Peter writes: Being a white racist in Minnesota means never having to say you're sorry because you can always call people in the South racist.
David responds:I could just as glibly say being a guilt-ridden white person in Minnesota means never having to prove your case. Both my statement (intentionally) and the one above are over-the-top, stereotypic and at some point, useless. Britt's point is perfectly defensible in sort of a civil standard (preponderance of evidence). Who out there doesn't believe racial discrimination happens daily - but often on a sub-lawsuit basis. Given society's inherent racism, I believe there is a likelihood that what this family alleges happened - but that is informed speculation. Others argue a criminal standard (innocent until proven guilty). This, too, makes great sense. Were any of us accused of doing what the Market did (put yourself in an employee's place), we'd damn sure want it proven that we'd done what the family alleges - and that it was racially motivated, not a baday or a bad question from the cops. I think the only statement that's out-of-bounds is that it COULDN'T havehappened because of race it's impossible to rule out, given the facts aswe know them. I think each side's outrage stems from understandable societal concern: those who believe racism is denied too often in this society, and those who believe proof is necessary for serious accusations. We can tar and feather each other all day (itself a racist punishment), but I think there's less to demonize in this discussion than the rhetoric might indicate. Can both sides agree we need more information? Britt and I are in the media.... maybe it's a race? Peter writes: David, I stand by my statement quoted in your post, which anyone can disregard as over-the-top and useless when they ignore the context in which it was written. First of all your points regarding informed speculation and necessary proof are well taken. It's wrong and unwise for any of us to accuse others of racism without proof, especially when the accused are innocent of racist motives and behaviors. But it's equally unwise for us to ignore individual and institutional acts of racism in this community. My statement was a commentary on our local elected officials who call attention to the racism of others (i.e., Gary Schiff's sign "Good-bye Strom Thrumond") while supporting measures that gutted the Civilian Review Authority, thereby adding to the work load of the Civil Rights Commission, a bureau that was underperforming to begin with. All this has diminished the recourse of African Americans and other discriminated populations in our city who have been abused by the Minneapolis Police. One last note: When I was growing up in Omaha, Nebraska during the 60s and 70s my parents, teachers and other grownups around me clucked their tongues in disbelief at George Wallace and those nasty racists down South who supported him. Imagine their surprise when our city, like several other cities in the North at the time, experienced race riots. So dismiss me as over-the-top, if you like, along with anyone else who strays from the safe center of political discourse. But as long as some of our elected officials are more comfortable calling attention to the racism of politicians from other regions of the country, recently deceased or not, while ignoring institutional racism in Minneapolis, we may be in for another race riot this summer more devastating than last summer's. Now I'll be the gentleman and allow the List Manager the last word on this exchange.-----Peter Schmitz CARAG TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
