can't say for sure, but my sense of it is that this stinks of racial profiling on the caller's part" was based upon the officer's claim that the caller "went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street" was correct.
Apologize to whom and for what? The misrepresentation was in a report written after the arrest for disorderly conduct brought on by Gates's loud outburst and refusal to cooperate with furnishing ID (after being told why they were there) was made. It's possible Gates's tirade influenced the misrepresentation.
Also, I should remind people that Gates is on record lying about not being able to yell or speak loudly because of some ailment.
Does this mean that you now apologize and retract your earlier accusations that she was guilty of "racial profiling?" Just curious.
If I'd made such an accusation, I would apologize....
I thought not. Thank you.
Now it's my turn to be curious. Since you did not acknowledge or comment upon the evidence I went to such pains to present, or modify your claim, quoted above, that I had made such accusations, you appear to be implying that I did make such accusations. Do you now acknowledge that I did not? And if you believe that I made accusations that she was guilty of racial profiling, can you point to those accusations?
Needless to say, the caller's personal statement ads further credence to the possibility that the police report contains a misrepresentation. If that is true, the only apology here should come from the police, since my statement to the effect that "I can't say for sure, but my sense of it is that this stinks of racial profiling on the caller's part" was based upon the officer's claim that the caller "went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street" was correct.
Apologize to whom and for what? The misrepresentation was in a report written after the arrest for disorderly conduct brought on by Gates's loud outburst and refusal to cooperate with furnishing ID (after being told why they were there) was made. It's possible Gates's tirade influenced the misrepresentation.
Also, I should remind people that Gates is on record lying about not being able to yell or speak loudly because of some ailment.
The misrepresentation isn't a smoking gun.
Apologize to the public and to the caller for the misrepresentation, assuming it was such. Don't you believe that he police have a professional, legal, and moral responsibility to file accurate reports? Whether the misrepresentation, if it was such, was intentional or a mistake, it resulted in harm to someone's reputation and to the public trust, and I think that warrants an apology.
Needless to say, the caller's personal statement ads further credence to the possibility that the police report contains a misrepresentation. If that is true, the only apology here should come from the police, since my statement to the effect that "I can't say for sure, but my sense of it is that this stinks of racial profiling on the caller's part" was based upon the officer's claim that the caller "went on to tell me that she observed what appeared to be two black males with backpacks on the porch of Ware Street" was correct.
Apologize to whom and for what? The misrepresentation was in a report written after the arrest for disorderly conduct brought on by Gates's loud outburst and refusal to cooperate with furnishing ID (after being told why they were there) was made. It's possible Gates's tirade influenced the misrepresentation.
Also, I should remind people that Gates is on record lying about not being able to yell or speak loudly because of some ailment.
The misrepresentation isn't a smoking gun.
Apologize to the public and to the caller for the misrepresentation, assuming it was such. Don't you believe that he police have a professional, legal, and moral responsibility to file accurate reports? Whether the misrepresentation, if it was such, was intentional or a mistake, it resulted in harm to someone's reputation and to the public trust, and I think that warrants an apology.
Whose reputation? I assume you mean the caller's. If yes, her reputation, such as it was, wasn't harmed seriously. A simple apology to her for the oversight, assuming it is, would be in order.
Joined: 04 Oct 2006 {Posts: 228 } Location: CT/U.S.A.
Posted: Wed 29 Jul 2009 20:31 Post subject:
Hi all, it's been a long time... there have been some interesting comments in this thread, to say the least. I'd like to add my opinion to the fray as well.
I think it would be much easier if we stopped arguing about the semantics of the case and instead, focused on the "witness" and the officer who arrested Gates and why. Now that most of the facts have come in, everybody should be able to agree that the Police officer in question lied on his official report by stating he spoke with the "witness" before entering Gates' home and quoted the "witness" as saying she "saw two large "Black" men forcing their way into the home...", when in fact that was a bold faced lie. Yes, Gates allegedly went ballistic (as told by the cop(s) but they lied on the official report so how trustworthy can they be?) and may have misbehaved in the eyes of some but he was in his own home, not on/in the streets. That makes a big difference.
All of the confusion going on in the press, in "mainstream America", at the watercoolers across the country and on this board comes directly from following the official Police account given to the media by the Cambridge Police dept itself.
In fact, the only mention of "two large black men" comes from the official police report (not to mention the officer, himself), not from Gates and apparently, not from the "witness". So who's really to blame here? IMO, the facts speak for themselves.
The major fact here is the cop(s) lied and now everyone is being pulled into the "finger-pointing" game of who's "right" and who's "wrong". IMO/IME, Gates could have played the role of the "good, little Negro" and "stayed in his place" by being quiet and allowing the officer to, e-hem, "do his job" (as most AAs try to do to seem "non-threatening" so no physical force is used), but that didn't happen. I'm glad he didn't. It was his house, his door to "force in" and his house to be irrate and loud in. Period.
Once he showed identification and proof of residence, the officers should have left without incident by rule of law. Just as Gates must prove/show identification to the officers, they too have to show their identification (by way of badge number, name, etc.) if asked to do so because they are paid, Civil servants that work for the state. It works both ways. Police officers get extremely rude and obnoxious, just like most citizens do, when asked to prove who they are with official documentation. Especially if asked by a citizen deemed a "minority" IME/IMO.
Afterall, if Gates was really guilty of the crime he was arrested for, the Cambridge Police dept. would not have dropped the charges so easily and so fast. They only did so because they figured out what kind of mess they had gotten themselves into with the actions of one police officer. Of course the other officers on the scene ("race" notwithstanding) are going to back their fellow officers even if they know in their hearts the officer(s) in question is/was in the wrong. They are "color-struck" and the color they are stuck on is blue.
BTW, why haven't they released the entire 911 call from beginning to end instead of replaying the edited version 24/7?
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Yes, I know that caribj. 
