Actually, there are very well defined psychological/cognitive principles that agree that a degree of stereotyping is built into the human brain. Prototyping is one of them. Gestalt principles of organization lend themselves to a predisposition of perception that transfers quite easily to the way we see people, though it has more to do with how we percieve visual info in general. The brain tends to make lots of shortcuts, and we are very disposed to "us and them" cognitive and social organizations.
None of that means we have a specific instinct to "racially profile" but we have a very deep rooted set of mental faculties that make it very very easy for us to think like a profiler. Should that rise to an institutional/organizational or proceedural level? Mebbe, mebbe not. But Trumpetman's intention is easy enough to understand from his statement, there's no real call for sarcasm.
Whether his name has been added to a list is the annoying part of this little exercise. Writing things down tends to transform their context. Suddenly, our professor might find himself "once investigated for suspected terrorist activities." That could impact a job interview, future legal proceeding/investigation, and it makes for a significant weight on the authorities own duties of disclosure and privacy. I don't think there's any conspiracy to "black-list" an amatuer photographer, or anonymous brown people either -- and there are also the logistical realities of keeping records so that they don't end up speaking to the same people again and again -- but that doesn't mean that keeping the list doesn't raise legitimate concerns for the innocent people that no doubt will appear on it.
We need to be careful. That means investigating suspects. It also means an increased responsibility to protect information.
It is not socially acceptable to say so but in many ways the govt and people of the US have overreacted to September 11th.
Quote:
Originally posted by gar
i don't want to say that invading two countries is overreacting
i think that the usa made the world a more dangerous place to life in after sept 11th than it was before.
The US have been spared what has been quite common for many other people in the last two centuries, and so they aren't used to have major destructions occuring in their big cities due to enemy attacks, as a result they have been hysterical since September 11th 2001; they'll get over it, eventually.
I don't think the World is globally any more dangerous than it was before September 11th 2001, it's only that now, Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, realise just how dangerous and scary the World really is.
?Should I be looking over my shoulder????
I advise that you do, I found it useful in many instances and it has become sort of a second nature.
i will readily admit that stereotyping is a "natural" phenomenon, but it is also one that does not have to occur. we are somewhat programmed to identify patterns even if they do not exist, and realizing this allows us to understand that it is not necessary at all to characterize people based simply on observables...
as for the specifics of the case, i wouldnt ever call in a person taking pictures of anything. Even further, it is a form of terrorism to assign people with a range of skin colors certain attributes which may affect their day to day freedoms of expression etc.
The US is becoming slowly what it for so long considered evil.
Whether his name has been added to a list is the annoying part of this little exercise. Writing things down tends to transform their context. Suddenly, our professor might find himself "once investigated for suspected terrorist activities." That could impact a job interview, future legal proceeding/investigation, and it makes for a significant weight on the authorities own duties of disclosure and privacy.
i think that's the part that bothers him the most. you never know when someone is going to use that against you, and the police couldn't say when, if ever, that it would be removed, whether it was a matter of public record, etc. annoyingly x-files-esque in that respect.
turns out, the woman saw "a man with brown skin taking pictures of the local power plant," and had reported his actions as potential "terrorist activities."
I think the real lesson here is the value of integrated schools and housing so that sheltered white people can tell the difference between a Chicano and an Arab. Sheesh.
But if I saw a young Arab man taking photos of a power station, I'd probably let somebody know, too. It's profiling, not "racial" profiling, and it makes perfect sense in a world where the set of those out to kill you overlaps 90% with the set of young, Arab, Muslim men. (Do we need to bring up the origins of the hijackers again? No? Good.)
9/11 was not "the price we pay to live in the modern world". It was not "what the rest of the world has been living with forever". It was a despicable attack by a defined enemy, and that enemy can be defeated. It's not acceptable to say that such an attack will happen every few years and we should just accept it like cows at the slaughterhouse. "You" folks have been drinking too much of that fluorinated water.
I don't think the World is globally any more dangerous than it was before September 11th 2001, it's only that now, Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, realise just how dangerous and scary the World really is.
actually, i agree with that.
but what i mean is that intolerance makes the world more dangerous and intolerance in and outside the usa from and against the usa and it's citizens is increasing since sept. 11th.
as you know intolerance breeds violence.
Quote:
Should I be looking over my shoulder???
I advise that you do, I found it useful in many instances and it has become sort of a second nature.
I don't think the World is globally any more dangerous than it was before September 11th 2001, it's only that now, Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, realise just how dangerous and scary the World really is.
Quote:
Originally posted by gar
actually, i agree with that.
but what i mean is that intolerance makes the world more dangerous and intolerance in and outside the usa from and against the usa and it's citizens is increasing since sept. 11th.
as you know intolerance breeds violence.
I don't know the current levels of intolerance in the USA but I doubt they're as high as they were in the early sixties and before. Anecdotes like the one mentioned in the initial post may have increased somewhat, but that seems to be more like a wave of hysteria.
Obviously intolerant ideologies are more prone to initiate violent attacks of non-combatants, such as the one in New York and Washington one and a half years ago.
* * * *
A devastating attack is a consequence of living in a dangerous world, where things such as these are known to happen.
A large part of the world have been experiencing much higher levels of destruction (of which North Americans have been mostly spared, to their good fortune), many died, the rest of them lived with it because they had to, how they faced it was up to them.
Many times before September 11th 2001, have others have been just as senselsessly and ruthlessly attacked and worse, and when they could defeat the enemy attackers, they did just that.
Such an attack could happen tomorrow in any city on the face of the globe, without regard to one's accepting this possibility or not.
Of course, preventative and other measures could greatly reduce the risks, or increase them if hastily or haphazardly implemented.
Accepting what reality is doesn't mean submitting to its present iteration with fatalism. There's much which can be done to ameliorate reality into something much more bearable, like one with an only marginal and insignaificant level of terror.
But the US' splendid isloation of the past, and the illusion of protection it procured, are gone forever.
While I think that hysterical reactions such as the waste of time and public monies on investigating people because they ?look brown? (whatever that means) is not productive, a more effcient way of regulating the how, if, and by whom sensitive sites are photographed, is. Again, many others have been dealing with these issues, mainly because they had to; now the US has to, as well.
See? The US doesn't even need to reinvent the wheel here, it can observe how others do it and learn from their experience; I suppose that after the current wave of hysteria wears out, it might do just that.
Of course, the thing that puts the seal on all of this is the simple fact that almost all of the terrorist attacks in the US, historically and all the way up to the present, have been executed by WHITES.
Quote:
trumpetman: if you saw someone possibly Arabic taking photographs of an electric plant, you would never have a doubt about their intents, but the brain wants to create shortcuts in thinking.
This is entirely BS. As someone who spends all of his time surrounded by people of a range of races, my mind doesn't look at people suspiciously because of race, and if it tries to, I make sure to disregard such thoughts.
What intelligent people do is notice that prejudiced thoughts are seeded and NOT innate, making sure that when unrealistic thoughts arise that they are consiously disregarded. I also occassionally have random thoughts that I might get hit by a space rock, but I don't give those thoughts any weight in my world-view.
The US have been spared what has been quite common for many other people in the last two centuries, and so they aren't used to have major destructions occuring in their big cities due to enemy attacks, as a result they have been hysterical since September 11th 2001; they'll get over it, eventually.
I'm not sure on this. I'm willing to agree in so far as we are comparing the American experience to say that of people in the former Soviet satellites or various African nations or some Middle Eastern or SE Asian countries or what have you where the people have had their countries destroyed in front of their eyes. But I don't particularly buy this theory at least as it applies to Western Europe versus the US and various Western Europeans often are the ones who cite this as a key difference in our collective views of the world.
Anyone under the age of 60, which constitutes a pretty decent majority of the population, grew up in a post-WWII Western Europe where there were no wars on their home soil. As for the Cold War, well if it ever went down we Americans were in just as much danger as West Germany or anywhere else and we were the ones who were out there in Korea, Vietnam, and the other proxy variations on the Cold War. Perhaps the Western Europeans view the Cold War as more of a bipolar showdown where they were caught in the middle though IMO if they've spent any time in the former Soviet states or puppet states they ought to know what their fate could well have been had they not benefited from their mutual alliance with us. Anyway, in sum I don't see the fear of the Cold War as something that ought to have played out differently on a Western European conscience much differently than to an American. As far as other historical wars which occured prior to most people's lifetimes, again I don't really see how European knowledge of WWI/II or other historical continental wars in the 19th Century or even further back adds up to anything different than the role events like 1812, Spanish-American, Civil War, Indian Wars etc etc. It is not like we are Swiss.
Certainly there have been various terrorist problems in Europe, Basque groups, IRA, Red Brigades, 17 September, yada yada yada. But likewise the US has had the Unabomber, Oklahoma City, Khobar Towers etc. I'm skeptical that there is much more than a marginal difference in terrorist casualties. Beyond that, at a basic level violent crime is in itself essentially just another form of terrorism and we have had that in greater numbers than Western Europeans for quite a while and at a magnitude greater than the magnitude of either sides' losses to other terrorist acts. Of course, certain socioeconomic factors correlate with crime and so some segments of America feel the fear of street crime, that fear being the lynchpin of the terrorist's theory of cause and effect, to greater or lesser extents than others. I dunno, maybe the European experience of terror in post-WWII is much greater than what I perceive it to be but I have not seen a comprehensive comparison that delineates major differences in the facts that compose our perceptions. For those who are say 65 or so and old enough to remember living through WWII well for them I can understand how they would have a much different perspective of the relative sanctity of their homes and cities. Although likewise most US men over 75 still alive today took part in the war and while it may not have been on their home turf, they certainly saw on a massive scale the destruction that could be brought into peoples lives so to a more limited extent that conflict is part of the American understanding of violence and terror as well.
Now as far as how we interpret those terrorist acts, well therein may lie the rub. Certainly I think there is a difference in how Americans and Western Europeans respond to such things.
I think an important element that is not emphasized enough as far as how we responded to 9/11 is the effect of media. Personally I think that if their had not been TV footage of the towers being hit by planes and then later collapsing and the immediacy of the event then the terror would not be nearly as powerful. It is difficult and somewhat silly to quantify such things but I would say that without TV footage the toll on the national psyche would not even have been half as much.
I suppose that the Southern experience in the Civil War could lend support to your argument. 138 years later and they are still bitter. So the historical role of that conflict in terms of instituting cultural dogma is undeniable. On the other hand, the Southerners who do still dwell on that war certainly don't loathe war at all as a result of that brutal time of war, but rather they are just bitter cause they lost.
I think the real lesson here is the value of integrated schools and housing so that sheltered white people can tell the difference between a Chicano and an Arab. Sheesh.
But if I saw a young Arab man taking photos of a power station, I'd probably let somebody know, too. It's profiling, not "racial" profiling, and it makes perfect sense in a world where the set of those out to kill you overlaps 90% with the set of young, Arab, Muslim men. (Do we need to bring up the origins of the hijackers again? No? Good.)
9/11 was not "the price we pay to live in the modern world". It was not "what the rest of the world has been living with forever". It was a despicable attack by a defined enemy, and that enemy can be defeated. It's not acceptable to say that such an attack will happen every few years and we should just accept it like cows at the slaughterhouse. "You" folks have been drinking too much of that fluorinated water.
Maybe you show your own ignorance here. Latino's and Arabic people are both considered caucasian. They both run from dark brown skin and black hair to blond/light brown hair with blue eyes.
To say you could just look at someone and know with absolutely certainty they are Arabic/Latino shows your own limited exposure and ignorance.
i think that's the part that bothers him the most. you never know when someone is going to use that against you, and the police couldn't say when, if ever, that it would be removed, whether it was a matter of public record, etc. annoyingly x-files-esque in that respect.
Yeah they certainly used it against the actual terrorists. If I recall correctly their student visas were still approved after they were a) dead b) had flown the planes into the building.
With credibility like that, I can see why your friend is worried.
Maybe you show your own ignorance here. Latino's and Arabic people are both considered caucasian. They both run from dark brown skin and black hair to blond/light brown hair with blue eyes.
To say you could just look at someone and know with absolutely certainty they are Arabic/Latino shows your own limited exposure and ignorance.
Even accepting this for the sake of argument, the obvious next step would have been for this lady to ask this guy a question, for directions perhaps or maybe inquiring where she can pick up a nice quesadilla con pollo with a nice salsa verde, so as to determine if he has an accent and thereby what his ethnicity is most likely to be. Of course, there is no reason to be surprised at all that this woman by the above account would be stupid enough to not bother to do as much and yet still report it to the police.
Of course, the thing that puts the seal on all of this is the simple fact that almost all of the terrorist attacks in the US, historically and all the way up to the present, have been executed by WHITES.
This is entirely BS. As someone who spends all of his time surrounded by people of a range of races, my mind doesn't look at people suspiciously because of race, and if it tries to, I make sure to disregard such thoughts.
What intelligent people do is notice that prejudiced thoughts are seeded and NOT innate, making sure that when unrealistic thoughts arise that they are consiously disregarded. I also occassionally have random thoughts that I might get hit by a space rock, but I don't give those thoughts any weight in my world-view.
Regardless of what you wish to claim, stereotyping is a function of the brain. Using it to discriminate with regard to opportunities or to commit hate crimes is wrong, other times it is just common sense.
If it were just after 2 am (when the bars close in Cali) and I was black with some bald headed, heavily tattooed white guys walking towards me sporting bikerish/confederate emblazoned type clothing, I would attempt to "understand" them in the morning and in the meantime get the hell out of dodge.
Likewise if I were female and walking late at night, I would seek assistance/company (actually I would seek a gun but that is a different thread). I could say, well gee, not all men are stronger than women and likewise not all men are violent, etc.
Or I could just err on the side of caution since it doesn't hurt anyone.
Likewise with regard to this guy and his ethnicity, did you see me post that if someone were photographing a powerplant and was white that I would see something wrong with it being reported. Quite the opposite.
You speak of prejudice and I speak of stereotyping. If she just assumed that all Arabic people were terrorists, that would be prejudiced. There would be no facts or knowledge around that thinking.
Here she saw someone photographing a powerplant. The government has adviced that powerplants could be targets. She is working with limited knowledge and information and drawing a limited conclusion. Likewise she took limited action and just contacted the authorities. The authorities investigated and found nothing wrong.
BTW if you are going to quote me, at least do it accurately, don't cut off part of my words to misrepresent what I said.
Again you perfect, condescending, know it all types (bunge and SPJ) can swear up and down that if you saw someone possibly Arabic taking photographs of an electric plant, you would never have a doubt about their intents, but the brain wants to create shortcuts in thinking
versus..
trumpetman: if you saw someone possibly Arabic taking photographs of an electric plant, you would never have a doubt about their intents, but the brain wants to create shortcuts in thinking.
It is obviously I am saying the brain stereotypes and then you do this....
my mind doesn't look at people suspiciously because of race, and if it tries to, I make sure to disregard such thoughts.
So even you have a brain that stereotypes, the question is how you act on them. In this instace the woman acted appropriately.
Even accepting this for the sake of argument, the obvious next step would have been for this lady to ask this guy a question, for directions perhaps or maybe inquiring where she can pick up a nice quesadilla con pollo with a nice salsa verde, so as to determine if he has an accent and thereby what his ethnicity is most likely to be. Of course, there is no reason to be surprised at all that this woman by the above account would be stupid enough to not bother to do as much and yet still report it to the police.
You just enjoy stepping in this deeper and deeper don't you.
Why would you assume that someone with brown skin likes mexican food, knows where it is sold, knows which is good, or even speaks with an accent.
What she did was stereotypical, what you post is outright prejudicial.
Why would you assume that someone with brown skin likes mexican food, knows where it is sold, knows which is good, or even speaks with an accent.
What she did was stereotypical, what you post is outright prejudicial.
Thanks for showing how racist you are,
You truly are an idiot. The point of asking about the Mexican food was an intentionally over the top way of pointing out how a bigot such as the woman at issue here, and we are working off the premise that this woman is a bigot because she has already engaging in racial stereotypes by her conduct, would ask that sort of racially charged question to get an answer, any answer. If she wants to play the role of the Inspector Closeau of terrorism while looking at the world through a Code Brown terrorist alert, which her actions seems to indicate, then I have no problem ascribing hypothetical prejudiced behavior on someone who we already know is prejudiced. I'm sorry htat you are not smart enough to have figured out that I was giving a hypothetical line of questioning in line with her type of presumptuous behavior to the subject that she was interested in, whether or not he was a terrorist. Sadly you don't seem to get this, among other things. My point was simply that she wasn't smart enough to apply her racial stereotypes in a way to get more information to see if she could confirm them or not with a simple conversation. And if you haven't figured out that yet that stereotypes are a form of prejudice than you're even more ignorant than I thought.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
You're a dork. I made no claims about any lady or anyone taking pictures or any police.
I questioned your reasoning because it's faulty. Whether or not your faulty reasoning is defending a valid point is irrelevant to me.
So is survival of the fittest, but we have laws to combat that for a reason.
But we can 'blacklist' them?
You first comment shows that you believe what she did should be classified as against the law.
The second assertion is just out of left field because no one even spoke of him being blacklisted. However you are likely trying to imply McCarthism.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
You first comment shows that you believe what she did should be classified as against the law.
The second assertion is just out of left field because no one even spoke of him being blacklisted. However you are likely trying to imply McCarthism.
Nick
My first comment is to point out that our society is not based on survival of the fittest.
My second assertion is asking if putting him on a permenant watch list is just.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
It is not socially acceptable to say so but in many ways the govt and people of the US have overreacted to September 11th.
i don't want to say that invading two countries is overreacting
i think that the usa made the world a more dangerous place to life in after sept 11th than it was before.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Mr. Even Better!
Nope, I admit to stereotyping, because it's completely natural.
None of that means we have a specific instinct to "racially profile" but we have a very deep rooted set of mental faculties that make it very very easy for us to think like a profiler. Should that rise to an institutional/organizational or proceedural level? Mebbe, mebbe not. But Trumpetman's intention is easy enough to understand from his statement, there's no real call for sarcasm.
Whether his name has been added to a list is the annoying part of this little exercise. Writing things down tends to transform their context. Suddenly, our professor might find himself "once investigated for suspected terrorist activities." That could impact a job interview, future legal proceeding/investigation, and it makes for a significant weight on the authorities own duties of disclosure and privacy. I don't think there's any conspiracy to "black-list" an amatuer photographer, or anonymous brown people either -- and there are also the logistical realities of keeping records so that they don't end up speaking to the same people again and again -- but that doesn't mean that keeping the list doesn't raise legitimate concerns for the innocent people that no doubt will appear on it.
We need to be careful. That means investigating suspects. It also means an increased responsibility to protect information.
The sides can go back to flaming each other now.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
It is not socially acceptable to say so but in many ways the govt and people of the US have overreacted to September 11th.
Originally posted by gar
i don't want to say that invading two countries is overreacting
i think that the usa made the world a more dangerous place to life in after sept 11th than it was before.
The US have been spared what has been quite common for many other people in the last two centuries, and so they aren't used to have major destructions occuring in their big cities due to enemy attacks, as a result they have been hysterical since September 11th 2001; they'll get over it, eventually.
I don't think the World is globally any more dangerous than it was before September 11th 2001, it's only that now, Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, realise just how dangerous and scary the World really is.
?Should I be looking over my shoulder????
I advise that you do, I found it useful in many instances and it has become sort of a second nature.
as for the specifics of the case, i wouldnt ever call in a person taking pictures of anything. Even further, it is a form of terrorism to assign people with a range of skin colors certain attributes which may affect their day to day freedoms of expression etc.
The US is becoming slowly what it for so long considered evil.
Originally posted by Matsu
Whether his name has been added to a list is the annoying part of this little exercise. Writing things down tends to transform their context. Suddenly, our professor might find himself "once investigated for suspected terrorist activities." That could impact a job interview, future legal proceeding/investigation, and it makes for a significant weight on the authorities own duties of disclosure and privacy.
i think that's the part that bothers him the most. you never know when someone is going to use that against you, and the police couldn't say when, if ever, that it would be removed, whether it was a matter of public record, etc. annoyingly x-files-esque in that respect.
Originally posted by rok
turns out, the woman saw "a man with brown skin taking pictures of the local power plant," and had reported his actions as potential "terrorist activities."
I think the real lesson here is the value of integrated schools and housing so that sheltered white people can tell the difference between a Chicano and an Arab. Sheesh.
But if I saw a young Arab man taking photos of a power station, I'd probably let somebody know, too. It's profiling, not "racial" profiling, and it makes perfect sense in a world where the set of those out to kill you overlaps 90% with the set of young, Arab, Muslim men. (Do we need to bring up the origins of the hijackers again? No? Good.)
9/11 was not "the price we pay to live in the modern world". It was not "what the rest of the world has been living with forever". It was a despicable attack by a defined enemy, and that enemy can be defeated. It's not acceptable to say that such an attack will happen every few years and we should just accept it like cows at the slaughterhouse. "You" folks have been drinking too much of that fluorinated water.
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I don't think the World is globally any more dangerous than it was before September 11th 2001, it's only that now, Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, realise just how dangerous and scary the World really is.
actually, i agree with that.
but what i mean is that intolerance makes the world more dangerous and intolerance in and outside the usa from and against the usa and it's citizens is increasing since sept. 11th.
as you know intolerance breeds violence.
Should I be looking over my shoulder???
I advise that you do, I found it useful in many instances and it has become sort of a second nature.
it feels more secure, indeed
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
I don't think the World is globally any more dangerous than it was before September 11th 2001, it's only that now, Westerners in general, and Americans in particular, realise just how dangerous and scary the World really is.
Originally posted by gar
actually, i agree with that.
but what i mean is that intolerance makes the world more dangerous and intolerance in and outside the usa from and against the usa and it's citizens is increasing since sept. 11th.
as you know intolerance breeds violence.
I don't know the current levels of intolerance in the USA but I doubt they're as high as they were in the early sixties and before. Anecdotes like the one mentioned in the initial post may have increased somewhat, but that seems to be more like a wave of hysteria.
Obviously intolerant ideologies are more prone to initiate violent attacks of non-combatants, such as the one in New York and Washington one and a half years ago.
* * * *
A devastating attack is a consequence of living in a dangerous world, where things such as these are known to happen.
A large part of the world have been experiencing much higher levels of destruction (of which North Americans have been mostly spared, to their good fortune), many died, the rest of them lived with it because they had to, how they faced it was up to them.
Many times before September 11th 2001, have others have been just as senselsessly and ruthlessly attacked and worse, and when they could defeat the enemy attackers, they did just that.
Such an attack could happen tomorrow in any city on the face of the globe, without regard to one's accepting this possibility or not.
Of course, preventative and other measures could greatly reduce the risks, or increase them if hastily or haphazardly implemented.
Accepting what reality is doesn't mean submitting to its present iteration with fatalism. There's much which can be done to ameliorate reality into something much more bearable, like one with an only marginal and insignaificant level of terror.
But the US' splendid isloation of the past, and the illusion of protection it procured, are gone forever.
While I think that hysterical reactions such as the waste of time and public monies on investigating people because they ?look brown? (whatever that means) is not productive, a more effcient way of regulating the how, if, and by whom sensitive sites are photographed, is. Again, many others have been dealing with these issues, mainly because they had to; now the US has to, as well.
See? The US doesn't even need to reinvent the wheel here, it can observe how others do it and learn from their experience; I suppose that after the current wave of hysteria wears out, it might do just that.
trumpetman: if you saw someone possibly Arabic taking photographs of an electric plant, you would never have a doubt about their intents, but the brain wants to create shortcuts in thinking.
This is entirely BS. As someone who spends all of his time surrounded by people of a range of races, my mind doesn't look at people suspiciously because of race, and if it tries to, I make sure to disregard such thoughts.
What intelligent people do is notice that prejudiced thoughts are seeded and NOT innate, making sure that when unrealistic thoughts arise that they are consiously disregarded. I also occassionally have random thoughts that I might get hit by a space rock, but I don't give those thoughts any weight in my world-view.
The US have been spared what has been quite common for many other people in the last two centuries, and so they aren't used to have major destructions occuring in their big cities due to enemy attacks, as a result they have been hysterical since September 11th 2001; they'll get over it, eventually.
I'm not sure on this. I'm willing to agree in so far as we are comparing the American experience to say that of people in the former Soviet satellites or various African nations or some Middle Eastern or SE Asian countries or what have you where the people have had their countries destroyed in front of their eyes. But I don't particularly buy this theory at least as it applies to Western Europe versus the US and various Western Europeans often are the ones who cite this as a key difference in our collective views of the world.
Anyone under the age of 60, which constitutes a pretty decent majority of the population, grew up in a post-WWII Western Europe where there were no wars on their home soil. As for the Cold War, well if it ever went down we Americans were in just as much danger as West Germany or anywhere else and we were the ones who were out there in Korea, Vietnam, and the other proxy variations on the Cold War. Perhaps the Western Europeans view the Cold War as more of a bipolar showdown where they were caught in the middle though IMO if they've spent any time in the former Soviet states or puppet states they ought to know what their fate could well have been had they not benefited from their mutual alliance with us. Anyway, in sum I don't see the fear of the Cold War as something that ought to have played out differently on a Western European conscience much differently than to an American. As far as other historical wars which occured prior to most people's lifetimes, again I don't really see how European knowledge of WWI/II or other historical continental wars in the 19th Century or even further back adds up to anything different than the role events like 1812, Spanish-American, Civil War, Indian Wars etc etc. It is not like we are Swiss.
Certainly there have been various terrorist problems in Europe, Basque groups, IRA, Red Brigades, 17 September, yada yada yada. But likewise the US has had the Unabomber, Oklahoma City, Khobar Towers etc. I'm skeptical that there is much more than a marginal difference in terrorist casualties. Beyond that, at a basic level violent crime is in itself essentially just another form of terrorism and we have had that in greater numbers than Western Europeans for quite a while and at a magnitude greater than the magnitude of either sides' losses to other terrorist acts. Of course, certain socioeconomic factors correlate with crime and so some segments of America feel the fear of street crime, that fear being the lynchpin of the terrorist's theory of cause and effect, to greater or lesser extents than others. I dunno, maybe the European experience of terror in post-WWII is much greater than what I perceive it to be but I have not seen a comprehensive comparison that delineates major differences in the facts that compose our perceptions. For those who are say 65 or so and old enough to remember living through WWII well for them I can understand how they would have a much different perspective of the relative sanctity of their homes and cities. Although likewise most US men over 75 still alive today took part in the war and while it may not have been on their home turf, they certainly saw on a massive scale the destruction that could be brought into peoples lives so to a more limited extent that conflict is part of the American understanding of violence and terror as well.
Now as far as how we interpret those terrorist acts, well therein may lie the rub. Certainly I think there is a difference in how Americans and Western Europeans respond to such things.
I think an important element that is not emphasized enough as far as how we responded to 9/11 is the effect of media. Personally I think that if their had not been TV footage of the towers being hit by planes and then later collapsing and the immediacy of the event then the terror would not be nearly as powerful. It is difficult and somewhat silly to quantify such things but I would say that without TV footage the toll on the national psyche would not even have been half as much.
I suppose that the Southern experience in the Civil War could lend support to your argument. 138 years later and they are still bitter. So the historical role of that conflict in terms of instituting cultural dogma is undeniable. On the other hand, the Southerners who do still dwell on that war certainly don't loathe war at all as a result of that brutal time of war, but rather they are just bitter cause they lost.
Originally posted by Towel
I think the real lesson here is the value of integrated schools and housing so that sheltered white people can tell the difference between a Chicano and an Arab. Sheesh.
But if I saw a young Arab man taking photos of a power station, I'd probably let somebody know, too. It's profiling, not "racial" profiling, and it makes perfect sense in a world where the set of those out to kill you overlaps 90% with the set of young, Arab, Muslim men. (Do we need to bring up the origins of the hijackers again? No? Good.)
9/11 was not "the price we pay to live in the modern world". It was not "what the rest of the world has been living with forever". It was a despicable attack by a defined enemy, and that enemy can be defeated. It's not acceptable to say that such an attack will happen every few years and we should just accept it like cows at the slaughterhouse. "You" folks have been drinking too much of that fluorinated water.
Maybe you show your own ignorance here. Latino's and Arabic people are both considered caucasian. They both run from dark brown skin and black hair to blond/light brown hair with blue eyes.
To say you could just look at someone and know with absolutely certainty they are Arabic/Latino shows your own limited exposure and ignorance.
Nick
Originally posted by rok
i think that's the part that bothers him the most. you never know when someone is going to use that against you, and the police couldn't say when, if ever, that it would be removed, whether it was a matter of public record, etc. annoyingly x-files-esque in that respect.
Yeah they certainly used it against the actual terrorists. If I recall correctly their student visas were still approved after they were a) dead b) had flown the planes into the building.
With credibility like that, I can see why your friend is worried.
Nick
Maybe you show your own ignorance here. Latino's and Arabic people are both considered caucasian. They both run from dark brown skin and black hair to blond/light brown hair with blue eyes.
To say you could just look at someone and know with absolutely certainty they are Arabic/Latino shows your own limited exposure and ignorance.
Even accepting this for the sake of argument, the obvious next step would have been for this lady to ask this guy a question, for directions perhaps or maybe inquiring where she can pick up a nice quesadilla con pollo with a nice salsa verde, so as to determine if he has an accent and thereby what his ethnicity is most likely to be. Of course, there is no reason to be surprised at all that this woman by the above account would be stupid enough to not bother to do as much and yet still report it to the police.
Originally posted by giant
Of course, the thing that puts the seal on all of this is the simple fact that almost all of the terrorist attacks in the US, historically and all the way up to the present, have been executed by WHITES.
This is entirely BS. As someone who spends all of his time surrounded by people of a range of races, my mind doesn't look at people suspiciously because of race, and if it tries to, I make sure to disregard such thoughts.
What intelligent people do is notice that prejudiced thoughts are seeded and NOT innate, making sure that when unrealistic thoughts arise that they are consiously disregarded. I also occassionally have random thoughts that I might get hit by a space rock, but I don't give those thoughts any weight in my world-view.
Regardless of what you wish to claim, stereotyping is a function of the brain. Using it to discriminate with regard to opportunities or to commit hate crimes is wrong, other times it is just common sense.
If it were just after 2 am (when the bars close in Cali) and I was black with some bald headed, heavily tattooed white guys walking towards me sporting bikerish/confederate emblazoned type clothing, I would attempt to "understand" them in the morning and in the meantime get the hell out of dodge.
Likewise if I were female and walking late at night, I would seek assistance/company (actually I would seek a gun but that is a different thread). I could say, well gee, not all men are stronger than women and likewise not all men are violent, etc.
Or I could just err on the side of caution since it doesn't hurt anyone.
Likewise with regard to this guy and his ethnicity, did you see me post that if someone were photographing a powerplant and was white that I would see something wrong with it being reported. Quite the opposite.
You speak of prejudice and I speak of stereotyping. If she just assumed that all Arabic people were terrorists, that would be prejudiced. There would be no facts or knowledge around that thinking.
Here she saw someone photographing a powerplant. The government has adviced that powerplants could be targets. She is working with limited knowledge and information and drawing a limited conclusion. Likewise she took limited action and just contacted the authorities. The authorities investigated and found nothing wrong.
BTW if you are going to quote me, at least do it accurately, don't cut off part of my words to misrepresent what I said.
Again you perfect, condescending, know it all types (bunge and SPJ) can swear up and down that if you saw someone possibly Arabic taking photographs of an electric plant, you would never have a doubt about their intents, but the brain wants to create shortcuts in thinking
versus..
trumpetman: if you saw someone possibly Arabic taking photographs of an electric plant, you would never have a doubt about their intents, but the brain wants to create shortcuts in thinking.
It is obviously I am saying the brain stereotypes and then you do this....
my mind doesn't look at people suspiciously because of race, and if it tries to, I make sure to disregard such thoughts.
So even you have a brain that stereotypes, the question is how you act on them. In this instace the woman acted appropriately.
Nick
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
Even accepting this for the sake of argument, the obvious next step would have been for this lady to ask this guy a question, for directions perhaps or maybe inquiring where she can pick up a nice quesadilla con pollo with a nice salsa verde, so as to determine if he has an accent and thereby what his ethnicity is most likely to be. Of course, there is no reason to be surprised at all that this woman by the above account would be stupid enough to not bother to do as much and yet still report it to the police.
You just enjoy stepping in this deeper and deeper don't you.
Why would you assume that someone with brown skin likes mexican food, knows where it is sold, knows which is good, or even speaks with an accent.
What she did was stereotypical, what you post is outright prejudicial.
Thanks for showing how racist you are,
Nick
Why would you assume that someone with brown skin likes mexican food, knows where it is sold, knows which is good, or even speaks with an accent.
What she did was stereotypical, what you post is outright prejudicial.
Thanks for showing how racist you are,
You truly are an idiot. The point of asking about the Mexican food was an intentionally over the top way of pointing out how a bigot such as the woman at issue here, and we are working off the premise that this woman is a bigot because she has already engaging in racial stereotypes by her conduct, would ask that sort of racially charged question to get an answer, any answer. If she wants to play the role of the Inspector Closeau of terrorism while looking at the world through a Code Brown terrorist alert, which her actions seems to indicate, then I have no problem ascribing hypothetical prejudiced behavior on someone who we already know is prejudiced. I'm sorry htat you are not smart enough to have figured out that I was giving a hypothetical line of questioning in line with her type of presumptuous behavior to the subject that she was interested in, whether or not he was a terrorist. Sadly you don't seem to get this, among other things. My point was simply that she wasn't smart enough to apply her racial stereotypes in a way to get more information to see if she could confirm them or not with a simple conversation. And if you haven't figured out that yet that stereotypes are a form of prejudice than you're even more ignorant than I thought.