Gotta wonder......

netdude wrote: In other words... "the republicans need to (and do) ignore this so maybe it will go away so they so they can stay in the we world of denial that racism still is an issue".

There's also this from Chris Rock:

"Here’s the thing. When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy," Rock said in a Q & A with Frank Rich published in New York magazine. "To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before."

talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/chris-roc...e-relations-nonsense

The link to the full interview is embedded in this article. Worth the read, IMO.

ZHawke wrote: Am providing this because:

1. It is very well written, IMO, and,
2. It goes to the heart of a much bigger societal issue than I believe we are willing to acknowledge.

thesaltcollective.org/asian-american's-might-talk-ferguson/

Anecdotal stories all have one thing in common, they will never be repeated. Just like this Ferguson case, it should be judged on the merits of the evidence alone, including the history of the Wilson and the history of Brown. To assume that societal racism had a part to play is unfair unless there is evidence to back that claim up. Where is it?

Rick wrote: Anecdotal stories all have one thing in common, they will never be repeated. Just like this Ferguson case, it should be judged on the merits of the evidence alone, including the history of the Wilson and the history of Brown. To assume that societal racism had a part to play is unfair unless there is evidence to back that claim up. Where is it?

Anecdotal stories are used by everyone, R, including yourself. No one is suggesting that societal racism had a part to play in the actual incident. You keep clinging tenaciously to your requirement that we all adhere to your interpretation of the facts of the Ferguson case. Why should we? Why can we not point to societal issues we feel are also important? Some in The Courthouse have suggested that people like Al Sharpton and the Reverend Jesse Jackson just shut up because all they are doing is race baiting. President Obama and AG Eric Holder have been accused of doing the same. So, I provide a link to someone outside that "sphere' and you dismiss it out of hand because it has nothing to do with the "actual events" that took place in Ferguson?

I posted this OP in the first place in order to try to help others see different perspectives. You "asked" me in other threads you started to "play by your rules". Now I'm asking you to do the same.

Would you deny this person their own cultural perspectives on race relations in America? If so, why? If not, why not?

ZHawke wrote:
Would you deny this person their own cultural perspectives on race relations in America? If so, why? If not, why not?

I will ask your direct question with a direct answer... I have that ability.

Regarding this specific case, ( all events really), truth can only be found by revealing facts and adding those facts up to see the big picture. If racism is not a fact of the case, then someone's perception of current and past racism is not relevant. Every person in this country should be judged on their own actions. Even if it was discovered that Wilsons Grandfather was a KKK leader at a younger age, that doesn't mean Wilson has those same beliefs. So "cultural perspectives" are really not facts in this case and those perspectives should not be inserted in a case where no evidence of racism exists. If Wilson was one of the 3 black cops, there would have been no protests, no fires, no looting, no Sharpton, no Obama, no Holder... the story would have been forgotten as fast as it was reported. But since Wilson is white, the black community as well as white liberals all went to the race card. If Eric Holder can not find evidence of a race crime, then this person's perception means absolutely nothing when it comes to this case.

I don't deny anyone the right to their "perceptions", but like opinions and a$$holes, everybody has one, and they don't mean squat if they are not backed up by facts.

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:
Would you deny this person their own cultural perspectives on race relations in America? If so, why? If not, why not?

I will ask your direct question with a direct answer... I have that ability.

Regarding this specific case, ( all events really), truth can only be found by revealing facts and adding those facts up to see the big picture. If racism is not a fact of the case, then someone's perception of current and past racism is not relevant. Every person in this country should be judged on their own actions. Even if it was discovered that Wilsons Grandfather was a KKK leader at a younger age, that doesn't mean Wilson has those same beliefs. So "cultural perspectives" are really not facts in this case and those perspectives should not be inserted in a case where no evidence of racism exists. If Wilson was one of the 3 black cops, there would have been no protests, no fires, no looting, no Sharpton, no Obama, no Holder... the story would have been forgotten as fast as it was reported. But since Wilson is white, the black community as well as white liberals all went to the race card. If Eric Holder can not find evidence of a race crime, then this person's perception means absolutely nothing when it comes to this case.

I don't deny anyone the right to their "perceptions", but like opinions and a$$holes, everybody has one, and they don't mean squat if they are not backed up by facts.

And, once again, you deflect. The OP was about "gotta wonder", not "gotta wonder about Ferguson", although that seems to be the direction most of the responses have gone thus far. The woman in the article to which I provided the link was talking about her own cultural experience(s). I pointed out there are cultural perspectives on race in this country. Do you deny they exist and/or have validity?

ZHawke wrote: I posted this OP in the first place in order to try to help others see different perspectives. You "asked" me in other threads you started to "play by your rules". Now I'm asking you to do the same.

Would you deny this person their own cultural perspectives on race relations in America? If so, why? If not, why not?

Deny them their own perspective? No. Assign validity to their perspective outside of its relevance to them? That's a whole 'nother question. All perspectives are not equally valid.

PrintSmith wrote:

ZHawke wrote: I posted this OP in the first place in order to try to help others see different perspectives. You "asked" me in other threads you started to "play by your rules". Now I'm asking you to do the same.

Would you deny this person their own cultural perspectives on race relations in America? If so, why? If not, why not?

Deny them their own perspective? No. Assign validity to their perspective outside of its relevance to them? That's a whole 'nother question. All perspectives are not equally valid.

Logical follow-on question, then, would be to ask you if your perspective is more valid than others' perspectives?

Validity of the perspective depends on its tether to reason. I'm sure that John Hinkley had a perspective on why he shot Reagan, that doesn't make his perspective a valid one.

PrintSmith wrote: Validity of the perspective depends on its tether to reason. I'm sure that John Hinkley had a perspective on why he shot Reagan, that doesn't make his perspective a valid one.

Not what I asked, P.

You didn't ask an answerable question Z. More valid to whom? The person holding the perspective, to me, to you, or to the truth? The validity of the perspective is dependent upon its tether to reason. An irrational perspective isn't a valid one to anyone other than those who are themselves irrational.

I'm sure that the woman's perspective on race is valid in her view, but does it have sufficient reasoning sustaining it that it has validity outside of that individual realm? I believe the answer to that question can be found in the headline she assigned to it, why her perspective might be so, which leaves open the very real possibility that her perspective might not be so as well.

The maintenance man might not have asked questions, but did she provide reasons why she needed to be let into the apartment? Was the key she had in her possession recognizable to the maintenance man as being issued by the complex in some way that lent credibility to her request? Does her not ever seeing him before necessarily rule out him seeing her before in the company of the occupants of the apartment? Did the man know the occupants were getting married? Had they let the man know they left a key with a friend of theirs and provided a description prior to their departure with a request to assist her if she experienced problems? There are, therefore, many reasons why her perspective might not be valid overall when she describes that episode that I have only scratched the surface of here. I don't believe she is misrepresenting her perspective of the event, but that is quite a different thing from assigning to it a general validity.