The Black Lives Matter movement has been on steroids since the murder of George Floyd in the United States. Over there previously unimaginable things have been occurring.
The Mayor of Washington DC, Muriel Bowser, in as big a middle finger to Donald Trump as you can imagine, has had the street in front of the White House renamed “Black Lives Matter Plaza” and just in case the orange one missed it she had “Black Lives Matter” emblazoned in large yellow lettering on the road.
Elsewhere there is a stampede to either cut Police funding or even more dramatically to disband Police Forces and replace them with community safety organisations as is being proposed in Minneapolis, Floyd’s home town. From Oliver Milman in the Guardian:
Nine members of Minneapolis city council have vowed to dismantle the city’s police department, which was responsible for the death of George Floyd, and replace it with a new community-based system of public safety.
Jacob Frey, the Minneapolis mayor, demurred when asked if he would abolish the police department – but the nine city council votes will be enough to override Frey’s veto.
Efforts to reform the police have not been sufficient, said Lisa Bender, the Minneapolis city council president.
She said: “Our commitment is to end policing as we know it and to recreate systems of public safety that actually keep us safe.”
And here in Aotearoa New Zealand this week has had had two instances where Government agencies have done the right thing in recognition of the racist elements of what was happening.
The first was the Police discontinuing the Armed Response Teams trial. From Radio New Zealand:
The controversial police Armed Response Teams have been axed for good, with the Police Commissioner saying they failed to get public support.
The six-month trial in Counties-Manukau, Waikato and Canterbury was fiercely criticised by justice advocates, concerned about a lack of community consultation, and that the armed squads would disproportionately target Māori and Pasifika communities.
The Labour Maori Caucus, and good on them for doing so, had earlier come out against the trial. From Mark Quinlivan at Newshub:
Labour’s Māori Caucus has voiced its concerns about the general arming of New Zealand police officers.
A six-month trial of the country’s first armed police officers – the Armed Response Teams (ARTs) – was launched in October. Then-Police Commissioner Mike Bush said the teams would focus on any crime that caused “significant risk”.
But Labour Māori Caucus co-chair Willie Jackson said it’s discussed its concerns about the trial with Police Minister Stuart Nash.
“The Labour Māori Caucus made our view very clear that we are totally opposed to the general arming of our police force,” Jackson said.
He said there’s a feeling the ART trial commenced with a lack of consultation – especially with Māori.
Documents obtained by Radio New Zealand’s Checkpoint last week revealed disadvantages to Māori were one of the risks identified by those overlooking the trial.
Jackson said any form of racism is unacceptable in any organisation.
“Continuing the conversation around intolerance and racism is crucial to Aotearoa New Zealand recovery post-COVID-19, and the Labour Māori Caucus will do our part, to make sure that happens,” Jackson said.
And Jacinda Ardern also expressed major reservations about the trial. From Radio New Zealand:
Ardern said the government did raise concerns with the Commissioner of Police about the [Armed Response Teams] trials at the time.
“They were operational decisions so not something we were consulted on before those trials began, but we did raise concerns.”
Ardern said it was important not to interfere with police operational matters, however, the government did not consider the general arming of police a matter they could not take a view on.
“I’ve always had a very firm view on the general arming of police, I’m totally opposed, always will be. The Police Commissioner himself has also said he shares that view.”
Message received obviously.
The second was the production of a scathing report by the Children’s Commissioner Andrew Becroft into the uplifting of babies from their mothers. From Isaac Davison at the Herald:
The Office of the Children’s Commissioner, which is an independent Crown entity, based its report on the personal accounts of 13 families of babies which were either at risk of removal or had been removed into state custody.
Children’s Commissioner Andrew Becroft said their stories highlighted “deep systemic issues” in the state care and protection system.
…
Becroft said today that the best interests of the child were “always the paramount consideration” and were inextricably linked to their mothers’ interest and wellbeing.
“It is vital we hear the voices of mothers within the system,” he said.
“The cries of the Māori mothers in this report, irrespective of whether a child was removed or not, is that the right kind of early support be provided to them.
“They want to be treated with humanity, and to have the long-term wellbeing of their babies put first, by respecting and acknowledging their place within whānau, hapū and iwi rather than a system that strengthens the chains of inter-generational state care.”
In an introduction to the report, he said the personal accounts were backed by statistic analysis in an earlier report produced in January. Among the earlier report’s findings were that Māori children aged between 0 and 3 months were five times more likely to be uplifted than non-Māori.
Becroft also said any recommendations for change would be produced in a later report.
“I have chosen to share this report without recommendations at this stage so the voices can speak powerfully and stand by themselves.
“It will allow time to reflect on and absorb them. The voices themselves suggest areas where change could be considered and, indeed, could begin to take place without the need for specific recommendations now.”
Oranga Tamariki has responded negatively to the report and questioned its methodology and criticised its lack of recommendations. But Becroft has said why the report has been structured in this way.
The surge of the Black Lives Matter movement with worldwide protests against racism is forcing countries to analyse their history and their practices. And will hopefully result in change.
In the meantime it turns out that the idea there is some kind of epidemic of racist white cops murdering blacks may in fact be complete bullshit:
I know a bunch of the regulars here are going to hate on this; but there it is …
Of course black Americans are disproportionately the victims of police deaths, that's undeniable and totally unacceptable; in no manner am I trying to justify or excuse it.
But did you also know there is another group of Americans who are 50% of the population, but comprise 96% of all police FOIS deaths? What on earth could be the explanation for that?
lol you might want to read their correction:
And, of course, Floyd wasn't shot.
And the significance of the correction is? And why do you find it so funny?
And, of course, Floyd wasn't shot.
Well I could be pedantic and ask why then the calls to disarm the police?
But the obvious answer is that because non-firearm involved shootings are in such low numbers, everyone on all sides are using shootings as a proxy.
And of course there is this reality:
Floyd George’s death is obviously different :
The correction isn't funny. You're funny.
Every time you give an "obvious" answer or some other assumption you treat as it it's self-evident, it simply illustrates your own conceptual constraints.
Why disarm police if fatal shootings are fine? Because there are non-fatal shootings, and the mere presence of a weapon changes the entire dynamic of every interaction they have.
Why have a problem if 90% of people shot were attacking police? Because of the other 10%, and whether lethal force was a resonable response to the alleged attack (how many "attacks" were the equivalent of a 75-year-old's "tripped and fell"?).
And lastly, if the majority of the police are white and the police have a collective culture of "mutual support above all else" (including above law enforcement), what does the ethnicity of the specific shooter have to do with any damned thing whatsoever?
Because the data conclusive shows that the probability of being shot is directly and highly correlated with the probability that you are involved in a violent crime.
I mean why else would men who are only 50% of the population be 96% of the police shooting victims? No-one would dream of claiming this was because of some perverse kind of 'systemic sexism'. There is an obvious reason why this is, and it's because males are overwhelmingly involved in violent crime.
How is anything you wrote relevant to my comment?
I mean, the gender thing was an interesting dodge, but even if the "no-one would dream" were true, it's not like there's a centuries-long demonstrated pattern of misandrist bias in US policing, is there.
Indeed the USA has a history of gross racism, (as does in fact every other nation of earth) but being Americans they hold a deep seated belief that if something is worth doing, it's worth over-doing. So yes there was always a case to be answered.
And at every step in this extended discussion I've repeatedly stated that racism exists, there are good evolutionary and biological reasons why, but complex societies find ways to overlay it with more sophisticated mechanisms of social reciprocity, loyalty and cohesion.
So no surprise there is history. But equally it's useful to remember that it's not like nothing has happened in the USA since the 1600's. That social progress is real, and that the extremist left wing doctrine of original white racist sin that can never be expunged is probably a really bad idea.
This makes an interesting argument around Jamaican immigrant families in the USA. Exactly the same skin colour as black Americans, but completely different outcomes.
The only argument you seem to be interested in is why people of colour deserve to be killed some of the time, never interested in why innocent ones get murdered.
never interested in why innocent ones get murdered.
You mean like this?
Would you draw from this tragedy that there is an epidemic of black cops killing whites in the USA? Nah. It was a plain case of an overanxious cop, reacting recklessly to an imagined threat.
It would be very weird indeed if there were no incompetent, overtly racist, volatile unstable police who should not be in the job. Get rid of them, prosecute and convict. Reform and align the incentives so the system gets better at doing this, modernise and standardise training, build professionalism and attract the very best people you can afford to the job.
I've made this case several times now, it is the obvious and direct way to reduce the number of innocent lives lost.
The real research that would be interesting is how many of these bad cops are fired and charged, analysing by ethnicity of the victim and whether it was caught on camera.
Because the official repercussions seem to be based on those two factors.
And the other 90% of cops aren't doing their jobs.
But keep looking for excuses for them.
And the other 90% of cops aren't doing their jobs.
Every workplace has this problem to some degree, it's never as straightforward getting rid of dodgy colleagues as you imply.
But if you want a better outcome, look to the incentives. I've already made three suggestions on this.
Why do I get the feeling you don't want a better outcome, you just don't want any cops. And you remain silent on what the would really mean for the vulnerable and the minorities in our societies. They are the ones who depend on the police the most.
@RL
How about giving it a rest. You've crapped all over this post before anybody else has even had a chance to say something constructive.
The Post went up @ 9:35 AM and RL posted the first comment @ 2:07 PM, i.e. about four and half hours later.
If you disagree with a comment, you say so and why. Give your counter argument, defend it, find some middle ground, or agree to disagree. Or call the Moderators or say nothing.
This is how it works here 🙂
@solkta
The argument I have brought is substantive, highly pertinent and backed with references. I fully realise it contradicts the dominant and fashionable left wing narrative at the moment, and I've endeavoured to be respectful of that. But the purpose of The Standard was never to be an echo chamber and dissenting views have always, every day, every post been the norm.
There was nothing stopping you or anyone else saying anything you pleased here, or lower down. The machine that runs The Standard is very accommodating and there is no upper limit on the number of comments permitted under a post. (Well not that I’ve ever seen us reach.)
Because of the other 10%, and whether lethal force was a resonable response to the alleged attack
No-one is saying there are no dangerously racist cops, or just plain incompetent, volatile or angry cops who shouldn't be in the job. As with every trade or profession there are bad people who need to be weeded out.
But that as you say isn't as easy as it sounds, there is a culture of mutual support in the police, and given the unique pressures and risks of the job this will is hard to change.
But one of the big problems the US has is that the incentives are all misaligned. I guarantee you there would be a LOT more responsiveness to these kinds of tragedies if any monetary compensation came out of the police retirement funds, or individual police had to carry personal insurance and after one or two adverse findings their policy became unaffordable.
Or dare I say it, the police unions look like a big part of the problem, maybe if they had to carry the fiscal consequences they'd be far less keen on protecting cops who shouldn't be in the job.
So there are bad cops and a culture of protecting bad cops. The system is broken. Stop defending it, start thinking up ways to replace it.
You are the one demanding police be replaced, the obligation lies with you to tell us what with. I'm not demanding details, just a non-vague outline will do, so that we have something to concrete to scrutinise and work with.
Because I'm assuming you'd be keen to see the same de-policing effort rolled out everywhere.
God you love to assume, don't you.
Eerywhere the current system is borken.
And not the same – let the communities choose a more appropriate replacement from any in their imagination or human history prior to thr 1820s.
Surely you mean improve the system. Abolishing the police is a only slogan. Is there a single large scale society that does not have police?
Are the police in the US likely to become similar to the NZ police. Probably not. The US has way more gun violence that is deeply rooted in their culture.
Anyway isn't this whole item supposed to be about NZ police?
The NZ Police have very good leadership, and generally a very good internal culture. Although they have not always had.
There are eight Assistant Commissioners at present (I think) and five Deputy Commissioners. None of the Deputy Commissioners are women. Three of the eight Assistant Commissioners are women, with two being in the uniform branch. The two women (I know one of them thought my prior work) need to be rapidly promoted to Deputy Commissioner as soon as there are openings. The government can directly influence this.
I appreciate that top command its only an aspect of police culture, but it is an important aspect of the culture. A number of the senior leadership, including the new Commissioner, embody a new style of police leadership. This needs to be spread more widely.
Promotions to Assistant Commissioner are primarily an internal responsibility with limited/no ministerial oversight. However promotions to Deputy Commissioner will have some ministerial involvement. That means the Police Minister can ensure the expectations of government can be met be who gets promoted to Deputy Commissioner.
"Improve" suggests taking a broken department and making it better. At least one municipality is closing the dapertment down and redesigning a replacement.
As for how the enforcement of laws is conducted, maybe that will involve a standing force of fulltime personnel, maybe not. Either way, at least one department is slated to be abolished.
As for NZ, I think the armed response teams were a step towards the current US policing debacle. And we have also had a trend towards police as substitutes for addressing social ills like poverty, drugs, and access to mental healthcare.
The way I see it, we are closer to the scylla of paramilitary policing than the charybdis of local mobs and warlords. Probably best to steer away from the closer threat, even if we don't know exactly how far away the other one is.
I would not believe police produced figures especially those who turn off body cameras
Floyd’s family and friends might derive some 'comfort' from the apparent knowledge that, if Floyd had been killed by a police bullet, then the shooter’s skin colour would not have been a factor. But I doubt it.
Please note that the paper you cite has accrued correspondence, and a correction (thank-you McFlock).
I first read all the corrections, and their replies, and concluded they did not materially change the study's conclusions.
I concluded otherwise – once again we must agree to disagree.
I hope we can agree that “Black Lives Matter” is a just cause.
I concluded otherwise
On what basis? Just making assertions without argument or reference doesn't count for much.
Sure, there has been one challenge but it has been answered:
I concluded otherwise on the basis of the challenges to Johnson et al (2019).
Johnson et al. (and you) believe that the challenges do not invalidate their conclusions – colour me surprised!
You assert that you are right and I am wrong. I don't agree with your view, but will defend to the death your right to state it.
I've decided that we must agree to disagree on this matter. What you decide is entirely up to you, but I still hope we can agree that “Black Lives Matter” is a just cause.
The letter complained that in order to usefully calculate probability of any given race being killed had to be 'the number of deaths of that race' compared to a base rate of 'exposure to police for that race'.
The numerator, the first number is measured directly by the number of deaths, but the denominator can only be inferred via some proxy, in other words some other known data set that strongly correlates to police exposure.
There are two obvious candidates as proxies, one is the population of an ethnicity in a given county (obviously if no people of a given group are in a given area, then you'd expect no deaths for them either), the other is rates of violent crime (again crime rates must reasonably correlate to police callouts rates).
There is room for some debate on which is the best proxy to use, population or crime rate. It's a fair question to which the answer was in essence … we used both and found it makes no significant difference to the conclusion. No bias.
It's all dressed up in technical jargon and a bit of math, but that's what it boils down to.
Dude, an extended blab about one document will not make someone suddenly agree about the multiple documents they mentioned when they withdrew from the discussion.
I’m back! Johnson et al. (2019) naturally believed their conclusions to be correct; most scientists do, at the time of publishing. And (I'm speculating here) you believe their conclusions are correct because they seem compatible with your worldview.
The conclusions of Johnson et al. may be completely correct, partly correct/incorrect, or completely incorrect. I'm happy to acknowledge that their conclusions may be correct; are you able to accept the possibility that they may be incorrect? Is there room for that possibility in your worldview?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False
The Johnson et al. (2019) paper has already been cited by several others (excluding correspondence and corrections) – the authors' peers have a range of views regarding their conclusions. One thing's for sure – if you're 'stopped' by random cops in the U.S., it particularly sucks to be black. And it's not much 'fun' being a police officer either.
Is there room for that possibility in your worldview?
Of course, there is nothing absolute about one study. But your point above cuts both ways.
Yes it sucks to be black in the USA. That's what I have been saying all along, it pretty much sucks to be any minority anywhere. It's just a question of degree.
My worldview looks like this; over millenia we have gradually become better and better at reducing that suckiness, we have moved from a purely genetic loyalty, one based on biological characteristics none of us can control, to more sophisticated, higher order loyalties based on behaviour, reciprocity and values that are the outcome of personal choices and responsibilities.
When we frame the debate in terms of race we revert everything back to skin colour and genetics. That's the entirely the wrong direction to be going in.
There are other factors at work here, beyond skin colour, that are feeding into black disadvantage in the USA, but talking about them on the left is a taboo at present.
People of colour can't (or shouldn't need to) 'lose' their skin colour (genetics, etc.), nor their history, to achieve equitable outcomes, so how best (now, and in the future) to decrease the current disadvantages impacting on people of colour in white-dominated societies?
A previous Labour-led government introduced a "Closing the Gaps" policy, later rebranded as "reducing inequalities". Do you think that a "Closing the Gaps" policy would be more successful and politically palatable in NZ now, is there a better framing/approach for closing those very real gaps, or should 'we' just accept the (growing) gaps?
Hey let's be fair, if you are going to mention the Labour Maori Caucus and Ardern what about the Greens? They have been staunchly opposed to this from the start.
https://www.greens.org.nz/greens_welcome_police_ruling_out_of_armed_response_teams
https://www.greens.org.nz/greens_urge_police_to_rule_out_armed_police_patrols_following_george_floyd_s_death
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/06/green-party-overjoyed-at-police-decision-to-dump-armed-response-teams.html
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/121740714/police-union-appalled-at-greens-for-connecting-death-of-george-floyd-to-arming-new-zealand-cops
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/418661/armed-response-teams-lack-of-consultation-just-not-on
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12337200
I put up a Notices and Features post the other day about the Greens' part in this and didn't mention Labour. Authors have their own reasons for what they write.
NZ under lockdown had many attributes of a police state. We are lucky that it was only temporary. Let's see..
The organic emergence of checkpoints
Police 0800 number for narking on your neighbours
Prevention of mass gatherings & churches
Nation gripped by fear and groupthink, and general vilification of dissent
New Zealand white settler culture has a rather dubious record on policing, yes we could do worse, we could also be aware of recent history and do a lot better
Yes, the test of the institutions of democracy is for it to survive disasters like pandemics that do sometimes require dictatorial powers. The next hurdle after returning to democratic freedoms is for future governments to resist going into full emergency mode for the power to do things not emergency-related.
that do sometimes require dictatorial powers.
Nah … you don't want any police to enforce them remember?
And while the ChCh massacre was in progress, should we have sent in squad of social workers armed with headlamps and clip board?
lol obviously you think there were no dictators before there were police forces.
That's odd, do you really think there were no coercive forces of any kind before the police?
cf:
Try to get your patronising stupidity straight, there's a dear. Either dictatorial powers require police, or there can be coercive actors other than police to enforce dictatorial powers.
I think it's all to do with how it's pitched.
Are we seduced into joining this huge team or does the draconian plea for compliance meet push back?
So far, I don't regret joining the team.
We're on a different footing here in NZ. Black Americans live with a history of being taken somewhere against their will. Maori live with their somewhere being taken against their will.
I think solutions look similar, we need an accessible pathway for everyone to feel good about themselves and their place amongst others.
Hopefully we don't go the full Orwell….
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
Black lives matter is a racist movement, have others not seen "whites" being told to kneel and renounce their existence as being detrimental to society
To move forward requires enough intelligence to recognise that most people arent actually racist and the ones that are ,are normally full of hate in all directions not just racisim .
Inequality is the largest producer of hate , A well educated black man and a well educated white man that had nurture from their upbringing will more than likely find common ground
We have a long road in front of us in terms of equality but as long as we hold an intention of progress we will slowly legislate and move in the right direction
In regards to the comments towards the police , you have drunk yourself retarded on the kool aid . There are some very bad people with very bad intentions in this world , if they have greater force available than society in terms of offense/ defense the we the collective are in big trouble .
I have personally seen the police do unethical things with no accountability and have been frustrated myself, would i want to live in a world without a police force to keep peace in the community , HELL NO .
If people still had the balls to settle a dispute with a punchup then i would feel at ease but we live in mentally ill society of people who dont know how to conduct themselves proportionately
My thoughts on where blm issues lie is that it is discrete racisim , I have watched videos from the RIOTS of innocent people being beaten senseless that i wish i could unwatch. If a black man (or any man) comes to me and asks me to kneel , i would never bend a knee. If any person of any colour says hello brother i ask only for the mutual respect that i offer you then i will reply hello brother how is your day and how may we be of service to each other
I commend any person that strives for equality , peaceful protests i hold in high regard. There are times when force can be justified in the interests of the collective but i have seen zero justification for the force used towards innocent people during the RIOTS , it leaves a fowl taste in my mouth. If the protesters were being gunned down behaving peacefully then i would say use force you have no choice
"the balls to settle a dispute with a punch up"
And in the same paragraph
"don't know how to conduct themselves proportionately"
Meanwhile cherry picking instances of individuals acting out and playing the victim card like you personally have been slighted.
Change your name, it makes no sense.
Yes a punchup.. A one on one dispute.. not a pack beating. No big deal really if both consent.. maybe my perception is different i happily concede to that. i see two consenting adults throwing a few punches as no big deal. It is proportionate in my eyes. if one party dosnt consent then it should not happen.. Just like innocent people shouldnt be beaten senseless ..
Im not cherry picking. like i said i fully endorse any and all peaceful movements .
I havnt and never will be a victim.. i hold myself accountable for all my decisions
Maybe my name does make sense but you are so blinded by your emotions that it has dsimantled your logic
Is it opposite day today? BLM is a mass movement against racism and police brutality, you have been watching too much Fox or OANN
i watch neither they are propoganda so is cnn and msnbc.. All of the above are simply collective hypnosis and should be illegal.. the truth is available if one puts the time into research..
Their are many cellphone videos floating around that are long enough to provide context. not just a sound bite
Some shouldnt be watched , they are harmful to the spirit
Its not opposite day of course black lives matter. all lives matter.. police brutality is non discriminate to any race but i also cant stand police brutality
maybe expand your "research" beyond watching cellphone clips, and read something about the history of the USA
And your knowledge comes from where?
Do you really think floyd was about racisim. is face value all that you see?
I see a man killed another man. i stand by my statement inequality is the problem.
all races in poverty are struggling.. please show me evidence of a billionaire or millionaire dieing the same way..
My research is varied and broad .. perhaps most history is bullshit . he who pens history decides history.
I'd love to know the nature of NZ Police training. This article, which is about US police methods, is extremely revealing. Some of the training is like a page out of A Clockwork Orange:
https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759
Having been in our judicial system I have met many Maori who have graduated from State care to State Prisons. They share harrowing tales of abuse, neglect, assault and hopelessness.
We can and must do better. Any move toward an American model should be met with utmost resistance.
Racism is deeply ingrained in many NZ'ers. Anyone who can't say Black Lives Matter and spends most of the day arguing that there isn't a problem – is part of the problem.
A pathetic weaseling out of responsibility. Racism is everyone's problem, and everyone involved needs to check their shit.
Demilitarize the us cops, give them proper funding so they can hire more officers and provide mental health support and actually do proper vetting, modernize and diversify the force, reform the complaints procedure, compulsory body cams , yes to all.
Abolish or defund the police? No way. Hell American police forces are so broke they often drive bald tyres , don't have any mental health care , can't afford to investigate or do psych evaluations and their officers are paid and trained so badly most only take the badge to help them become security guards defunding them would make everything so much worse.
The left in NZ have made huge progress with the police, many officers are contemplating voting Labour and kiwis overwhelmingly trust them, so you won't get much support in wanting to abolish the police, not in in NZ or USA or anywhere, protesters and anarchists,woke and libertarians might wanna blame the police and not the elected officials who create the rules and control the system but it'll make life in poor areas absolutely apocalyptic if gangs and mob rule just take over, I grew up in a mixed race family in one of the poorest electorates in NZ and have experienced first hand the classism and discrimination of the police but I think the force has gotten better I think we need reform for the complaints process and numerous other things but abolishing them is mental.
I'd never do the job and witness the things and mental scars they do, NZ cops went into buildings falling down in the quakes to save people, will the woke or the libertarians or anarchists? Yeah Na.
If we abolish the cops what are going to do in the next march 15 ? Call the greens or the libertarians and have them tweet mean hash tags till the terrorists feel bad?
Reform, modernize and educate but the police have a part to play in society.
"Defund the police" means many things, instead of sending armed cops to evict someone because they're a week late with the rent (regular occurance in Virginia USA) they instead create better laws to protect landlord and tenant. For the last few decades the police are being asked more and more to become social workers, mental health workers, bouncers, school security, etc etc…
&espousing the BLM movement is racist screams "white privilege", no one is forcing anyone to kneel. White paranoia, will that ever go away? (for NS).
racisim is simply division , weather one elevates or surpreses… racisim ,they are one and the same
."white privilege " is racist ..
my bloodline is so diluted i would not have any idea as to which race to identify or label myself . its just too much of a mixed bag
in my mind racist people see racisim . people see people. and intellect sees the true problem