Comments on: Police in the UK: It’s not always about race

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:56:04 +0000

dcase, i don’t immediately see how your conclusion (this is why it is absurd…) follows from the premises of the article. could you elaborate?

i ask because i drew the opposite conclusion. the reason this article is on MMW is not because people got in a fight, or because someone got killed, or even because the fight involved people of different races. it’s here because the general public (most of whom were not there) assumes this was racially motivated, even when the police explicitly state that none of the evidence indicates a racist motive.

so, if we abandoned race as a primary dividing agent of humans (easier said than done, of course) the public wouldn’t be so primed to jump to unsupported conclusions about its role in conflicts.

By: dcase

dcase — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:14:19 +0000

This is why it is absurd when people suggest if we stop talking about race, it will stop being an issue. Moreover, simple conflicts that do not begin with race as an issue often expand due to perceived racial differences. For example, I’ve seen over parking spaces, places in line, even arguments over algebra in college classrooms expand in fistfights over the phrases like “you people always ________,” black(white) people do ___________, or the words “nigger,” “boy” and “white boy” come out over simple stuff. I like to think that race acts as an accelerant in conflicts; it fuels the flames and increases the intensity of conflicts.

By: site admin

site admin — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 13:00:33 +0000

good clarification…thanks for that! though wouldn’t it be fun to see some rabble-rousing in some swank neighborhood? just kidding. kind of. ~JC

By: Lyonside

Lyonside — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:07:56 +0000

I pretty much expect MMW readers to know this, but just to remind others:

For the Americans, for “estates” read “projects.”

Never ceases to amaze me when all the $500,000 McMansions in my area are called “Normandy Farms Estates”.