<p>We would never have known about the Shah Rukh Khan incident if he had not been a Bollywood megastar. I once stood behind a woman at Heathrow who was being taken aside to be searched. She wailed: “Why am I ALWAYS being picked on?” She had a Middle Eastern appearance and a passport from a Middle Eastern country. She was dressed like a very successful businesswoman. There are countless stories such as hers that the media has no interest in reporting because it does not involve someone famous.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks Henry Louis Gates gained anything from this incident is living in a state greatly altered from the America I know. A great plurality of Americans, especially those who have scarcely suffered a day of discrimination in their lives, now view him as some sort of “race-bating agitator”, undeserving of the civil rights guaranteed him under the constitution. If you think this will somehow translate into him realizing any sort of financial increase, whether it be in book sales, or viewership through future PBS programming (as if there’s ever likely to be any more of those), you are quite frankly delusional. His name has now become mud in the eyes of the majority population, (thanks in no small part to the overall attitude much of this population holds of AfAms), and has now been irrevocably damaged. Sgt. Crowley, on the other hand, despite having violated Gate’s rights, is being seen as some kind of shining example of Law Enforcement integrity and moral rectitude. He has lost nothing whatsoever in the final outcome. </p>
<p>But virtually any black person in America could tell you this is exactly how things would pan out. And if you think this amounts to me “playing the race card”, so be it. I give no more of a rat’s ass about your assessment of me than you do for Skip Gate’s civil rights.</p>
<p>"There are countless stories such as hers that the media has no interest in reporting because it does not involve someone famous. "</p>
<p>That is very true. They have to fill 24 hr of air time so they have to keeping yaking the same story every 30 mins. Then there are blabbering heads. They need a story to blabber about. Then there are syndicated columnists they have to write about something every week to get paid. Then we have CC like forums, we have to keep churning the same point in different words.</p>
<p>Delusional as some of us might be, it does not change the FACT that Gates lost no time to declare I look forward to studying the history of racial profiling in a new documentary for PBS. A fact that had been reported in the early days of this thread. </p>
<p>As far as changes in the *public *opinion about Henry Louis Gates, I seriously doubt that it will change much from what it was a mere month ago. People who know and admire him for his scholarly work will still do. People who consider him to a good friend will still do so. And, lastly, people who seem him a less positive light will still do so. All in all, the repercussions of his arrest will have an incredibly small impact on our world, and despite the great efforts of the parties with vested interest in … publicity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is that really the case or just an another self-serving fib by the resident spinsters? Didn’t the hellish journey from China that followed three glorious days of vacation end in Newark … the day before? And, fwiw, do we know if spending 14 hours in the front cabin of a 777 on the PEK-EWR route is really … hellish? Didn’t Harvard Professor Henry “Skip” Gates, the editor-in-chief of the website called The Root, declare on his own site:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure Henry Louis Gates had yet (and maybe still has yet) to understand how much damage he has suffered from this thing. There will be no PBS documentary on Racial Profiling, hosted by him, I can almost guarantee it. Even Ivory Towered PBS executives have the ability to assess the prevailing winds, and know that most of the mainstream have no interest in hearing anything Skip Gates has to say on the topic. They know that there are countless people who made up their minds about who and what Henry Louis Gates was within hours of the story breaking, and have ever thereafter filtered his every word through the sieve of their own condemnation of him. They know that “black intellectuals” enjoy about as much esteem in the minds of much of this populous as gang bangers or Al Sharpton, and that they “just don’t want to hear it”, unless “it” is anything less than him saying that he had been entirely wrong that day, and shouldn’t have gotten upset about a little thing like the fact that the the officer invited himself into to his house, and then proceeded to refuse to identify himself according to Mass. law when repeatedly asked, or that 1st and 4th amendment rights are entirely overrated. Plus, those long bench seats in the back of patrol cars are surprisingly comfortable:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well crescent, you can either believe Sgt. Crowley or not, but he is on record as having said he believed he was dealing with the homeowner almost as soon as he encountered Gates, and radioed as much to dispatch. It wasn’t long after that, after he’d let himself inside the man’s house, that he was shown ID that confirmed the fact. </p>
<p>Btw, if you believe there should be a Constitutional amendment (a codicil if you will to the 1st Amendment) that would allow for government officials to arrest a citizen for perceived “verbal abuse”, even if that citizen is standing in his own home, perhaps you should start a PAC to get that process started. But, then don’t complain about the other “Nazi tactics” you’re sure are being perpetrated by the current government. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>poetsheart posted:
“They know that there are countless people who made up their minds about who and what Henry Louis Gates was within hours of the story breaking, and have ever thereafter filtered his every word through the sieve of their own condemnation of him.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately for Gates, he was the one who left the door open for that condemnation. He behaved in an arrogant, confrontational manner from the first moment he was approached, and he made a false accusation of racsism when there was no evidence of it. In other words, he destroyed his own credibility with his poor behavior (not to mention putting himself at risk for arrest). I think he would have garnered the support of nearly everyone if he had behaved in a manner befitting his proven intelligence and his esteemed position. </p>
<p>Just like many on this forum expect the U.S. to always take the high road and demonstrate integrity and tolerance even when dealing with terrorists, I think many expect a Harvard-employed professor who is knowledgeable about police profiling to behave with integrity. Making a variety of excuses for his ill-considered behavior really doesn’t help his cause whatsoever. Who here that has said Gates was just tired and frustrated would accept those same excuses for Crowley arresting Gates?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Were you there, purpleflurp? I wasn’t, and therefore I can’t say as I know for a fact that Henry Gates was given “no reason” to suspect he was being singled out for poor treatment because of his race. I didn’t see Officer Crowley’s face, hear his words or tone of voice, nor did I witness his body language. Neither did you. </p>
<p>I don’t believe Crowley’s manner of engaging the professor was motivated by race. Everything I’ve read about him since this whole thing erupted indicates to me that he is not only aware of racial profiling as a legitimate law enforcement phenomenon, but that he also does his best not to count himself among it’s perpetrators. However, as an African American of a certain age, I can also tell you that a lifetime of experiencing countless incidences of naked racism and racially motivated slights often causes one to be on the alert for them, even when none is intended or forthcoming. It’s a pity, I know—also emotionally exhausting and in no small way demoralizing. But, it is what it is, and it is not entirely without justification. </p>
<p>Sgt. Crowley might not have been having the best day when he responded to the call by Gate’s neighbor. For all we know, he might not have been in the best of moods at the time, and that could have translated into him being stone-faced and business-like in his approach when Gates believed that he, as the obvious homeowner, should have been approached with courtesy and concern. It doesn’t take long for misread signals to escalate into a full blown confrontation. If Henry Gates felt from the beginning that he was being treated “like a suspect”, he probably experienced that old atavistic feeling familiar to most blacks who came of age during the civil rights era—that of being unfairly judged based on his skin color. And from everything I’ve read of Skip Gate’s history, he is very experienced indeed with being racially discriminated against, both in his profession, and in the context of his domicile and other material possessions. In retrospect, it’s obvious that he overreacted when Crowley initially showed up at his door. But, It’s also pretty clear that Sgt. Crowley did nothing to dispell this impression when he entered the man’s home uninvited. This action, I believe, further indicated to Henry Gates, that he was being disrespected, and treated like a suspect in his own home. After he produced two forms of identification, confirming the officer’s supposed initial belief that he was dealing with the rightful resident, the professor believed that he too, was entitled to a show of identification. He knew that by law, he was entitled to both the officer’s full name and badge number upon request, and request it he apparently did—over and over. When it became obvious that Sgt. Crowley had no intention of relinquishing that information, the professor became more and more convinced in his belief that this seeming disrespect was predicated upon the fact that he was a black man. Sgt Crowley took the fact that Prof. Gates stated outright that he believed this was the case as both a personal insult, and a challenge, a challenge he felt determined to win. He was already hacked off over the fact that the Professor had refused to step outside when asked. Now, this irate man was demanding his name and badge number. How dare he?! </p>
<p>By this time, both men were pretty worked up, pretty angry. But only one of them had a gun and handcuffs. And only one of them had, by this time, a lawn full of colleagues to back him up. When Skip Gates looked out his front door and saw a sea of uniforms, he was completely stunned. How had this happened? He was a homeowner being treated as if he was holding hostages under siege. So when he stepped outside his front door, it was to explain to this phalanx of law enforcement that all he wanted was the name and badge number of their fellow officer. But then he was even more shocked to find himself being handcuffed with what amounted to the implication that he should have “done what he was told in the first place”. Nothing that had occurred to this point indicated to him that this outrageous treatment was predicated upon anything other than that which he had suspected all along, his race. After all, he had proven that he was no burglary suspect, and that he had every right to be inside the home in question. So why was he being hauled away in handcuffs? Why, other than the fact that he was a black male, and this kind of thing happened to black males everyday. So yes, he stated rather loudly and repeatedly that he felt he was being racially profiled. He did not see his behavior as meeting the standard for arrest, yet here he was, stuck in a police station and charged with attempting to “incite riot”—all because the police “didn’t like his attitude”. Well, since when had the police ever “liked the attitude” of what they saw to be an uppity &*)(&?</p>
<p>poetsheart:</p>
<p>You stated that I wasn’t there and that therefore, my statement that Gates acted in an arrogant and confrontational manner is not supported. I would say the same about the account you gave above. You weren’t there, so you have no idea how Gates behaved from the outset, nor how Crowley responded. Why would your account be any more accurate than anyone else’s? In fact, you are less objective than most because of your deep emotional investment in this situation.</p>
<p>I can say this though: With Crowley’s record of excellent service, he was most likely not the one who ignited the situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PH, I believe that someone can be (highly) critical of Gates behavior in this incident and still have a lot of interest in what he has to say, especially in academic circles. This is why I have decried the actions of the people who have been so vocal in their attempts to MAKE this is an issue it NEVER was, namely a case of racial profiling and open racism. </p>
<p>This case should have never been more than a small line in the local rag in Boston. For it to be elevated to national news, you can thank all the lunatics who carried it that far, without forgetting the absolute “stupid” initial comments by our President. </p>
<p>As fas as losses, Gates lost something he never had, and that this a case, a story, a situation worthy of being an example for the common man who suffers from the ills of racism and discrimination. He TRIED, with the help of his typical acolytes and others, to hoist himself on a “mainstream” pedestal to scream about his ordeal. That THIS case won’t be the stimulus to a documentary is simply a GOOD thing. A very good thing indeed. Let’s have am objective documentary about real cases, as there are plenty of them from Boston to San Diego. </p>
<p>For the fact that this might have backfired, he can only blame himself, and all the people who were so willing to spin this case ad nauseam, including several on this forum who cannot let go of their racially-based agenda.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you likening the status and authority of “a Harvard professor” and an government authorized officer of the law, to that of The United States Government over suspected terrorists? Really? I would think that that analogy might be somewhat ass backward.</p>
<p>Purple, could you please explain something to me? Why it was incumbent upon the private citizen to “take the high road” in this circumstance, but not the official with the gun, badge, and power of government behind him? Who inherently possessed the power in this equation? Who was supposed to be the “trained professional”? In my view, it is incumbent upon all those representing government not to abuse the muscle intrinsic to governmental authority. Indeed, all our founding documents are written with the express intent to shield private citizens from potential governmental abuse. Why is this so apparently clear to people who wax The Hyperbolic Patriot over the proposed changes to health care, but not when it comes to abridgment of a private citizen’s right to free speech in his own home, or his right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure? Again, I have yet to hear from anyone why their conviction that Gates demonstrated an “arrogant attitude” is seen as a valid excuse for law enforcement to run rough-shod over his civil rights. Why is Gate’s attitude the greater offense? I’m still waiting for all the “real Americans” to explain to me why the document that they hold so dear is apparently meaningless when applied to Henry Louis Gates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess I’m not quite understanding the point you’re trying to make in that statement. Are you saying that Gates, due to his assumed “knowledge of racial profiling” is somehow more constrained to “act with integrity” (whatever that means) than the police officer who is also apparently very knowledgeable of the same phenomenon? Again, is Gate’s supposed failure to act in your view, “with integrity” a valid “excuse” to arrest him?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I reject the charge that I have “made excuses for his ill-considered behavior”, but rather that I have given a possible explanation for why he felt he was being mistreated based on his race. Apparently more than a few here hold the conviction no one has reason to bring their personal history to inform their perceptions or reactions to life events—or that, at the very least, black people should self-impose a form of virtual historical amnesia to situations involving the police. Whatever…</p>
<p>As far as extending “the tired and frustrated excuse”—an excuse I personally never put forth—I reject the idea that a police officer should ever be given such a pass when it comes to his ability to literally negate an individual’s Constitutional Rights. Again I ask, who had the gun and the badge? Who had the authority of government?</p>
<p>So tell me straight up. Do you believe Sgt. Crowley bears no responsibility for what happened that day? Do you believe he was right to arrest Henry Gates? If so, why? If it was because “he showed a lack of integrity”, “mouthed off at the police”, “made accusations of racism”, etc., please show me where our Bill of Rights makes allowances for government to override that document’s authority due to such behavior by a private citizen in his own home.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can explain it, though most here will be offended and never admit it. Here it is: The reason the Constitution is meaningless when applied to Gates is because the Constitution is a essentially a sham, and always has been, especially where black folks are concerned. That is the truth in a nutshell.</p>
<p>Real Americans do not and cannot care about Gates’s rights because Gates is a black guy, an “uppity” black guy at that. It just feels soooo doggone goooood to them when they see an uppity black guy in cuffs-- to see him ‘get what he deserves’. In fact, it feels so amazingly good to them that the mere idea of becoming incensed about the infringement of the man’s Constitutional rights never even so much as occurs to them. Oh sure, a few Real Americans may on second thought admit that Gates’s rights may have been infringed, but you can be very sure that in every case that admission will be followed by the word “but,” or some substitute for it, then to reveal just how much a sham the Constitution really is.</p>
<p>A black man in hand-cuffs is the Real American’s cocaine. As soon as they see him, [ghetto]they be like, ‘Yo, Dude, Consti- what?’[/ghetto]</p>
<p>lol (oh dear - enjoyment)</p>
<p>Drosselmeier:</p>
<p>You may want to stop the lunatic rantings now, before you lose the support of the last few who may still have a shred of respect for your opinion. To the rest of us, you lost any credibility you may have had long, long ago, especially with tripe like the following:</p>
<p>“A black man in hand-cuffs is the Real American’s cocaine. As soon as they see him, [ghetto]they be like, ‘Yo, Dude-- Consti- what?’[/ghetto]”</p>
<p>I think even your most ardent supporters can see what you’re all about now, thank goodness.</p>
<p>poet you are not making sense anymore.</p>
<p>Fine purpleflurp, and I mean this sincerely. That you have responded to my posts on numerous occasions (and with comments that I deemed so ridiculous I literally felt no need to address them) tells me with certainty that I have reached at least one instance of the sort of people I have in mind.</p>
<p>Well purple, I’m still waiting to hear your answers to my questions. Of course, I know it’s well within your rights (backed up by the Constitution and everything other thing patriotic and holy) to do what virtually every other poster here has done in response to the issues I raised—which is namely to ignore them, but I’m hoping you’ll show some intellectual *integrity<a href=“being%20as%20that%20trait%20is%20so%20important%20to%20you”>/i</a>, and buck the trend.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>And simba, if I’m not “making any sense anymore”, why don’t you “make some” and actually say something of substance—Ie., not another snarky, and condescendingly dismissive comment.</p>
<p>This was Drosselmeir’s another gem</p>
<p>“Black kids are being throttled every single day by the worlds ambient opinion of black people. Black kids need something, right now, to support them through the curse that America has unleashed upon the earth.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed I wasn’t there, purple, and stated as much in the every beginning of the post in question. I was merely submitting an alternative way of speculating on how and why things may have panned out the way they did. That you somehow took this as proof that I was asserting that “my account” was “more accurate than anyone else’s” shows just how carelessly and dismissively you read my post.</p>
<p>As far as my being “less objective than most” because of my “deep emotional investment in this situation”, good job with the patronizing dismal of my point of view. Bravo with the wholesale invalidation of the experiences of AfAms in this country. Of course, it’s not possible that you yourself might have any emotions invested in this topic. Nope. Mr./Ms Objective Integrity all the way…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>“And simba, if I’m not “making any sense anymore”, why don’t you “make some” and actually say something of substance—”</p>
<p>You can’t handle stuff with substance.</p>