Institutional Racism and Post-Racial America

[jimmy]

According to some, thanks to Obama, the United States is now a "post-racial" society. Or, rather, we've been one for a while, but that belief has finally be validated.

Although individual racism seems to have been largely marginalized, I was moving around the radio dial and came across a guy named Tim Wise, who talks specifically about institutional racism.

Most people think "institutional racism" refers to discrimination within some organization, done deliberately and callously. But it's more subtle than that. It's something that infects the entire culture, even if most people want to deny it.

I read some of his essays which you can find on his site (http://www.timwise.org/). He's not just all talk, either--there are real numbers to back up he says, and pretty disturbing ones, at that.

His thesis these days is that white America desperately wants to believe we're in a post-racial society so that we just don't have to talk about it anymore. This morning, he referred to a study indicating 11% of white Americans think institutional racism is a significant problem today. By contrast, 12% of Americans believe Elvis is still alive.

Institutional racism is one of those more subtle things you've probably heard about, but tune out because it's so ingrained and systemic. Or, more likely you don't even notice because it doesn't affect you. I'm talking about things like where trash dumps and incinerators are located, Superfund sites, brownfield lands--all of these are disproportionately located in minority-populated (especially black) areas. No one would think twice about a white kid driving slowly through a black neighborhood, except maybe to wonder if he's lost. But if you're a black guy cruising through an affluent white neighborhood, it's pretty likely you'll be stopped, and nobody really seems to bat an eye at that.

If you're going to rebut with, "but blacks commit more crimes!", that's what I thought, too. However, multiple (http://www.reason.com/news/show/28138.html) studies (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3078530) indicate racial profiling no more effective at reducing crime than random stops. The only advantage is one of profit: busts on minority drivers tend to produce more and more valuable contraband and civil forfeiture assets (read: nice cars and bling).

But what do you think of all this? Is "post-racial America" a bunch of hokum, or is it institutional racism that's the sham?

[Angel]

It all sounds quite valid to me, actually.

[Jen]

I'm confused as to what the "contraband" assets are. Nice cars and "bling" can't be seized unless they were stolen or illegal, correct? While I don't think black drivers should be pulled over for no reason just to seize assets, if there are illegal assets in their car and they're pulled over for a reason, they should be seized.

Everyone here knows I'm not a fan of stopping people randomly; likewise I don't think a black person should be stopped just for driving through a white neighborhood--after all, that's legal. If nice neighborhoods want protection, the need to become gated and then there's reason to stop people who don't live there.

Are we "post-racial?" Clearly not. I think there are much more important issues facing the U.S. than institutional racism, though. Denying the problem as Obama is clearly doing isn't going to help, though.

[jimmy]

That is actually not correct, Jen. In the US, there are civil asset forfeiture laws. Essentially, any property found to contain illegal drugs--be it a car or a house--can be seized, as well as its contents. In some areas, just having a large amount of cash on you is probable cause for a search, and the money is typically seized and you don't get it back. I think the whole setup is despicable, but unfortunately police departments make a lot of money that way.

[Jen]

But they can only seize it if you have illegal drugs, correct? They're not just taking large amounts of cash away just for the hell of it. If you have illegal drugs and a large amount of cash, I'm guessing it follows that you acquired said cash by selling said drugs?

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for drug dealers losing shit that they paid for by getting people hooked on drugs. Losing their property is a small price to pay compared to what they do to drug users' families.

And maybe if a drug user loses his car, he'll think twice about what he's doing next time.

That being said, being black should not be an acceptable reason to pull someone over, and having a lot of money in cash should not be an acceptable reason to search a house in absence of other information indicating that a person is a drug dealer.

[jimmy]

No, actually, they can just take your money, even if they don't find drugs. The money is enough to bust you on, depending on the jurisdiction. That's how asset forfeiture works: even if you aren't convicted, odds are you will never get your stuff back. The police keep it to cover "costs."

But this sort of thing is applied disproportionately to blacks.

[Jen]

I don't believe for a second that the money is taken without reason. I'd need to see some reliable sources.

[Angel]

But you expect us to believe all the crap you guys spout about corrupt cops with no evidence or sources...

[Jen]

If Jimmy has a personal story to share about how he got a bunch of money seized because he's black, I will believe him.

Antonie Dixon's suicide is a good example of the extremely poor relationship between police and mental health services in New Zealand (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE0902/S00030.htm).

Brenda Moore's death and the subsequent investigations (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/health/news/article.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10535783) show how utterly useless mental health services in the Waikato are.

And if you can look past the media hype, the "guilty until proven innocent" view of the cops can be seen in the Tony Vetich case and the effects allegations of abuse have had on Vetich's life (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4659090a11.html).

I'm hardly alone in what's happened to me, and a LOT of the stuff that happens in the Waikato region never makes the national media because everything's reported in print media or not at all.

[jimmy]

Five seconds in Google: Driving with a lot of money is a crime. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp)

It's bullshit, but it happens.

[Angel]

Nice edit. :rolleyes:

[Jen]

Five seconds in Google: Driving with a lot of money is a crime. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp)

It's bullshit, but it happens.

You're right, that's pretty fucked-up right there. It sounds like "asset forfeiture" really needs to be stopped or more tightly regulated.

I do note that the guy got pulled over not because he was carrying the money but because he was speeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700). So if he'd have followed the traffic laws, he wouldn't have lost his money.

[Jen]

Nice edit. :rolleyes:

I'm not leaving that sort of thing up there in one of the indexed forums, but I'm glad you got to read it.

[Jen]

And, while it wouldn't have been good enough for me if I were on a jury, if you read through the actual court case, there was, in fact, evidence given that the money was from drug sales:

In Lincoln, Trooper Bigsby continued his investigation with the help of another trooper, Sean Caradori, and Trooper Caradori’s police canine, Rico. Rico was deployed to sniff the exterior of the car, and the dog alerted to the rear passenger side of the vehicle. Trooper Caradori testified that he conducted a test of the money that was found within the vehicle by hiding both the currency taken from Gonzolez's car and a separate stack of seven bills borrowed from other troopers in the troopers' break room. Caradori testified that Rico alerted to the defendant currency but not to the money borrowed from the troopers.

His story about wanting to buy a truck for a new business falls apart as well (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700_opinion). Dude was a drug dealer. Clearly he wasn't going to identify his associates so they took his money. Maybe it's not the gold standard of the right thing to do, but if you or I got into this situation and could actually prove why we were carrying that amount of cash around, I'm quite sure the court would have given it back. Also, if it were my money, police dogs wouldn't be barking at it.

[jimmy]

Police can take money they've seized from you and deduct their "costs" from it, even if you're acquitted. Don't believe me? I saw it all the time in Muncie. Hell, the prosecutor was getting paid out of such money, a little kickback he worked out with the judges and police.

I gave you one example. There are others. I am not here to do your research for you. Believe whatever you want, but I know what happens.

[Brad]

oh no i'm not going to be able to stockpile my 100,000 dollars in my boot now.

in nz if you are found with more than 50,000 and you can't prove where you got it it gets confiscated, no trial, no questions.

that website says it has to be more than 124,000 dollars in the states, who carries that sort of cash?

[jimmy]

I've heard of far lower amounts. Remember, states can set their own terms on things like that.

[Brad]

ok but seriously, who carries thousands and thousands of dollars cash around with them? if you are for some absurd reason you shoud easily be able to prove where you got it.

[jimmy]

Do you know how many people buy cars outright with cash? Down payments for houses? Large appliances?

There are plenty of people who carry large sums of cash for a specific purpose. It shouldn't be illegal. I would think you, of all people, would be more sympathetic to people being victimized for no good reason.

[Jen]

Do you know how many people buy cars outright with cash? Down payments for houses? Large appliances?

There are plenty of people who carry large sums of cash for a specific purpose. It shouldn't be illegal. I would think you, of all people, would be more sympathetic to people being victimized for no good reason.

I've paid for a car ($800), a housing deposit ($1500), a New Zealand power bill ($2000) and probably more than a few other things in cash. Yes, I had a huge freaking bankroll in my pocket and in my car between the time I attained the money and the time I spent the money. Set aside the fact that you can get pulled over for no reason in New Zealand. If I were speeding in America, got pulled over, and my bankroll was found, all I would have to say is, "Come with me to the car lot, Officer, where you will find a man named Tad waiting with my new Saab."

Or show them the power bill or the rental papers.

I highly doubt I'd be charged.

The law sounds like it can be abused easily, though, so perhaps a change should be considered. But if the drug dog is going wild while sniffing your bankroll losing it would probably be a good thing.

I'll be honest, I found a few more cases online that involved ridiculous seizure of property--ie a single mom's only transportation was seized as a "getaway car" after she shoplifted some clothes. Offhand, I'd say that this kind of seizure should only happen in drug and terrorism cases.

[Angel]

You do realise that most of your money probably smells like drugs, right? You're not the only person who's ever handled it. All it would take is for a bunch of the money you've recieved to have been through the hands of a drug dealer previously. When I was working in retail, SO MANY notes came through stinking of pot.

[Jen]

I'm not saying to seize money just because it smells of drugs.

Money that smells of drugs, absent of a destination--ie a bank, a car or house purchase, etc--and a guy who's lying his ass off about where he got his rental car--indicate a drug dealer.

[Angel]

Yeah. Indicate.
There's a BIG difference between it LOOKING like someone is a drug dealer and them actually BEING a drug dealer.
Your opinions on this pretty much directly contradict the opinions you stated in the pedo mayor thread about kiddy fiddlers, and evidence vs intent vs action.

[Jen]

I guess I have a lower opinion of scumbag drug dealers who ruin people's families than I do of pedophiles.

I've said a few times in this thread that I don't think seizing the money if they can't find the drugs is the best way to do it. I think the law is flawed, too, but I have a lot more sympathy for a shoplifting mother than I do a drug dealer who won't divulge his associates' names and locations.