Goggy wrote:
And that's the logic your using. My argument is that if one of the first facts that officer thinks to write about his experience of entering the house is that he saw a 'black man' could suggest that he is predisposed to think of him as a 'black man' not just a 'man', and this is not just my opinion. There are many articles about our perceptions of races and people, and one of the underlying suggestions for ridding the world of racism is that we stop looking at people as different, in our immediate thought, but look at them as just people.
Even if the officer thought that Gate's ethnicity was the most important descriptor he could use, that doesn't make him racist. Skin and hair colour are probably the two most noticeable things about a person, and merely noting them down doesn't mean you're disparaging the person who possesses them. If I say "John has red hair", I'm probably saying that because less than 1% of the population has red hair and it's pretty damn noticeable if anyone wanted to find John. I'm not saying that gingers are less than human.
Quote:
I understand what you are saying about the statistic example I gave, but I also refer you to my previous paragraph and can see why people object to this focus on individual groups, it does nothing to beat racism in a country if people hear the highest ranking police officer in the country say that most crime is committed by black people.
If the solution is colour blindness, then getting worked up over the results of some statistical data is equally detrimental. Those people aren't opposed to the commissioner's statement because he said "the majority of muggings are carried out by [insert ethnicity]". They're opposed because the ethnicity is black people. They are specifically drawn to that statement because it connects black people and crime in a way they assumed was racist. If he said that statistical data showed that the majority of muggings were committed by white people, or redheads, or rugby players, or people over 40 or any other subset you care to name, would it still be considered discriminatory?