alexandraerin

Something I've learned over the years is that anytime someone gets called an "-ist" of any kind, we should start paying attention because someone is trying to shut them down and keep them from saying something they are afraid people might listen to. Again, this is something that reminds me of something I read from author Paul Graham (http://paulgraham.com) from his essay "What You Can't Say" (http://paulgraham.com/say.html):

"The word "defeatist", for example, has no particular political connotations now. But in Germany in 1917 it was a weapon, used by Ludendorff in a purge of those who favored a negotiated peace. At the start of World War II it was used extensively by Churchill and his supporters to silence their opponents. In 1940, any argument against Churchill's aggressive policy was "defeatist". Was it right or wrong? Ideally, no one got far enough to ask that."

Likewise, when someone gets called a "racist", they get backed into the corner of having to defend their views. Are their thoughts based on learned prejudice? Or are their conclussions the result of taking an honest look at the facts of a given situation? Again, "ideally, no one gets far enough to ask." Simple trick, just happens to work. Don't like what someone says? Forget debating them on the issue at hand, just name them the heretic du jour (defeatist, racist, "unamerican" for those fond of the MacCarthy era, communist for those who prefer the Cold War era, whatever label you can translate into "heretic" will work.)

So when someone calls the President a "racist", that tells me the President has something to say that this person doesn't want anyone else to listen to. It tells me he has something to say that this person is afraid might be true. And that piques my curiosity and makes me want to take a closer look at the arrest and how it was handled.

It also makes me wonder why the President of the United States is taking such a personal interest in what is by all accounts a very minor arrest that should be handled at the local level, and should that fail work it's way up the judicial branch to the Supreme Court. The Executive Branch shouldn't even be involved in this unless a pardon is being issued. The whole thing seems highly irregular to me.

Posted by

The "why" seems very simple to me: presidents have friends, too. Presidents have race, as well. It would have been improper for him to intercede, but I'm not going to pass judgment on him commenting on a situation that strikes at him personally.

No, actually I am going to judge... and I find in favor of the defendant. I have to imagine that when friends of most former presidents had legal troubles and it was not politically necessary for the president to distance himself, they were handled through a more circumspect application of executive pull and not a public "Man, this is stupid."

But the issue here goes beyond one man being arrested, and merely resolving Professor Gates's case in his favor doesn't solve the problem.

(Especially as the charges were already dropped, as far as I know.)

So I applaud President Obama for not doing the "presidential" thing and, say, quietly torpedoing the career of the man who messed with his friend. That man had no idea he was arresting a man of import and influence for "Disorderly Conduct" (usually code words for "exercising one's first amendment right to tell the cops off"), but that's kind of the crux of the issue: would the officer have been so blase about pulling a white man out of a nice house adjacent to an Ivy League university in the middle of the night?

Of course, it really shouldn't matter whether one is a friend of the president or not... nobody should get arrested for telling off cops... but it's still worth asking if the encounter might have gone differently if the man who answered the door matched the officers' idea of what a distinguished Harvard scholar and man of influence should look like.

Posted by

lizkayl.livejournal.com

Often it's for telling off a cop- but it's one of their ways they can try to prevent a situation from escalating further. Also, it's one way of saying, "I'm too ticked to deal with you rationally. Let's haul you in and let someone else deal with this, because I can't."

Posted by

Recently, a guy on a message forum I read posted a link to a completely unrelated series of videos that have none-the-less given me some incite into this incident. The videos are done by a pair of brothers who live here in California, and have to do with the open carry of unloaded firearms (which is perfectly legal in this state, it's concealed carry without a permit, or carrying a loaded weapon that gets ya' in trouble). Specifically, they did about 5 or 6 little 2 minute videos of possible scenarios that might result with the police from getting a "man with a gun" call, which they are required to check on under California Penal Code 12031. The 12031 Check (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=pullnshoot25&view=videos) videos where quite interesting.

Among the other things they pointed out is that under the 5th Amendment, you are not required to answer any questions the police ask of you. You are not required to submit to any warrantless or "unreasonable" searches of your person or property. And if the police search you without probable cause, they are violating your civil rights. Suspician of a crime is not probable cause as defined under the law. Apparently you are not even required to produce identification (though in a situation where one of your neighbors has called in a report of a potential break in, I think it can only help to produce some sort of document that proves you live there.)

While the First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, I think the Professor might have been wiser to exercise his 5th Amendment Right to remain silent and not yell accusations of racism at the officers. If his behavior was deemed belligerant, aggressive, or threatening in any way, then it would be standard police procedure to hand cuff him to reduce the risk of injury to the officers. Heck, I've been handcuffed before when I was merely "accused" of assault and I was remaining calm and not giving the officers any problems.

Another video I found on YouTube was by a Law Proffessor who stated, flat out, that you should never, ever, ever, talk to the police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc) under any circumstances because "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Talking to the police when you are a suspect can only make things worse for you. And not because the police are out to get you, but because they are fallible human beings who don't have a photographic memory. In fact something the two brothers have started doing is carrying digital micro-recorders with them to record everything that is said if they should get stopped by the police (which they have been in the past simply for legally carrying their unloaded firearms in plain sight, which is not against the law in California). Having not been a firsthand witness to the incident, none of us will probably ever know exactly what happened and how.

I can see President Obama commenting on the incident if Prof. Gates was a long time friend of his. But I have to wonder why he has invited both Prof. Gates and the arresting officer to a reconcilliatory meeting at the White House? That really seems to be going above and beyond the job description of "President of the United States", to take such a big interest in what really amounts to a local level police matter. It's good that he has not used the power of his office to end the officer's career, I agree. But I don't think he should be involving himself in the incident further than to comment on what happened to his friend (and I still haven't found any article detailing Prof. Gates's specific relationship to the President yet.)A President needs to avoid the appearance of any racial bias to be an effective leader. Even commenting on the situation was probably not a wise thing to do, as the situation has no direct bearing on the responsebilities of the Executive Branch unless he was issuing a Pardon. Which since the D.A. is not pursuing the matter of the charge of disorderly conduct against Prof. Gates, is not required.

Posted by

What exactly makes you think President Obama is taking interest in a local police matter when the charges have been dropped?

Race relations... institutional racism... police/minority relationships. These are matters of national interest, of national conscience.

Posted by

That he's invited both the disputants to meet at the White House to reconcile the situation between them, even though the D.A. has dropped the charges against the Professor. This is definetly not standard practice for the President of the United States to involve the White House something of this nature.

According to the reports I have read, the Officer feels he followed standard police procedure and has nothing to appologize for. The Professor apparently feels he has been wronged and demands an apology. The issue then, it whether or not standard police procedure is racist in nature? Or was it violated in dealing with this specific incident. Both of which are matters that should be handled by the Judicial Branch, not the Executive Branch, as they pertain to matters of law and law enforcement.

Yes, I agree that race relations, institutional racism, and police/minority relationships are matters of national interest and conscience. Such matters affect me in my daily life, just like they affect everyone. I simply find this move by the President unusual, and I would not have expected any President to have made such an offer. The state governor, the City Mayor, perhaps, but it strikes me as unusual for the President to get involved in such an incident in any way, as similar incidents happen on a daily basis, and disputes are settled without White House involvement. So why now?

Posted by

That he's invited both the disputants to meet at the White House to reconcile the situation between them, even though the D.A. has dropped the charges against the Professor.

You're right, it makes no sense that he would get involved to resolve the legal conflict when it's been dropped.

So we can rightly discard this line of thinking entirely.

as similar incidents happen on a daily basis

You're answering all your own questions.

Edited on 2009-07-29 04:02 pm (UTC)

Posted by

Please enlighten me, I've only had a couple of hours of sleep at this point and I'm not seeing it. I seem to only have more questions now than answers. I must've missed something.

Posted by

stormcaller3801.livejournal.com

Point one, he's not getting involved to resolve legal issues.

And beyond that, the President's getting involved because this is a national event- as in events like this happen everywhere- and he's symbolically attempting to fix things.

That, and to inject my own thoughts here, I think that to a certain extent he's expected to weigh in on it because he's black (I know, half black- but that's not how most people think of him), and because he did weigh in on it and make a judgment, it became a political football. Republicans can push a narrative of him being inept and saying unwise things, unless he can make both sides at least appear to get along. At which point he scores political points in the 'healing of racism' narrative, and the Republican party heads either drop it entirely or are reduced back to the status-quo of declaring racism over (and thus, anything said or done can't be racist).

Politics, at the national level, as usual. Or at least as usual as anything with this administration. Obama's struck me as a not-normal President on a number of things. Which would be bad, if he doesn't seem to have rational reasons for these aberrations.

Posted by

Ok, now that makes sense to me. Thank you.

Posted by

the-leaking-pen.livejournal.com

so basically, hes calling a mini summit meeting on race relations. This is the kind of thing presidents are , in my mind, freaking SUPPOSED to do. be mediators on issues of social conscience and national import? Yes please.

Posted by

A quote from a State Dept. article entitled "The Executive Branch: Powers of the Presidency (http://countrystudies.us/united-states/government-7.htm)"

"Despite these constraints, every president achieves at least some of his legislative goals and prevents by veto the enactment of other laws he believes not to be in the nation's best interests. The president's authority in the conduct of war and peace, including the negotiation of treaties, is substantial. Moreover, the president can use his unique position to articulate ideas and advocate policies, which then have a better chance of entering the public consciousness than those held by his political rivals. President Theodore Roosevelt called this aspect of the presidency "the bully pulpit," for when a president raises an issue, it inevitably becomes subject to public debate. A president's power and influence may be limited, but they are also greater than those of any other American, in or out of office."

What you are saying is that this is what the President is doing? And he's chosen this particular incident to be representative of an on-going problem that he hopes to focus public discussion on?

Posted by

hnmic.livejournal.com

Because this one has kicked up a giant cloud of media attention, and the others that happen every day do not, generally, as it's not a Harvard Professor getting arrested, very loudly.

Therefore now is a great time for the President (whether it's normal or not) to step up and use the media attention and the incident to make people think, and to let them know what he thinks. Doesn't strike me as odd at all.

Posted by

Yes, looking at it in that light makes much more sense as to why the President chose get involved in this incident and not in any of the hundreds, possibly thousands, of other similar incidents that happen daily across the nation.

Posted by

hnmic.livejournal.com

and what does My President do? He seizes the opportunity. it's not like he isn't on TV 11 hours a day already, why not make it 12 for that day? It will accomplish something, even if it's just to make people think about what they say and do for 5 extra seconds one night.

Posted by

By your logic, however, no one saying or doing racist things, sexist things, homophobic things, etcetera should ever be called out on it, and the person so called out should be then given more attention so we can see what they are trying to say that others are trying to suppress.

And that way lies danger, because there's already so much HDU CALL ANYONE A RACIST WITHOUT A BRAIN SCAN AND FIVE TESTIMONIALS AS TO THEIR WHITE SUPREMACIST LEANINGS, and all that does is derail, derail, derail.

Posted by

Actually, it would be by Paul Graham's logic, which I read and agreed with as having a valid point to consider. I would be interested to know what you thought of his essay, which I provided a link to for everyone to read and consider themselves. The one entitled "What You Can't Say, (http://paulgraham.com/say.html)". What he has said made perfect sense to me, as I've been on the recieving end of this tactic many times over the years and he offers a plausible explanation as to why it is often used. That being when the other side can't counter your arguements with facts and evidence of their own, they attempt to undermine your credibility, or the credibility of your sources instead. By raising the spector of doubt about someone's motivations, the debate shifts from the issue at hand to what the person's motivation is for argueing as they have. In this way, the primary relevant issue stops being discussed and things get "derailed, derailed, derailed", as you put it. That is why special attention needs to be paid whenever someone attempts to deflect an arguement from the issue at hand to their opponents motivation for even arguing the issue in the first place or for taking the actions they did. It's a subtle, but significant difference. Why they are arguing as they are really isn't what matters. What matter's is whether or not the evidence and fact's they present in support of their arguement can be considered valid or not.

Now there are many points in this particular incident where I would say the officer was in the wrong. Violation of the 4th Amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures should be considered as soon as Prof. Gates was requested to presetn I.D. You are not required, by law to present I.D. if you have not been formally charged with a crime. There is the entire issue of Qualified Immunity, which basicly means that while ignorance of the law is not a defense for civilians, it IS a defense for the police. I'll borrow a line from George Carlin here: I think I'll repeat that because it sounded vaguely important. The people our society charges with upholding the Law are not themselves required to know said laws they are suppose to be enforcing. (which is discussed in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_oWJhrgGZI&NR=1) at 5:40.As well as many other apparent contradictions in the law that may, or may not have a bearing on Prof. Gate's treatment, but all of which I think people should be aware of.)According to case law Arizona v. Hicks and Beck v. Ohio, A) according to Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia, search is a search, and to have a search an officer needs a warrant, consent, or "reasonable articulatable suspicion that a crime has been committed" and B)a police officers hunch of wrong doing does not constitute "reasonable articulatable suspicion" that a crime has been commited (same video at 3:20). Because the officer had a hunch that Prof. Gates did not live at the house, that in and of itself is not grounds for a search of his person or property. And yeah, I'd have been plenty annoyed myself in that situation. So Prof. Gates really had the officer dead to rights on a number of violations without having to even mention racism.

But, he accusses the officer of racism, and all the sudden people stop looking at the 4th and 5th Amendment violations, Arizona v. Hicks or Beck v. Ohio, or any other case law that might support or excuse Prof. Gates's chewing the officers out (Remember Miranda Rights, silence is Golden, don't give the police anything to use against you). Now all of that other stuff gets overshadowed by "Was the officer behaving in a racist manner?" and everyone forgets all the other violations the officers likely committed, and got away with, under Qualified Immunity.

And that is an issue that I really think the President should take on and revise policy about: That the police don't have to know the laws they are enforcing. That they can violate our rights and not even get a reprimand for it. That, in my opinion, is a big flashing red neon sign that says WTF!?

Posted by

All of those things are correct, and I appreciate you taking the time to spell it out.

But Dr. Gates also did feel that the race issue is important - because that's what influences his interactions with the police, that's a reasonable fear for people of color, and one he thought he was shielded from by class privilege until it happened to him. And I don't feel that he, or anyone else, should not talk about it because of the fear that if they do discuss the issue of race, no one will talk about other issues of concern.

Posted by

Oh most certainly he should talk about it, as it is undoubtedly a contributing factor to the incident. The fact that he even felt the need to bring it up says much about how he personally feels he has been treated by the police. But in bringing it up, that means that the entire incident needs to be gone over with the investigative equivelent of a scanning electron microscope to be sure that all the other factors are not glossed over or forgotten about, and to determine the validity of the charge and the culpability of the offers involved on each factor, as a seperate issue.

In short, it's a huge tangled knot that needs to be sorted out before anyone starts jumping to conclusions. Race is one issue amongst many, one thread in the tangle. As Derrick Jensen says in his book "The Culure of Make Believe (http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Make-Believe-Derrick-Jensen/dp/1931498571/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248898591&sr=1-1)" (Published in 2004): "When you pull on the thread of racism, you find the 3 or 4 other threads in the knot move in response which you hadn't thought were connected to it, which you then have to go investigate." As I've mentioned before, it is Jensen's theory that hatred felt long enough and deeply enough by a culture, no longer feels recognizable as hatred, but becomes disguised as tradition, which makes it difficult for those under it's influence to recognize it for what it is. Hatred clouds our perception of reality and prevents us from seeing the world as it really is.

Posted by

Yep. Intersectionality is a bitch of a problem, anyway you slice it.

Posted by

I have never heard of the term "intersectionality" before in all my reading. Or if I have, I haven't caught it's meaning from the context clues.

Posted by

Intersectionality tends to refer to the intersections between class, race, gender, disability, sexuality - all the axes of privilege along which we move and which shape our experiences, specifically. Googling "intersectionality" along with anti-racism or similar terms may turn you on to good reading, and probably the IBARW Delicious archive as well (which you can access from the IBARW link in the post IIRC.)

Posted by

Did you know that there is no definition for "intersectionality" in the online Webster's Unabridged Dictionary? The next listing I found was for Wikipedia, which everyone I know has said is suspect for it's authenticity since anyone can post anything in it, and the moderators often take months or years to catch errors.

The serach continues

Posted by

Oooh I found an article on Intersectionality that is really speaking to me on many levels! "Patricia Hill Collins: Intersecting Oppressions (http://www.uk.sagepub.com/upm-data/13299_Chapter_16_Web_Byte_Patricia_Hill_Collins.pdf)"

In particular, what the author is describing in this paragraph on page 9:

"The hegemonic domain legitimates oppression. Max Weber was among the first to teach us that authority functions because people believe in it. This is the cultural sphere of influence where ideology and consciousness come together. The hegemonic domain links the structural, disciplinary, and interpersonal domains. It is made up of the language we use, the images we respond to, the values we hold, and the ideas we entertain.
And it is produced through school curricula and textbooks, religious teachings, mass media images and contexts, community cultures, and family histories. The black feminist priority of self-definition and critical, reflexive education are important stepping stones to deconstructing and dissuading the hegemonic domain. As Collins (2000) puts it, “Racist and sexist ideologies, if they are disbelieved, lose their impact” (p. 284)."

This sounds incredibly similar to what author Daniel Quinn has identified in his books "Ishamael", "The Story of B", "My Ishmael", and "Beyond Civilization" as "Mother Culture" or the phenomenon that helps to perpetuate the ideas, or memes, that make up a given culture. That constant droaning voice that speaks incessantly to us to lull us to sleep, to not think about the obvious and blatant inequalities in our society. Surface ideas come and go, but the core principles of a culture are always transmitted faithfully in pieces, as a mosaic, through popular media such as TV shows, nursary rhymes,novels, radio jingles, and a myriad of other avenues to be assembled subconsciously by the listener which along with their experiences in life helps to determine their world view.

If these two explanations are indeed referring to the same thing, as I think they are, this means I have been studying and trying to make sense of this "Intersectionality" issue for the last 17 years all on my own without realizing that other people have been working on it at well. In short, I now know what terms to look for in my research to aid me in unraveling the tangle!

You've given me another piece of the puzzle that I've been trying to solve for half my life! Elizabeth, Thank you! A thousand blessings upon you and your house! I'd hug you if you I could right now!

This is exciting stuff to me!

Posted by

Well, this is a pleasant surprise, in that usually when I tell someone they need to look up intersectionality they're pissed as hell at me. :d

Ishmael was an amazing book, as are the sequels, and it provided me with a lot of useful tools of understanding when I came to learn about anti-racism and similar progressive efforts to untangle the various ways humans shit on each other while pretending they're pudding wrestling.

If you've never encountered it, bell hook's wonderful Feminism is for Everybody is a fabulous little handbook on feminism from an intersectional perspective, including a brief history of how ignoring intersectionality has affected the history of mainstream feminism. bell hooks in general is marvelous, but if you want things broken down into generalities with lots of references to other source material, that's the best tool in my box.

Posted by

I will have to look for that book to add to my library. And again, thank you. Thank for being a mirror for me.

Posted by

Do it. Consider purchasing it from a feminist bookstore, there are so few left and most of them do internet ordering. And you are welcome, and thank you for listening.

Posted by

As soon as I have some spare cash, I will try to find it. Money is extremely tight right now. I'm hoping there is enough work at the second job I just had to take to make it through the year. It's a substitute position, which means on-call when they need someone to fill in when one of the regulars is sick or goes on vacation. Things are really not good in Southern California right now. Everyone is hurtin' and they still haven't really settled the budget issue successfully.

Posted by

Understood. We do what we can. Don't hesitate to ask the library. :D

Posted by

vox-vocis-causa.livejournal.com

If Henry Louis Gates had "matched the officers' idea of what a distinguished Harvard scholar and man of influence should look like." then he would not have been yelling at them. The details are somewhat sketchy but it doesn't look like this arrest had anything to do with race. As anyone can tell you yelling accusations and threats at cops is a bad idea.

From both the police report and Professor Gates' statements it sounds like he was refusing to cooperate with the cops, who were responding to a legitimate complaint, instead Gates decided to respond with accusations of racism.

Ignoring race as a factor, if someone told me a guy got arrested after refusing to cooperate with police and then started yelling at them when they wouldn't just go away, I wouldn't be surprised.

Posted by