Every human has done this, in regards to speaking about something when they don't know all of the facts.
It's just a bit disappointing when it is the President of the United States. I am speaking in regards to the Harvard Scholar and Cambridge Policeman fiasco.
I was EXTREMELY ANGRY when I first heard about what happened in Cambridge.
When I saw the white officer on the tv at work, I cursed him in my thoughts (I used the big words too--compound sentences!)
I was really, really angry and could not understand how something like that could happen TODAY, how it could have gotten so out of hand so quickly TODAY.
Of course I blamed the Policeman and thought the worst of him.
The next day, I read that the police officer was an expert on racial profiling, deemed so and placed in the appropriate position by one his Black supervisors.
It was only then that I remembered a lesson that I had forgotten about judging a matter ahead of time.
Now President Obama admitted that he did not have all of the facts when he called the actions of the Cambridge policeman, "stupid". That was an attempt to cover himself for the remark he was about to make.
Sure he thought about what he said before he said it, he just didn't think about it enough.
His choice of words was strong, so was my outrage, and I can imagine that the initial outrage of many folks, not just Black folks, may have been strong.
It is here I will add, but especially Black folks. I'm no expert, but I have about 32 years of experience in the field.
Sometimes, somewhere along the way, all of us have to take the time to THINK and to remember to not let our prejudices embarrass us.
Falling back on the premise based on fact that police officers are more likely to abuse their powers with a Black man is another example of prejudice-- the same kind of prejudice that allows some to look at a group of young, Black adult males walking down any given street and feel threatened.
Premises based on fact are not always factual for every situation.
This is the point at which prejudice embarrasses.
Human beware!
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
It is here I will add, but especially Black folks. I'm no expert, but I have about 32 years of experience in the field.
Are you in law enforcement?
It is my understanding that Obama has a prejudiced view of these cops. Why? Because he was a college kid and went there. Does that make you prejudiced? Not necessarily.
He also had 17 traffic tickets from 20 years ago that he never paid until he filed to run for Pres. That shows us how he reacts to what they are paid to do.
It is my understanding that Obama has a prejudiced view of these cops. Why? Because he was a college kid and went there. Does that make you prejudiced? Not necessarily.
He also had 17 traffic tickets from 20 years ago that he never paid until he filed to run for Pres. That shows us how he reacts to what they are paid to do.
I was referring to the fact of my own race-- it was an attempt at a joke.
However, I have 2 years civilian law enforcement and almost 5 years military law enforcement.
His remarks did not reflect a prejudice of those cops, just a prejudice of all cops when it comes to questionable interactions with Blacks and Latinos in America. He referred to that in his ill-fated answer to that last question during his rambling about the healthcare overhaul.
I referred to that same prejudice as a premise based on fact in my opening statement on this thread.
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
Last edited by Jermyn Davidson; 07-24-2009 at 06:01 PM.
Falling back on the premise based on fact that police officers are more likely to abuse their powers with a Black man is another example of prejudice-- the same kind of prejudice that allows some to look at a group of young, Black adult males walking down any given street and feel threatened.
Premises based on fact are not always factual for every situation.
Every human has done this, in regards to speaking about something when they don't know all of the facts.
It's just a bit disappointing when it is the President of the United States. I am speaking in regards to the Harvard Scholar and Cambridge Policeman fiasco.
I was EXTREMELY ANGRY when I first heard about what happened in Cambridge.
When I saw the white officer on the tv at work, I cursed him in my thoughts (I used the big words too--compound sentences!)
I was really, really angry and could not understand how something like that could happen TODAY, how it could have gotten so out of hand so quickly TODAY.
Of course I blamed the Policeman and thought the worst of him.
The next day, I read that the police officer was an expert on racial profiling, deemed so and placed in the appropriate position by one his Black supervisors.
It was only then that I remembered a lesson that I had forgotten about judging a matter ahead of time.
Now President Obama admitted that he did not have all of the facts when he called the actions of the Cambridge policeman, "stupid". That was an attempt to cover himself for the remark he was about to make.
Sure he thought about what he said before he said it, he just didn't think about it enough.
His choice of words was strong, so was my outrage, and I can imagine that the initial outrage of many folks, not just Black folks, may have been strong.
It is here I will add, but especially Black folks. I'm no expert, but I have about 32 years of experience in the field.
Sometimes, somewhere along the way, all of us have to take the time to THINK and to remember to not let our prejudices embarrass us.
Falling back on the premise based on fact that police officers are more likely to abuse their powers with a Black man is another example of prejudice-- the same kind of prejudice that allows some to look at a group of young, Black adult males walking down any given street and feel threatened.
Premises based on fact are not always factual for every situation.
This is the point at which prejudice embarrasses.
Human beware!
It was definitely wrong for President Obama to even address the question in that forum in my opinion. In the role and performing the duties of POTUS is not the time to stick up for friends or even give opinion not based on full factual knowledge.
I don't think anyone can make a definitive case that this situation was all about racial prejudice on the side of the officer...however, I do believe that it is possible to say that race aside, the officer still acted stupidly.
I think that most of us are more influenced by our prejudices than we sometimes care to acknowledge and often more than we even realize. Personally, I think there is a significant difference between being subtlely affected by our preconceptions and outright, malicious racism.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
It was definitely wrong for President Obama to even address the question in that forum in my opinion. In the role and performing the duties of POTUS is not the time to stick up for friends or even give opinion not based on full factual knowledge.
I don't think anyone can make a definitive case that this situation was all about racial prejudice on the side of the officer...however, I do believe that it is possible to say that race aside, the officer still acted stupidly.
I think that most of us are more influenced by our prejudices than we sometimes care to acknowledge and often more than we even realize. Personally, I think there is a significant difference between being subtlely affected by our preconceptions and outright, malicious racism.
I disagree with you. I believe that the officer acted according to their protocol. I believe that if I, as a white man, had acted the same way as the 'scholar' I would have been treated the same way. If he was arriving on the scene of what had been dispatched to him as a possible breaking and entering, he was probably trying more to make sure the man, once identity was establishd, was going into a safe environment. I think the reaction of the 'scholar' was inappropriate and that is what got him arrested. It seems he started accusing the officer immediately rather than cooperate with him.
Could the situation have been avoided? Yes, by both of them working together. Maybe the officer could have been a little more informative when he was trying to get the man to exit the house but the man should have been a little more cooperative.
BO's remarks where wrong and he should apologize. After that let it drop by all parties and move on. I do not think our 'scholarly' friend will let it drop though even if the rest do. JMHO
We had a break in at our place and items stolen and no one showed up for 12 hours and only after I had made 3 phone calls to them.
I disagree with you. I believe that the officer acted according to their protocol. I believe that if I, as a white man, had acted the same way as the 'scholar' I would have been treated the same way. If he was arriving on the scene of what had been dispatched to him as a possible breaking and entering, he was probably trying more to make sure the man, once identity was establishd, was going into a safe environment. I think the reaction of the 'scholar' was inappropriate and that is what got him arrested. It seems he started accusing the officer immediately rather than cooperate with him.
Could the situation have been avoided? Yes, by both of them working together. Maybe the officer could have been a little more informative when he was trying to get the man to exit the house but the man should have been a little more cooperative.
BO's remarks where wrong and he should apologize. After that let it drop by all parties and move on. I do not think our 'scholarly' friend will let it drop though even if the rest do. JMHO
We had a break in at our place and items stolen and no one showed up for 12 hours and only after I had made 3 phone calls to them.
jax, I read the explanation given here that the officer still wanted him to leave so that he could conduct a search of the house for "real perpetrators". There is nothing in the incident or the police report to remotely suggest that. Trying to get the man to exit the house after he had established he was the homeowner and that it was in fact he who was locked out and had just been seen trying to get in should have ended the situation.
Saying now that he still wanted the man to leave so he could conduct an investigation is disengenuous at best, and nothing in his report or in the chain of events supports this. Once they handcuffed the professor, they did not in fact search for the perpetrators.
Many people are saying that regardless of how irate the professor was as long as he did not physically attack the officers, they should have left once he satisfied the issue of his identity and the fact that they were their mistakenly and for no real cause.
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
Linear Mode
