One time as I was leaving I asked the officer why Folgers crystals of all things were locked up. His reply was "[ethnic group] gangs steal essentials in bulk, and sell them to the homeless."
From that point forward it clicked in my head, retail theft is about liquidity not value.
This has been true for every ethnic group imaginable throughout history. In America it's been true of the Irish, the Italians, the Polish, the Chinese, and so many others. So many now celebrated "model" ethnicities. The existence of [ethnic group] gangs who regularly commit certain crimes at rates much higher than others is not a sign of the uniquely fragile moral fiber of [ethnic group], it's a signifier of their continued mistreatment by society and continued ethnically biased socio-economic inequality. Only a tiny minority of any [ethnic group] are criminals, to take the actions of a minute sub-set of a very large group of people as a bad mark against the entire group is entirely unjustified, especially in light of the issues I've described above.
I can't believe that it's 2016 and I still have to explain this.
I agree with you, and presume 'dsl' does as well. I assume the use of [ethnic group] instead of the specific minority was head off misinterpretation. What caused you to interpret the comment as claiming that crime was the result of the "uniquely fragile moral fiber" of [ethnic group]?
Edit: I do think it's fair though to characterize the propensity to commit crime as a "moral failing" even if the causes are primarily economic.
Actually once at the Safeway you're talking about. Last year I saw a man with an open duffle bag run out of there with security half heartedly following into the parking lot. They looked around for a few moments and went back in. Lots of homeless hang around there, especially by the Starbucks around the corner.
The Safeway (or Unsafeway as my wife calls it) near Japantown on Webster St is frequently a source of drama too. The last instance I saw was where a homeless woman got caught by a guard at the door with some items under her coat. She dropped to the ground screaming about being pregnant.
In The Netherlands a lot of bikes are stolen because people are too lazy to walk.
Most of the time your stolen bike can be found again next to a bus stop or train station.
Each.
As a cyclist, N+1 is real :)
~40% is stolen by professionals
~28% is stolen by junks
By the way, bike owners:
US: ~18%
NL: ~84%It is 'racial' in the sense that it is a finer distinction of races. It fits in a hierarchy like -- people --> races --> ethnic groups
For example:
Whites --> Danes, Basque, Serbs
Blacks --> Yoruba, Luo, Kalenjin
It is strange and concerning that because there is so much walking on eggshells around these matters there is such ignorance[0] on basic matters.
[0] I mean that in the least offensive way, just basically not informed, or educated on a matter.
If that weren't enough there is a large body of scientific evidence that supports the fact that race makes little biological sense and is mostly a social construct. Take the example of the Basque you picked: it turns out the Basque are much different from the rest of people in Europe due to their being (mostly linguistically, but also genetically) the only descendants of hunter-gatherer societies in Europe.
I suggest you read Genes, Peoples, and Languages on the subject: it's really fascinating.
http://www.amazon.com/Genes-Peoples-Languages-Luigi-Cavalli-...
Does it?
> there is a large body of scientific evidence that supports the fact that race makes little biological sense and is mostly a social construct
Given the topic, I'd be skeptical - a large body of evidence might still not be conclusive. However, maybe a more relevant question is why it matters - you are what you might be perceived as, so far it might affect how you are treated.
If you didn't see it as relevant information, or you didn't want to relay that information to us, then why not just say 'gangs'?
(I think that including it struck the perfect balance between flavor and a refusal to propagate racism. Without it, there's a simple report of information that was relayed. With it, I can better put myself there.)
That's silly.
What purpose is served by accusing the officer of racism in the comment? Is it some kind of weird virtue signalling, like "she's racist! but not me, I'm a good guy!"
Furthermore, if we agree that the subtext is the officer is being accused of racism, there is in fact no basis for that accusation. Noticing a facet of reality and verbalizing it, is emphatically not racism.
It might be 'racism' of the sort that everybody is desperately searching for in every nook and cranny to hang their ideologies on, but it's not actually racism.
(what I find confounding, is that from reading your comment, the officer hasn't just been accused, but in your mind seems to be fully guilty and worthy of condemnation, based on the evidence that she simply spoke what she had observed. so strange...)
It seems to me as though you're looking in every nook and cranny to find people doing this!
I wasn't there, so I don't know if it was racism. But the author's inclusion communicated to me that the police officer was racist. The author could have made that more clear by writing "[racial epithet]" rather than "[ethnic group]" but following the principle of charity makes me think the author found it relevant, and I think we agree that that shows the author thought the officer was racist.
If the officer had just said "black gangs" or "Mexican gangs" or something like that, then maybe the author read too much into it. But the author was the one that was there, and who heard everything else the officer said, and clearly thought that the racial bit was worth communicating. So why automatically dismiss that?
I thought it was something exactly along those lines, not necessarily one of those two groups, but something along those lines given that 'mexican' and 'black' are common descriptions for ethnic groups in the US.
by writing "[racial epithet]" rather than "[ethnic group]"
What do you think 'ethnic group' means?
An ethnicity is not an epithet, there's really no connection between the two at all, other than an epithet is a mean name people might call people. And all people happen to be of one ethnicity or another.
communicated to me that the police officer was racist.
Given the weight that some people give to such a charge in today's society, you're really doing no one any one favors by being so brash and cavalier in handing it out, given the paucity of evidence. Even OP should be very cautious with such a label given such a brief interaction.
I think we agree that that shows the author thought the officer was racist
No we don't, I think you may be confused about what an ethnic group is, or the meaning of the term. There is nothing racist about using the proper name for a group of people.
It seems to me as though you're looking in every nook and cranny to find people doing this!
I really should get better at self-editing, I notice how people will commonly grab onto to one little minor supporting snippet of a post while ignoring the real substance of what's been written.
interesting way to combat racism...
So goes the theory at least.
Not that I think it's appropriate to assume malice on the part of the police officer, nor to censor everything race-related that you find objectionable.
If, for example, you post a list of facts about crime rates among a particular ethnic group apropos of nothing, it's probably racist, regardless of whether or not the facts are true.
That said, in this case I think it's just the bad taste that one often gets in their mouth knowing that a racist might read a comment you make and have it confirm their prejudices.
As for how it's combating information: is there meaningful information lost here? He could have told you what colour his pants were, too, but it wouldn't add a whole hell of a lot to the story.
IMO, its not so much the loss of information, its the implication that racial problems should not be considered racial problems.
Very little is added to the discussion of curbing gang crime by bringing race into the picture. What are the specifically Black solutions to gang behaviour? What are the Hispanic ones?
On the other hand, the culture of racism and intolerance such discussions engender has real and measurable downsides. Cf. every discussion of police interactions by minorities.
The culture of black Americans is unique. It's different than the culture of Asians, Hispanics, Whites, ect, and initiatives will effect each culture differently. That much seems certain to me.
To say that there is a one size fits all solution to gang violence is to ignore important cultural differences.
To just look at family structure: 75% of black families are not married and 60% of mothers with multiple children have them to different fathers.
As for how we tackle gangs, I'd need to study to problem longer. But its a hunch of mine that the above family statistics play a role in their formation.
You're feelings have no bearing on the range of legal actions available to other people.
regardless of whether or not the facts are true.
What kind of state of mind are you in bro?
whether or not the facts are true.
?
What do you think the definition of 'fact' is?
How does reality being racist imply that a fact is racist? And not other things? Is everything racists under a racist reality? How do we draw these lines?
Let me be more concrete and give an example.
Blacks living in the U.S. have (in a statistical average sense) a higher sensitivity to sodium than whites, leading to higher rates of hypertension in that demographic. If you're a physician treating black patients or you're a black American yourself, this is an important fact to know. This is a racist fact, because it differentiates reality along racial fault lines.
There are plenty of examples of situations where I could get you to say that one course of action is the rational or best option, but if I keep the same logical structure and swap out some nouns and adjectives, what was once the best option is now racist, and I'm a racist if I take this course of action. I won't give any examples because they're too inflammatory, and I don't feel like getting downvoted into oblivion. I'm pretty sure you can fill in the blanks if you're so inclined.
Since realizing this, I no longer view "racist" as a derogatory. It's the way the world already is, so my choice is either to have an accurate view of reality or an impoverished one.
But really, any reader who doesn't already have racial prejudices will recognize that the operative word is "gangs", not "[ethnic group]". It's a bit of an insult to the sensibilities of HN readers, and it doesn't protect anyone from anything.
> any reader who doesn't already have racial prejudices
because I don't believe these people exist.
Seems to fit to me.