Bill, you're still missing the major points delivered by Felonious, me, Molina, and whoever else. No one is disagreeing that there's more black basketball players, etc. What we're pointing out is you're only noticing correlations between the skin color and their athleticism. The reasons there are more black athletes and less black champion chess players is not from something genetically specific about black people. There are many other factors that lead to one being an athlete or a chess champion, and it's not because one race is inherently smarter or more athletic.

Things like this cause alot of problems. A normal citizen sees me pulling over a guy just because hes black. I see a very obvious suspicious situation that need to be investigated.

Im not god. I didnt invent the world. I didnt decide that it should be abnormal for a black guy in a beat up car to be in a rich neighborhood. But the fact is that it IS abnormal.

I didnt decide that its very strange for a white guy to be driving his BMW thru a drug infested neighborhood.

But as a cop I have to investigate things that are abnormal. Is it illegal for a white guy in a BMW to drive thru a bad neighborhood? No. Could he be stopping and talking to a guy on the side of the street asking for directions? Sure.

is it illegal for a black guy to drive down an alley of a rich mostly white neighborhood? Of course not. Its a public roadway.

The white guy is very likely to be trying to buy drugs and the black guy is very likely looking for an open garage door.

Sure, a black guy in a BMW could be buying drugs but the fact is that alot of black people drive nicer cars even if they are poor. Alot of black people who live in bad neighborhoods still drive nice cars. Its just a cultural thing. Most white people wouldnt spend that much money on a car if they had to live in a bad area, alot of black people do. Its just the way it is so being an experienced cop and knowing this, it wouldnt be suspicious if a black guy was driving the BMW and talking to some guy on the corner.

A white guy in a beat up car would be a little suspicious in a nice neighborhood because white people break into houses also, so in that case I might still stop the guy, but the point is that race IS a factor in these cases. Its certainly not the only factor when deciding to stop someone. If it was, that would be illegal.

The problem is that many many complaints come out of situations like this. Cops get investigated and cities get sued. What happens then is that the cops soon learn that its much easier to just drive around and do as little as possible so you dont get in trouble. This is a major factor in why our crimes rates have been climbing for years. Ive said it before and Ill say it again. People want crime to be stopped but they dont want to know what it looks like to stop crime. They want everyones rights protected and they hate the words "racial profiling" but they want cops to catch the bad guys. Well guess what? The bad guys dont have the words "bad guys" written on their foreheads. We have to use common sense to figure out who is more likely to be doing something they shouldnt be doing. It just so happens that odds are against a black guy in a beat up car living in that neighborhood. If I see that situation 100 times, 95 times the guy is probably up to no good but the other 5 times that the guy does live there or is visiting a friend, theres a chance that I will be accused of being a racist.

Racial profiling is a trigger word right now in the law enforecment world. I have seen cops get accused of being a racists because of the 50 tickets they wrote, 46 of them were to minorities. Never mind that they work in an area where the population is only 5% white. People want to know why they write so many tickets to minorites and not to white people. Its a very frustrating situation which lead alot of really good cops to become cynical and lazy.

I only brought this whole subject up because because of the UCLA student that is now sueing for racial profiling. It appears those cops may have gone overboard with the tazer but did they do it because the guy was middle eastern? I really doubt it. But since racial profiling is the hot topic, instead of excessive force, he claims racial profiling because it will cause a bigger uproar and probably get him more money.

I realise you had a lot of stuff to come back to Bill, and it can't be pleasant to attempt to answer everyone jumping down your throat, but I see you have (to some extent) attempted to answer my questions in my initial post. However, I think you're overwhelmingly wrong and will try to explain why...

Here's your post, with my answers in bold...

Ok, i can't stand it...just got out of a sng with 8 Chinese...and luckily i won it all.



racism

The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to dominate them


Maybe this is where we are breaking down...in the definition...according to the first half of the definition, you could call me what ya'll are calling me...but NOT with the 2nd half...it does say AND...meaning both first half and 2nd half apply at the same time.
I DO believe the first part in the def. and the other one posted above, but DON'T believe in the 2nd part. Got it? They have to both apply.

Well, as I mentioned, I don't know where you got that definition and I personally don't agree with it. I think any assertion (unproven) that one race or another has some form of superiority over another is basically racist, otherwise the term become too subjective and nebulous to define with any surety.

Does anyone really believe blacks can't jump higher, in general?

Yes. There is no reason or scientific evidence to suggest that black people can jump higher than white people. Although it's utterly unscientific, and I believe it proves very little, I'd point out to you that of the current top 10 high jump personal bests in the world, 6 are caucasian, 1 is oriental, and 3 are black.

If you DO believe that, then you're a rascist? i think not.

I think so. I think Webster/Merriam would agree with me. Again, I don't think it really matters as I DON'T believe it's a bad or insidious thing to believe. It's just wrong, and lots of people (i.e. most people in the world, I guess including me) have beliefs and ideas that are inherently wrong, whilst not being that damaging.


Should they dominate white people on the court? Guess what? They do. So in some things, it IS ok to dominate and believe some race is better than another. How many of those black basketball blacks believe that they can jump higher than a white boy? All of them. Do they think they can dominate basketball? I'd say yes. So they're racists?

Yes, on that score, if they genuinely believe that. Equally, as I said before, I don't think that's such a terrible thing, it's just scientifically wrong.

A race of pygmies, smaller in body and brain size...I'd guess the Asians in general, are smarter than these pygmies. Course i know some of you will immediately jump to the defense of the pygmies now and call me that name again.

I have no idea what you're getting at here. If you could further explain I'd be grateful. I realise it's hard to express yourself in the written word sometimes, I get that too so I know how you feel!

Stel, you missed all the reality points...(however i was being sarcastic calling journals mags., btw...what's in journals is not always true either)

BTW, the definition can be shot full of holes...Do any of you own a dog? Do you think you're smarter than your dog? You think you should be able to dominate the dog because you're smarter? Racist? So you say the def. should include and say people.
The Cromagnon and Neanderthals were humans...yet their brain size was a good bit smaller (by some journal i read) so we today as a people are smarter. If they were around throwing clubs and stick knives at us, should we take our guns and blow them away and dominate them? Racist? Why not?

Dogs aren't humans. Cro-magnon and neanderthals don't exist anymore and would arguably not be part of the human race (divergent evolution). In any case, making a species un-extinct is a dubious way of arguing a sociologicaln point! But in any case, THIS IS THE POINT - in some journal you read (rightly!) pre-humans had a smaller cognitive ability and lesser brainpower than we do now - BLACK PEOPLE, ASIANS, BROWN PEOPLE, WHITE PEOPLE etc etc DO NOT! Science tells us they have basically identical mental abilities. This example does not prove your point in any way - the people accusing you of being racist are saying "You are saying that characteristics which do not differ between races are, despite what science tells us, different, and that some races are superior in mental or physical characteristics by inheritance" whereas you counter by saying "two individual strains of humans different from modern humans differ in terms of their mental and technological capability", which is of course true.

Incidentally, you're factually incorrect. Neanderthals are not humans (they are a different species, taxonomically) and cro-magnon man actually had an apparently larger brain capacity (although otherwise they're anotomically identical to humans).

Europeans and even perhaps Russians are more cultural then we Americans. (in general of course) They have more culture. Should they dominate us culturally? They do. Rascists? Why not?

Again, I don't understand what you're arguing. Russians and Europeans (racially the same people as white Americans) have more acuity where it comes to music, poetry, creative writing? If that's the case (and I'm not sure it is, given the short time your country has existed and the fact that you've produced some of the finest musicians and writers, in particular, in the Western world in the last 150 years) then isn't it due to social, cultural, and environmental differences, rather than racial ones (given that "race" in Europe is essentially non-existent in white folks)? I don't see how this proves that different races have different inherent qualities (in fact, it seems to support the assumption that culture and geographical location, rahther than skin colour, is the main determinant).

I'll stand by my original sayings and beliefs...reality show it all over many years, not just 20.

This is your prerogative. However, I suspect you're falling into the trap you warn others against. By taking relatively short-term personal viewpoints (i.e. the capabilities and achievements of people of different skin colour in a very politically-motivated world in the last ~200 years) you are inferring differences between races mentally, without taking into account a) that your observations are informed heavily by cultural and social factors and b) all scientific studies intended to nullify those factors have more or less disagreed with your viewpoints.

So, whilst I respect your right to the view you hold, I would more or less disagree with you on the points that I understand.

Monk

Well I just called all of my black friends and they are coming over tonight for a jumping contest. As soon as we're finished I'll post the results and we can finally get some FACTS about inherent racial ability in this thread.

Also, I haven't been able to find any article saying the UCLA student is suing the officers for racial profiling. I have found one that says he is suing for "police brutality" (http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-uclataser ... tla-news-1). The article says the reason he declined to show his ID was because he (incorrectly) believed he was being singled out because of him being middle-eastern. But there's no mention of him suing for that reason.