Racist Judge or misunderstood?
 

Saw this and waned to see what others thought. For those who say "misunderstood", what would you say if a white judge did this? Or a Hispanic judge?

It's messed up and the judge had no right to do this. It was an abuse of power and this judge should be taken off the bench. This is not the way our system is supposed to work.

I'd say the same thing regardless of who the judge was and what group he kept in and kicked out.

<embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/e1f_1207000830" width="450" height="370" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" scale="showall" name="index"></embed>

Meh, I don't think he's racist, but this story just doesn't seem that big of a deal to me, there are bigger issues in the world today than some white people getting asked to leave a courtroom so the judge can talk to the black people in the courtroom. Just doesn't seem worth getting worked up over.

I guess I don't quite understand what the problem is.

Is it that he kicked non-blacks out of the courtroom for a brief time?

Is it that he lectured blacks on how to behave?

Is it some other nuance I missed?

Exactly what part of this are you objecting to, pan? I'm not saying there's nothing objectionable, I'm just unclear specifically what you're referring to.

he's probably tired of seeing black people come in to his courtroom and perpetuate the stereotype that blacks are the crime ridden scum of the US.

it's a self fulfilling prophecy as long as they buy in to the hip hop culture.

maybe he just felt like it was time to give them the speech their parents never did because he was tired of having his pride slighted every time he had to sentence one of his own race to a sentence.

if anything that would want to make me come up with all kinds of alternative sentencing options since we know hard time doesn't do shit to rehabilitate convicts, but thats another topic altogether.

<h2>pan...could you shut the fuck up...just for today? Sheesh, you're recent posts are an affront to my sensibilities....I guess you showed mixedmedia, didn't you.....just for today....okay?</h2>

This one made me tear up, a little....things could have turned out so differently, so much nicer than they have ended up!
<cenetr><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/03/us/04martin06-600.jpg"></center>

An article helps explain the judge's actions:
Based on the story, I applaud the judge for what he did....after court business was completed.

But I agree with Host....I do have to wonder why one feels a need to search out stories about black public figures...and say its not about race?

Context matters!

Are you saying he's exhibiting racism towards black people by singling them out?

Wow. This really is a non-story. The only story here is the bias and prejudice of those who want it to be a story.

Delicious irony.

Pan.....an abuse of power....wtf?

You seriously want him thrown off the bench for this?

I agree. And I was a little suspicious when I saw the two 'man on the street' clips of commentary shown after the story and they were both on the same side of this issue.

It's not about race (I already stated I would feel the same regardless of race) and I got this in my e mail today. This is about abuse of power.

OK Host...... let's see: was what the judge did segregation?

Why did he not lecture ALL there that day?

Was it an injustice, intentional or not?
Was it ignorance or stupidity?

Was he judging by the color of skin and not by the content of character?

I would argue on this day we SHOULD be addressing racial problems. He sacrificed his life to do so and it would be unconscionable and disrespectful not to address racial problems on this day. IMHO.

If it's not about race then why is the thread title 'Racist Judge or Misunderstood'? Your own title made it about race pan, even your first post made it about race when you asked what the reaction would be if a white judge or a hispanic judge did this, so yeah you made it about race no one else.

Why would white people need to be in a courtroom when a black judge wants to discuss black issues with black people? Answer: they wouldn't.

Case dismissed.

In other news Paris Hilton took a shit..........

Host, your post is totally inappropriate.

You can say it and you can say it again but it doesn't make it true.

Would all the African Americans please leave the room, we have white things to talk about, feel free to use the water fountain, just don't put your lips on it.

No, not exactly. When you explain why they were asked to leave, because the judge was essentially going to chew out the black people for not getting their race in shape, it makes sense. He was honestly taking an Obama moment to say "get your shit together". There's no reason for white people to hear that. None.

Dr. King gave this speech 40 years and one day ago. I think he knew what was coming...

He was stabbed, near fatally, and then he was shot and killed. I'm asking pan to stop on this day of remembering, of quiet contemplation. It strikes me as the right thing for me to do

A black man, in America, by definition CANNOT be a racist.

He may be prejudiced, or a bigot, but racism as a term implies the exercise of power against another race: there isnt much scope for that when your ancestors were slaves to the people who are now your neighbours, and even 75 years ago national newspapers and most police would call you "nigger" - when in living memory you couldnt sit on a bus if a white person was standing.

Actually I have NO problem with what he did, but were a white judge to do this, you know damn well what the fall out would be.

Could you stop, for one fucking day, with "the persecuted white man" schtick of yours? Could everybody??? Just for one day !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can a mod change the thread title to the "BITCHING PERSECUTED WHITE MAN THREAD"?

rac·ism Audio Help /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Do NOT make me use Inigo Montoya again.

Could you stop, for one fucking day, with "the persecuted white man" schtick of yours? Could everybody??? Just for one day !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can a mod change the thread title to the "BITCHING PERSECUTED WHITE MAN THREAD"?

Would you be a part of that fallout? I know I wouldn't.

Oh, no a black man can be racist. It's called "reverse racism" when it deals with white people and it's surprisingly common. In addition to that, black racism against latinos is a massive problem here. I've had to repeatedly deal with it in the work place at three different jobs.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means
just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

_

Racism is not something decided by vulgar & self righteous displays of cold logic. Its what it feels like to - for example - not be allowed to sit down on a bus because of the colour of your skin.

Quoted for absolute truth.

No, not if there was something resembling a good reason. On the other hand I'm sure Jesse (yes host I saw the picture) would be happy to cry fowl, as long as there were cameras around, that blacks were asked to leave a court room, thats segregation after all.

While I find hosts indignation amusing, I find his picture ironic. The most prominent person in that picture is not Dr. King, but is the most well known shyster when it comes to exploiting his race for personal gain.

Yeah, I'm really at a loss here.

First, we're supposed to accept that there is no instutitional racism keeping blacks at a disproportionate disadvantage to the rest of the population, and therefore there's no reason for Rev. Wright (and many others) to be upset about how black people are treated in society today.

Then, in one of your posts, you mentioned Bill Cosby in a positive light, which would seem to me that you are impressed by black leaders who are willing to say what you seem to believe: that black people are the cause of their own problems, and that they need to stop being upset at things like institutional racism and instead focus more on taking control of their lives and raising their children better. (Nevermind that Rev. Wright also preaches that, he just doesn't ignore institutional racism either.)

Now, you show us an example of a black man in a position of authority who wanted to try and use that position to encourage some of the black population to turn their lives around, saying "You will have to turn it around, and it's not the white man. You are the one committing these crimes."

So I just don't understand. It's racist when someone mentions that blacks aren't totally in control of their position in life because of institutional racism. It's racist now, when a black man tries to use his common identity to tell other blacks that they need to take control of their lives. You're beginning to run dangerously close to the "omg acknowledging race is racism!" attitude.

I'm really just at a loss here...because it's very clear that your mindset is so fundamentally different that it is literally impossible (and I'm not exaggerating here) to have any conversation with you in which you would come any closer to understanding the mindset of any of the people you disagree with on this issue. If you'll forgive the analogy, it's a bit like trying to speak rationally to a creationist about the importance of evidence on which to base assumptions, and their repeated response is that their evidence is that "it's in the bible." It's a totally different language, and no amount of wasted air will get them to understand that "it's in the bible" is not valid evidence for anything.

Most importantly....seriously, there's all this other stuff going on in the world and you feel that this is newsworthy?

I think SF is referring to the literal definition of racism which refers to systemic discrimination as opposed the way we use the word colloquially to describe racial bias at the group or individual level.

That said, let's cool down with the personal requests and discuss the OP unless we have pretty much run the gamut at this point, in which case we can all go talk about something else.

In order for me to believe this judge is "racist", I would have to believe that he either thinks white people are lesser than black people, or that he actively believes white people are the source of his problem(s).

I see no evidence to support either of these conclusions.

What I see is a judge exercising his right to have a personal opinion. Judges often offer their "personal opinion" of the defendant or his actions AFTER the verdict and sentencing has occurred, and I find no problem with that. It is every free citizen's right to express their opinion to whomever they wish. So long as it was clear that this was his opinion and not his ruling as a figure of authority, he has done nothing wrong.

The fact that he asked certain members of the courtroom to leave BEFORE chastising the defendants is an act of responsibility, in my opinion. In some cases, it is better to offer constructive criticism in private, or in the company of peers - it has the potential to be more effective.

Really? You think?

Let's say the tables were HONESTLY turned. Let's say Europe was populated by blacks, and Africa by whites. Let's say America was founded by black Europeans, who imported white slaves to work. Let's say that black American majority fought a civil war, and black Abraham Lincoln freed all the white slaves.

Then let's say that over the next hundred-someodd years the whites gradually gained civil rights, but that it had come, long the turn of the 21st Century, to the point where the prisons were vastly fuller of white inmates than black, a few token whites had prominent positions in business and government, but it was still largely a bastion of black power. Let's say that poverty and crime were disproportionately higher in the white community, education was worse, and there were all sorts of invisible barriers to white entry into successful society.

Then let's say a white judge--one of the relatively few to make it--closed down his courtroom after the close of official business one day to give a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" talk to the white folks in his courtroom.

You're telling me you know damn well what the fallout of all that would be?

Because if that's not the question you're asking, then you're not FAIRLY turning the tables, you're just saying "them durn minorities got rights we majority folks don't". Which is a hysterical thing for a white dentist to say.

rat, something I've slowly had to admit to in being white is that I'll never really understand what it means to be black. I can empathize and sympathize all I want, but it seems that I can't really put myself in their shoes.

Ustwo, why are black teeth bad and white teeth good?! :grumpy:

This should be the issue right above. A courtroom is about justice, you know....that blind lady. no religion, creed, gender, and COLOR.

If a white judge had done this, there would probably be a bit more of an uproar. Since it wasn't and since will seems to think that white people have no business in discussing how black judges deal with black defendants, then it will continue to further divide people. Ain't america grand?

That's not really relevant at all. He said if it was a white judge the situation would of been much different, which is true considering the state of race relations totday. Your so called reversing the situation is actually the exact same as the OP's scenario.

Indeed. It's laughable to simply say "if a white person did that blahdy blah blah" without at least some ATTEMPT at getting what the world must be like for black people. That's really at the heart of all the race nonsense that's been coming up the last month or so. There's NO understanding of what the world must be like for people of different backgrounds.

host, what do you have against white people? why do you hate white people so much?

sam, you have intuited my gist precisely. My problem with the question is, there's no interest in WHY the situation is different. And no wondering if maybe the situation SHOULD be different. My point is, the only fair way to say "if a white judge blahdy blah blah" would be if the entire history of our hemisphere was backwards. That would be FAIR. Otherwise, the question is UNFAIR.

Rat, it's not for a lack of trying, though. I do attempt to put myself in their shoes. I make an honest effort to empathize and then make my decision based on that. Still, it's okay for me to admit that, despite my best efforts, I may not understand the full scope of the issue because I'm white.

You're talking about the decision making process. The judge emptied the courtroom to read the black people the riot act not to render judgment.

Pan: If the Judge is to maintain order in his Courtroom, he may see fit to discipline those who disrupt the Court proceedings. He chose not to humiliate them in front of others. Why would that be considered "abuse of power"?

No. Justice--that which theoretically occurs while court is in session inside a courtroom--is blind. A courtroom itself is just a room. It has walls, doors, tables, chairs. It has no special significance. What happens in it while court is NOT in session (as was the case here) is DIFFERENT from "blind justice".

We get into strange thought patterns when we confuse the container for the thing contained.

So only blacks can discuss, and solve black issues, us white folk can't understand or comment.

Really, thats perhaps the most racist thing ever said on these boards.

willravel, this isn't meant for you, but maybe someone else who needs to hear it will benefit.

If you talk to black people who you know, if you ask them how it feels, what they are going through....experiencing, they'll tell you. I have a friend who enjoys a business partnership with a black man. Every, I mean every time he visits her in her white northern Westchester, NY suburban neighborhood, he gets pulled over by a white local cop and asked what he's doing and where he is going.

He handles the sales end of their partnership, because he is the one with the disarming personality. My friend says that when white people meet him at the door for the first time, they are afraid to let him come through it, and at the end of their meeting with him, they are reluctant to let it end and say good bye to him.

The man lives and works in a white world, but he is not accepted in it.

I see on this thread and on others recently and on older threads where objections to affirmative action were posted, a resentment that seems based on the idea that something is being taken away from those objecting, if non white males are given equal or extra equal opportunity.

To use my oft relied on pro baseball example, when one slot was given on a team to Jackie Robinson, there was one less slot, until the next league expansion, for yet another white player. All the slots, all the opportunities had been reserved for white players.

The exclusive white opportunity was held by force. Whites "only" weren't entitled to every team slot. It was so because of a fucking distortion, conceived and maintained at the point of a gun, a shackle, chain, leg iron, a lynching rope, reinforced by the language in the US Constitution, itself.

If you ask a black friend how it's going, what it was like for them, growing up, and you share your life story and experience, and you have the "take" on how things are....along the lines of my "baseball" analogy, the black people who you know, will sense it, and they'll talk to you.

If you operate as if "every slot", every opportunity is naturally ordained for whites..men..was and always has been, and blacks, women, or anybody other than white men, will just have to suck it up and find a way to break in...to take one of those "white man slots" for themselves....like Jackie Robinson did, people who you try to talk to, will sense that, too.

Nothing is being taken way from you pan, Ustwo.... that wasn't rightfully available to you. It's just that for forever in this country, all the slots were pretty much reserved for white men, and they got too used to it.

But, it wasn't right....it was a distortion, maintained by local cops, with guns, dogs, firehoses, and by every white person who rode on or drove a bus!

Dr. King said, if you get your back up straight, nobody can ride on it. That advice wasn't meant for you if you are a white man....chances are you've been riding all of your life.

Well, Ustwo, we may be able to get close to putting ourselves in their shoes, but having not been that way since birth it's easy for us to miss something when factoring in. There's nothing racist about that.

what?
you cannot possibly be serious.
care to explain this remark?

maybe if i can understand such thought as there is behind a remark like this--- which seems to bereft of ANY thought-----i can come to understand what this farce of a thread is about--that is at what possible level it even starts to make sense.

I can always tell when I've got your dander up, because you post so fast you forget to read.

I didn't say white folk can't understand or comment. I'm not sure I agree entirely with willravel on this--I think it's possible we could understand, and it sure would be nice if more WOULD, or would at least TRY.

But to say "if a white judge blahdy blah blah" without even an ATTEMPT at understanding a black person's perspective is flat out ignorant and doesn't move the race conversation forward. That's my point.

I guess racism is America's blind spot... which maybe figures, because for American's there is no "blood and soil" nationalism possible - so identity must seem so much more up in the air.

White Americans have no more or less roots to the land than black Americans (and neither of them can even speak Spanish), perhaps this leads to insensitivity to the crime of slavery amongst many whites? They must just see it as a free for all which they happened to win?

Yes, I'll never know what its like to 'be' black, and as I already stated I have absolutely NO problem at all with what the judge did.

But I can sort of see pans issue because the only way this is acceptable is because it is a black judge.

Were a white judge to do the SAME thing and give the SAME speech, black 'leaders' would be calling for his head.

Perhaps the real issue right now is you are only allowed to talk about race if you are a member of that race. Instead of fostering working together its only members of that race allowed to talk about the issues in the first place everyone else is suppose to ignore them.

I once read a short story, the details are not important, but I liked how they did their court. The trial itself was pretty much the same as today, but the judge who did the sentencing/conviction never saw the trial except as vague shadows, never heard their voices. He only got a neutral recording, where race/gender/age etc were unknown. I think perhaps thats the sort of system we will need in the very near future to end the perception that justice for black men can only come from a black man.

You repeated the same, "if it was a white judge", as you did in your other post, as if ratbastid had not directly addressed your comment.

The cops and prosecutors are a much greater problem, as far as the perception or reality of "equal" justice, than the judges, yet you offer no proposal to "blind" them.

Um, I speak a bit of spanish. And one of my ancestors was native American.

But yes, black, white, latino, asian, etc. can all be racist.

Who said I didn't? You need to quit deciding what I do, and how I do it.

maybe, just maybe, as a function of the depressing and shameful history of racism explicit and institutionalized in the states, african-americans have been aggregated differently than have euro-americans, such that there is a different weight to the term, and a more tangible sense that it refers to a discrete culture (i don't like that word because it implies something more self-enclosed and self-enclosing than seems appropriate in most cases, this included)---so that would mean, as a function of the history of racism explicit and institutionalized in the states, african-american and "white" are *not* parallel terms, that they refer to different senses of identification--and so the analogy that ustwo seems to like repeating--"if the situation were reversed..." is as ridiculous as is the logic of this entire thread--and it encapsulates that logic, such as it is.

You still here? I thought telling people to shut the fuck up would be a time out.

Anyways OJ was framed, blah blah. For the record I don't think the issue is racism, I think the issue is perception, I think black men are committing a disproportionate amount of crime, and apparently, according to this judge, thats a issue that needs black on black only conversation.

I am still trying to understand how a judge privately lecturing a group of defendants after the conclusion of court business is an abuse of power worthy of removal from the bench....as recommended in the OP.

OJ was guilty. This judge is innocent.

See we can agree :thumbsup:

The case against OJ was a joke.

He prolly did beat his ex-wife up.... and he should serve time for it.

He didnt kill anyone, the timescales proposed by the prosecution never should have even been allowed to trial.

dc: that's easy.
it isn't.
the idea it could be is very very strange.

Nothing to do to save his life call his wife in
Nothing to say but what a day how's your boy been
Nothing to do it's up to you
I've got nothing to say but it's O.K.

sorry...i got nothin'...

I'm failing to comprehend where the issue is here. In order to aid in my comprehension, I will in this post summarize the events that occurred as I understand them.

1) Black judge recognizes that black people in the United States of America are more likely to be socially disadvantaged are as a consequence or as a parallel to this more likely to possess a lower standard of education and more likely to turn to crime. Black judge concludes that this is a problem that needs to be addressed first and foremost by black Americans.

2) Black judge recognizes that he is part of a small group of people uniquely positioned to address the situation, since he is able to say things that would be considered socially unacceptable coming from his white colleagues, and is able to recognize and address black Americans who are participating in this culture of crime in a way that his black peers in other professions may not.

3) Black judge decides to take advantage of this position and exercise his right to address his people after the duties of his office have been fulfilled and as a citizen rather than a figure of authority.

4) Black judge decides that this is an issue that is best addressed in relative privacy, and as a consequence of that decision requests that anyone who is not related to the issue as he perceives it (ie anyone who isn't black) to leave the room so that he may do so.

This is the chain of events as I understand it based on the video and articles posted. Is this a case of racism because he asked the non-blacks to leave the room? Or is it racist because he chose to address the issue at all?

Race is clearly a key component here, but race issues and racism are not the same thing. It was my understanding that the fact that black Americans tend to be economically and socially disadvantaged is more or less irrefutable. Given that there is a distinct black culture and that from an outside perspective (viewing black entertainment and keeping a casual eye on the news and on crime statistics) this appears to be perpetuated at least in part by black Americans themselves, I don't see where this judge choosing to address the issue is racist. Is it a fallacy to assume that things like rap music that promotes crime and violence and continually uses racial slurs promotes racial barriers?

I just don't understand what the fuss is here.

I don't think what the judge wanted to say was wrong. I certainly understand the pain that a person has when he sees members of his own ethnic group screwing up, and I surely don't blame him from wanting to set them straight. The only thing that strikes me as "off" about this is that he did it in a public courtroom. It's not the world's worst offense, but judges aren't supposed to use taxpayer facilities in a manner not open to the whole public. I'd cut the guy slack on this one, there was nothing vicious about what he was doing, and nothing even racist. But someone should tell him that it shouldn't become a habit.

i read through all the posts...

i posted my own reaction...

now i must ask, "what was the reason for this original post?"

why don't you all just shut the fuck up???

Damn, lost my response. Oh well, it wasn't all that interesting anyway. I'll just complement host for managing to flame pan without citing five irrelevant articles.

This is overblown at most. Maybe the courtroom wasn't the right place and maybe the judge was a bit presumptuous to exclude, but it's still minor and not racist.

Ya, for someone who is supposed to be impartial and fair to everyone it kinda looks bad to seperate people by race after a trial regardless of the reason. Not that it even bothers me at all what he did, but some people not like it I guess considering its a government funded place.

I fail to understand why my opinion is being solicited when the op made it clear only his perspective was welcome.

This is not reverse racism. This is not unacceptable behavior. This is simply someone from a demographic that wishes to reverse frightening trends that he sees within.

I fail to understand why anyone would take issue with a well-intentioned, non-hurtful judge.

First for all those who said "shut the fuck up".... you don't have to post, you don't even have to visit this thread.

Secondly, last time I checked a courtroom was government property, paid for by tax dollars. It's why judges can't have the 10 Commandments hanging on their walls..... because they are supposed to have NO biases. How do we know he hasn't given lighter sentences to blacks, or harsher sentences to blacks? Maybe we should look into his judgment rulings and see how he has ruled his court. This shows extreme bias to me and again abuse of power. You can sugar coat and make excuses all you want... it's wrong and should not have been done.

Wonder if Obama was asked for his reaction and he said the judge was wrong, what the reaction in here would be.

If a white judge had thrown out everyone of color, there would have been lawsuits, demands for the man/woman's job, people looking into his past, people demanding he be prosecuted and people protesting. And some of those very people, I would lay odds on, are posters here supporting what this judge did. (And I haven't gambled in 9 years 14 days and 12 hours.... but this wouldn't be a gamble.)

I am surprised not one person commented on the MLK post I had. But then again it doesn't suit their purpose. They want to make me a racist and tell me how I am full of hate. That's your right, just as it is mine to give my view on this news item.

My view would be exactly the same if a woman threw out all the men or vice versa, if a white threw out all of color, if a Christian judge threw out all non Christians (and I would be one thrown out) and so on. I do not see 1 person defending this man saying that. I see them avoiding the question I asked in the OP, telling me to "shut the fuck up", implying yet again how I am a racist.... but NOT 1 post I have seen condemning me for my views, or supporting this judge has answered the OP question.

That leaves me to ask why?

Racism and hatred know no color.

Pan, in my opinion the judge's actions had no bias at all. He sees the amount of black youths in front of him as a judge. He knows. He was tired of it and felt it was his responsibility as a black community leader to say something. And guess what? The white people in the courtroom didn't need to hear it. It wasn't directed at them at all. It was directed at fellow black people. He was attempting to be responsible, and I personally feel he should be commended if for nothing else but for his intent.

Moving on to the broader intent of this thread, which is not in the least bit subtle, no one cares if you're racist or not. I don't care. MM probably doesn't care. Host doesn't care. I am however getting a bit tired of your recent Mr. Hyde transformation. Just yesterday you jumped into a thread for the singular purpose of singling me out. You actually told me I didn't need to visit or comment in a thread. It's really annoying to say the least. If you have some sort of problem, then it's your responsibility to fix it. Stop taking whatever is going on with you out on me and anyone else, please. I've had enough. And if you have a problem with me, discuss it with me. Whether you think so or not, I'm a pretty reasonable guy. These attacks and passive aggressive jabs need to stop if for no other reason then for the level of quality here on TFP.

Where's your answer to the OP question? Would you say the same thing and defend a white judge doing this? Avoidance is an answer in and of itself.



Among others.....

No no one at all is attacking me personally, for my views and opinions.

The rest is personal and should be done in IM not here. This thread is not about me or what I have done or perceived to have done in other threads.
his thread is about a judge that IMHO abused his power. If you wish to comment on that and only that in this thread cool. Anything else feel free to IM me about or whatever.

It would be different if a white judge were doing this because whites were never enslaved by blacks in the US. Blacks were enslaved by whites and while racism is a lot less serious in the US than it was when slavery was legal, things still aren't equal yet. It's okay to admit that. As a matter of fact, the judge seeing more black kids than white kids is symptomatic of said racism, so it's relevant in several ways.
It's hardly personal if you've been doing it to a lot of people. I've not been the only person you've seen fit to attack, as was made evident by host's somewhat inappropriately delivered thoughts above. Also, this thread is clearly the latest in a string of threads that aren't actually about the topic but are actually about you and how mad you are that you think people think you're a racist. More about the conspiracy to paint you as racist:
You wrote that yourself.

Pan, people can disagree with you on racial issues without thinking you're racist. Can we discuss the video and situation in the OP without you assuming a conspiracy?

Whites were slaves of whites, does that mean some whites will never understand what it is to be white?

Just asking.

So we keep reopening and reopening that wound in NEGATIVE ways instead of trying to make it better by POSITIVE means?

I see. And the radical left sees no problem with that at all. Alrighty then.

This is something perhaps a MOD should discuss with me if I am so far over the line. OR perhaps, if it bothers you so much should be addressed in IM.

But no let's put it in public where it has no right to be..... then we'll jump on him and tell him how he makes posts all about him..... that way we can avoid the real issues.

And again, no one did address the MLK quotes.... but I can show where people afterward told me to shut the fuck up.... why? Why not just respond to the OP and leave me out of it? Take the focus off the issue..... take the focus off the issue attack the person having the "wrong opinion." Take the focus off the issue. SCREW THAT.... ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTIONS AND I WON'T HAVE TO SHOW POSTS LIKE HOST'S AND BITCH ABOUT THEM AND THEN BE ACCUSED OF TRYING TO MAKE IT ABOUT ME!!!!!!!

That is cool, I'm not a racist, but I'm going to hold people's feet to the flames over this because there is a double standard and it is extreme bullshit excuses and avoidances and let's move focuses over here that keep this shit alive.

In all these threads on race all we get is "well they were enslaved.... they have the right to feel that way.... they can get away with that because.... well they were enslaved...."

THEY in present day America have NOT been enslaved. When there is a positive role model like Colin Powell, George Foreman, Thurgood Marshall, Bill Cosby, Ken Griffey Jr. and so on thrown out..... the reply is "They are Uncle Toms".

So successful black men that don't buy into the Rev. Wrights, Al Sharptons, Louis Farrakhans of this country are "Uncle Toms", while the 70% of the boys that leave fatherless children, the boys that join the Bloods/Crips/Disciples and so on, the boys that would rather sell crack and do drugs than graduate high school and take advantage of the UNCF and scholarships, are the true epitomy of the black man. "Those are the ones that rightfully are angry and have no chances in life, because of the white man and the fact at one time PART of our country enslaved them they never had a chance to begin with."

Yet, again when proven wrong, by showing the black men and women who didn't buy into that bullshit and went out and made themselves successful... they are Uncle Toms.

Bullshit racism is bullshit racism.

This judge is a racist and abused his power..... plain and simple. Just as if a white judge had done it, a Hispanic judge had done it, a male judge had done it to females, and so on.

WRONG IS WRONG AND THERE IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO SAY IT'S OK. It divides, it's negative and it is far more damaging when we make excuses and allow abuses like this to continue.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the actions of this judge.

Each race has its own culture. These cultures are all diverse and differ from each other in varying aspects. I know from experience that black american culture is group oriented. When this judge wanted to speak to his fellow black americans it was nothing more than a one on one. That is simply their culture. If a white judge did this then, yes, it would have been strange because white culture is more fragmented and, really, just doesn't function in the same way. It all boils down to difference in social interaction among different cultures. You can't confuse this with racism.

He's trying to close the wound. Or do you think a lower crime rate among black men would widen the gap? That was, after all, his intent. And just because black people aren't enslaved today does not mean that they are not victimized by racism often.

As for the MLK quotes, they have nothing to do with the thread. Had they been relevant to the subject at hand, people probably would have responded to them. They aren't, so they were ignored.

The bottom line: the white people asked to leave were not injured in any way. They weren't persecuted. They're fine. The judge wanted to address members of his own race. Ch'i just explained it perfectly and trust me he knows more about black culture than either you or I will ever know.

Then instead of using his judge's bench and the PUBLICLY funded courthouse... perhaps he should be out in a church or working where this maybe acceptable.

I see no true logic in this excuse. Just more negative racial division. "The white man wouldn't understand what this judge is saying."

Bullshit.....

We don't hear of German Jews doing this shit in Germany. We don't hear of German Jews making irrational demands like we hear from Farrakhan, Sharpton, and company.

Yet, the German Jews went through a Hell far worse than slavery. And there are people who lived through that still alive and living in Germany.

Show me 1 black that lived through slavery in this country alive today.

Ch'i didn't say "a white man can't understand". He said you don't understand.

Court was no longer in session. You're right though; that lecture cost the state a fortune, I'm sure.

Also, I in no way whatsoever made any comment in my post concerning slavery. I read you're posts, though it seems I shouldn't expect the same courtesy in return. Slavery has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, or any issue related to this thread.


All that aside... I'll say it again, its a culture difference, not racism.

If he had done it elsewhere and not used his "judgeship".... acceptable, in a courtroom using his power as judge to do this...... Racist, power abusing bullshit.

Really, I covered what I figured would be excuses for this judge's actions and brought up MLK quotes to show the bullshit factor:

Here's the post (with the quotes) let the following posters make the decision if they are relevant. I'm sure to those making excuse for the judge they aren't relevant because they would be proving their own bullshit excuses as bullshit excuses.

Well, again, outside of a courtroom, outside of his job ok..... inside a courtroom using his position.... WRONG. A courtroom and a judge are not supposed to know race, religion, sex, ethnic background and so on.

Again, let's take a look at his record, see how he ruled in cases.

Now if you say that it would be ok for ANY judge to single out his certain "people" and do this..... it'd still be an abuse of power in my eyes, but I wouldn't be able to call the racist bullshit excuses, and that would be fine for me.

IMHO, it's bullshit racism and an abuse of power. There is no excuse for this behavior in ANY courtroom under ANY circumstance.

Court was no longer in session.

Ok so going by the sheer cultural aspect of it, it would be ok for whites to do it?

OOOPs nope, you state, it can't happen because.... What about the Jewish community? They are a very tight community, in many way the same as the black community? Would that be ok?

What about 50 years ago with an Italian judge addressing some guys from "little Italy".

Or 30 years ago a Cleveland Polish judge addressing a group from "Slavic Village"?

What about a Hispanic judge addressing some Mexicans?

What about a female judge addressing only females?

Or a Male judge addressing only males?

Is it only the "black" culture" that is allowed to do this?

And again a courthouse and judge should NO NOT NEVER be used in this way. It doesn't matter what the culture/ethnicity/religion/sex/whatever.... because in the courtrooms of America and by the judges IN those rooms (regardless of whether in session or not as long as they are wearing that robe, serving that duty and/or in that room), ALL MEN/WOMEN SHOULD BE SEEN SOLELY AS EQUALS.

The Supreme Court has ruled that 10 Commandments in a courtroom is unconstitutional. A judge asking people to leave the courtroom, after the session had concluded, to engage in a private conversation with defendants is not.

To satisfy what IMO, is your unreasonable interpretation, perhaps the judge should have asked the defendants (and their families) to meet him in his private chambers...same public building, same court...but maybe it was too small to accommodate them all.

The concept of equal justice under the law (race, religion, sex, ethnic background) applies to judicial decisions, not informal conversations in a non-official capacity.

I am honestly not clear in my own mind if the OP is a display of sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity.

but IMO, the more you post, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.

In any case, as you correctly noted, we are each entitled to express our own opinion.

And opinions that reject your premise, harsh as they may sound to you, are not personal attacks.

Which is a mistake you've made at least twice in this thread alone, pan.

You know what would heal the racial divide in this country? Compassion. Understanding. People getting interested in why other people are behaving the way they're behaving.

You know what perpetuates it, widens it? Complaints about the "other side" and their "supporters". Saying they shouldn't do what they do. Insisting that they don't have the right to do what they do.

pan, I assert that your actions in all these racial threads over the last several weeks are widening the racial divide.

But this rarely is the case. I think most know this. What does it mean to be treated as "equal" exactly? Do we all pretend we are equal even when it clearly isn't the case?

Did you happen to read post #53?

to expand on 53 a little--which, modesty aside, seems to me important--african-american as a category is a creation of the particular history of american racism---you can look at it as a consequence not only an initial erasure of distinctions between ethnicities/groups/backgrounds/histories during the period of slavery, and so as a kind of residuum, an index of the crudeness of euro-american perceptions of Others, one which reduces them to the color of their skin---but also as a category that has not gone away, but rather has continued and is reinforced and perpetuated through the history of segregation---of separation geared around this same crude one-dimensional category--that has been in a sense taken over and made into a source of positive identification over time---and so can refer to the much of the cultural experience that has been separated and shaped through separation.

so the category functions in a way that "white" simply does not: think about it--you ask a group of white folk (myself included) about their ancestry, say, you'll probably get answers that refer to irish or french or italian or russian or ukranian or whatever backgrounds that then get the hyphenated american thing--so the histories have not been erased systematically, the grouping is not the same--this is a function of having power, of having had power, of having used that power--maintaining one's history in this case is an index.

you can figure it out from here: this is not difficult and if you think about it, it corresponds in a general sense to experience.

mlk and myriad others looked forward to a day when this history would no longer matter--BUT WE ARE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THAT.

i mean, look the hell around you. jesus.

in conservativeland, there is this bizarre-o claim that we somehow have floated free of the history of racism, that it no longer matters--this claim seems geared around the core consituency of conservative populist politics, the Eternal Victim, the white petit bourgeois--who on this is set up as the Victim of attempts to address racism the Victim of the history of it. that these arguments recapitulate the same arguments made by elements of the same social class to justify the appalling period that we laughingly call "reconstruction" does not matter--history has been vaporized for the populist right and so there we are.

this is one of the central problems in the debate across political viewpoints on race and racism---conservatives make assertions from a position that is particular to their own politics about history and its relation to the present---outside that political viewpoint, these assertions make NO sense.

so one possible space to talk reasonably is about why these claims do not make sense (for the rest of us, say) or why they do (for conservatives)--but that would assume that conservative folk are both willing and--more to the point--able to defend this position and not just assert it.

second: since this claim resonates not with historical or social reality but with the sense of Being-Victim of the constituency of populist conservatism, it is hard not to see in pan's performance here a kind of repeat of the internal logic of the ideology itself. to justify the claims, he has to CREATE the sense that he is Victim--even if that means running, unmotivated otherwise, into this strange little rat's nest which seems to start each time "people have called me a racist, but i am not" which translates "poor me i am a Victim"

so there is a choice: we can talk about the validity of conservative-specific claims about racism in america--claims that sometimes (as here) utilize the kinda nasty little trick of quoting martin luther king for their own purposes, standing these quotes on their heads, using them to legitimate themselves and their politics rather than as claims which speak to aspirations that we, collectively, have not gotten anywhere near reaching and, if threads like this are any indication, do not know how to even start approaching---or we can assume that this is just another bizarre-o performance piece that is mostly about pan--who at least has the fortitude (intentional or not) to do the performance (no matter how irritating folk find it to be, there IS a way to see this that points to a problem bigger than narcissism)---by which i mean the appeal of these claims about racism in america for conservatives is NOT about their historical or social accuracy, but is rather about the sense of Being Victim they enable conservatives to derive from them.

personally, i see the argument in the op as so weak empirically and so naive historically, that the only plausible grounds for coming up with it seem to me to involve this persona of Eternal Victim, which is at the core of populist conservative politics---it is the way subjects are interpellated by that ideology (positioned as subjects)

RB.....thoughtful and on-point.

But (and a big but).. I just dont see a need to tiptoe around the OP for fear of offending sensibilities (not suggestng you are)

Pan's argument that the judge's actions were discriminatory or somehow infringed on the rights of others or an abuse of power.....is simply ignorant of the law.

His subsequent argument that the the judge is a`racist, based on a one-minute video....is simply ignorant.

so there is another register of problem.

take your pick comrades: but try to defend the nonsense not only at the heart of this thread, but that informs it.

ah, like coming up for air...

Thanks, rb. You've nailed with words what I see spot on.

I wish I could do that. :)

I'd like to say I'm surprised by reactions to this but I'm not.

Based on the replies I've read, if I were an outsider, I'd conclude that we must need a separate groups of laws for blacks than other races, as blacks have issues which being unique to them need to be addressed specifically to them and thats ok.

Perhaps black courts with black judges? Maybe only black cops can arrest blacks and whites can arrest whites?

While I share none of Pan's outrage there is a valid point here. Either we are one people equally under the law or we are not. It is only the racism that about everyone exhibited in this thread that allows us to say its ok for a black judge to exclude non-blacks from his court for any reason because blacks are different with different issues.

TFP is an interesting place. On the one hand I've been told that races don't even exist, there are no real differences, and on the other I've been told its ok for those in power to be exclusionary due to race differences as long as they are of that race.

BUT, we have established by some on here IF a WHITE judge were to do this, they would find it wrong.

This argument goes completely down the toilet if you say, "It's ok the black judge did it, but the white/male/female/jew/hispanic judge that may do it would be wrong.

It's either wrong or right for ALL groups. To say it's ok for one group but not another, in and of itself is prejudicial. There is no in between here. To say there is, is in fact showing favoritism to one group over another.

That is not "my interpretation" either. In his chambers, he would still be effectively wearing the robe, esp. if giving the lecture he gave in the courtroom. Sorry, but I would still find that an abuse of power and wrong. The ONLY way I would find any public justification for this would be: if this judge (or any judge) were to give speeches of this type off the property and in the community he serves, without having race/sex/ethnicity/etc be a prerequisite of hearing that speech.

But this was not an informal conversation. This was a judge that threw out a specific people, so that he could address a select group that had no choice to be there. He did this in his official capacity as evidenced by throwing that specific group of people out.

A difference of opinion and sharing of differing views is not personal, nor do I take it personally.

This last quote however, is personal and again, makes this thread about something it is not about.

Why was this necessary? I don't need nor want an answer. I simply find it inappropriate because it has NOTHING to do with the OP and the subject.

you're avoiding the real problems, pan, and retreating to a "it's just my opinion man" position---but opinion is not based on nothing--and if at the most basic level, opinion is rooted in a whole series of misunderstandings and/or erasures, then it hardly seems rational even to just repeat "it's just my opinion man" unless the idea here is not debate at all, not even discussion, but just to put into motion some little piece of theater in which you get to star as the drama queen.

seriously, pan: there are real problems with every single element of the position you've laid out--you started this machinery, so the least you can do is engage when folk point out the problems--and don't confuse them with personal attacks--for what it's worth (to be explicit) i don't even see most of what you're doing here as being your invention--i think you're performing the consequences of a politics, and you're doing it point-for-point. so this isn't even psychological theater, there's no voyeurism--it's just what happens when a reasonable fellow latches on to identity politics in the populist conservative mode--and all the more if your views in this area are not of a piece with your views in other areas.

don't you see this?

That is the whole crux right there. To me, whether people care to believe it or not, race doesn't matter, you are either a jerk or you aren't. But when you begin to make excuses for the behavior of one race/sex/group of people and say others cannot have that behavior, the action becomes prejudicial because you have made it so.

People on here (those brave enough to truly answer the OP question) have even stated flat out that a white judge could not do this and should not be allowed to do this. Yet, they find excuses to allow a different group to do it. That in and of itself is prejudicial and in this case racist thinking.

What are you saying, a white man raised in the same area and taught that blacks are equal and has believed all his life that race doesn't matter, doesn't need to hear what the judge had to say, simply because he is white?????

If the people who say yes to that, then turn around and would be vehemently opposed to a white/hispanic/male/female/etc judge doing what this one did.... that is by definition prejudicial, because you are excusing one group's behavior and giving them special privileges that you would withhold from another group.

That is my problem with all this.

another dodge.
and an irrational one, outside the assumptions of the politics you've adopted.

This is a personal attack has nothing to do with the thread does it? It is only done to publicly tell me off?

Nothing to do with the thread

Ustwo....aren't you saying that it is "the blacks" who are acting like the "drama queens", especially "that" Jesse Jackson?

How is that a dodge?

read no. 53.
read no. 85.
respond to them please.
i dont think you can do it.

pan, have you ever studied sociology or race relations in a formal setting?

Why not quote the WHOLE paragraph and not just the little fragment that suits your need?????

read no. 53.
read no. 85.
respond to them please.
i dont think you can do it.