Henry Louis Gates, President Obama and the Race issue

So would you say Gates has a chip on his shoulder?

That would be my guess.
I would also say the supreme leader acted stupidly.

Except for the forgiveness for 'wading in', I agree with Bahu.

'I agree with Bahu' - damn it's getting cold down here.

Let's face it accusing someone of "racism" is an effective deterrent, or device to get ones way. It worked quite well last election. I don't disagree that racism exists. I find it's use very similar to someone crying "rape". A very serious accusation, and unfortunately little consequence for it's improper use (such as the Lacrosse team incident a few years back). This makes it all much more difficult when an actual case arises.

BTW if I were the police officer involved I would have told the president, "I'll make you a deal, if you stop publicly referring to police cases without facts as "stupidly", I'll publicly stop referring to recent proposed "Stimulus and National Health Care plans" as "stupidly" ill conceived. That would have garnered some press.

He did indentify himself and showed ID that proved he lived in the house.

The matter didn't end there.  He was arrested anyway.

He has said that his neighbour did the right thing in phoning the police.

I would think it is common procedure to have the person step outside, even if their identity is proven. A bugler could easily hold a gun on the person at the door, insuring they say the "right" thing to the police. How would the dept. look if they responded then this professor was found dead a few hours later? That wasn't the case, but it could have been. Remember the cops that returned the victim back to Jeffery Dolmer custody? Personally, I'd be grateful that the cop was thorough in investigating the call, but then again I thank clerks that ask for an ID when I use a credit card.

Ye gods, Bahu and I are on the same page here.

Yes, he was arrested; for disorderly conduct. He came out into the street, where he continued his tirade, ranting and raving for no apparent reason other than to do it, and in turn he made an ass of himself.

By doing so, however, he's set himself up as something of a martyr;  "leaders" of the "black community" like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and "Calypso Louie" Farrakhan will hold this up for years to come, as just one more example of how racist a nation this really, truly is.

It's "intellectual" blacks like these, who insist upon continuing to stir the racism pot; who won't let the issue die. Like accusations of sexual harrasment or gender discrimination are to rabid feminists, it's too valuable a tool for extortion, manipulation and "deterrance" (as Nitro pointed out), for them simply let it go, and they know it.

Barry the Kenyan Socialist knows how effective a crowbar crying "race!" can be. I agree with Quinn and Rose (morning talk radio show hosts); he threw in and did what he could do to keep the pot stirred by planting a questioner in the seats. Why else would a reporter ask such a question at a press conference on health care?

I would not say it is "chip on the shoulder". I feel that Professor Gates had "profiled" the police officer and acted in a manner that tells me that he would not have acted in the same manner had the police officer been Afro-American.

Racism does exist, but as I said every encounter that is abrasive between diffewrent "races" cannot be viewed through the lens of racism.

Though Professor Gates probaby acted out of frustration and fatigue, the fact remains that he is an outstanding schoalar and teacher. And the Officer Crowley, by all accounts is a highly rated professional.

Given that Professor Gates' field is "African American Studies" I would qualify the "outstanding". African American Studies, if they are at all useful, must teach us that we should not judge based on skin colour. The professor showed by his actions that he himself has failed to grasp what he is allegedly teaching.

Here he appears to be as outstanding a scholar as an astronomist who fails to grasp the difference between astrology and science.

I am very disappointed by the "professor". I hope he was a better example for his profession in the past and will regain such past glory in the future.

I don't deny that racism exists; that's a given. I would, however, wonder if it still exists to the degree which Gates and the other, more prominent race baiters and hustlers I mentioned above insist that it does, and without their gracious assistance in keeping the fire stoked. How many blacks in this nation in, say, the last 20-25 years, have encountered blatant, real, undeniable racism? Probably not as many as one might think, and they probably wouldn't know how to react if they did.

Some time ago, there was new hire where I work; she was teamed for training with a black woman named Mary, who'd been there several years. They worked together for a few hours; the new hire was kind of cool and unreceptive. When Mary asked if everything was all right, the woman replied, nice and calm as you please, "I'm sorry, but I just don't like niggers."

Mary was dumbfounded; she burst into tears and ran into the boss's office. The woman was re-teamed, and encouraged not to show up the next day.

That's a true story, and that's racism; I wonder how many blacks get hit like that? One thing though, you have to admire the woman's courage of conviction.

"African American Studies", along with "Gay and Lesbian Studies", "Feminist Studies", whatever, is a misnomer, and one of those things universities offer to seem 'with it'. It's simply regurgitation of propaganda, and the kind of race baiting theories they'd sue for if it were directed another way. I wonder how many whites they have teaching in the dept.?

I wonder what kind of support a college would get if it offered "White Culture" classes.

Why are there African Americans but no African Jamaicans, African Cubans, African Haitians, etc? All these nations Black populations are derived from former slaves. I suppose they have come to grips with their past and reconciled with it. Yet, in the US it just can't seem to happen, despite the higher standard of living on average compared to the black population living on these islands. Or is it there is just not enough whites living there to blame their troubles on?

It would attract the same type of bigots, only white ones.

I think the solution is not to teach anything that claims that culture has anything to do with skin colour.

They can certainly teach about slavery and the culture that developed among slaves. It's a very interesting subject. But why connect it with skin colour? While there were no white slaves (in America), there were black slave owners. Those blacks where part of the so-called "white culture". I wonder if their descendants would be eligible to compensation by "whites"?

Who cares about those countries?

Haiti had it worst. If anybody deserves special privileges because of what was done to their ancestors by people long dead, it's the Haitians. But I wonder if their history is even taught prominently anywhere.

I would think those that live there care.

I do not know where to begin. First, I must say that prejudice based on the color of the skin is not conviction. I may not have found an open display of hostility in the workplace acceptable, but I know that it exists.

Try reading Professor Gates work, I am sure you will change your mind. I however maintain that he overreacted to Serajent Crowley and President Obama's beer diplomacy has virtually settled the spat.

In a multi cultural nation like USA, identity based curriculum cannot be avoided. Like you I tooam sceptical of post modernist, post colonialist gibberish that parades as literary theory.

I simply meant that she wasn't afraid to stand by what she believed, however wrong she may have been to the rest of us. That is an admirable quality, and a often rare one in the modern world.

So every time a black man is offended in some little way by a white man, they're going to get an invite to the White House for a beer and chat with the Prez? I wonder, if this were Bush doing this, would you be so approving? I'd kind of rather Obama stick to ruining (oops--sorry..that should have been "running"...I think) the country and keep out of race relations.

I disagree.  By planting the press con question (his response clearly indicates it was prepared, not just 'off the cuff' like the Joe the Plumber conversation), he made an overt error in judgement.  I'd expect such comments from Al Sharpton or Jeremiah Wright, but not POTUS.  The graciousness of Crowley & Gates allowed him to whitewash it a little, but that hardly 'settles' the issue.

aRE YOU NOT BEING TOO HArsh? aFTERALL, the matter is hardly worth the attention it has received and Obama kinda made up for the "stupid" remerk and moved on.

As for error in judgement, I would say that the choice of words was wrong and thats all.

I agree with you that his careful choice of words, to the point of enumerating them, was wrong.  But I don't believe I'm being too harsh at all - he wanted the question, said what he meant and meant what he said.  That's a calculated error in judgment, not simply a 'poor choice of words' (which has become the standard dodge for all politicians in recent years).

"I don't deny that racism exists; that's a given. I would, however, wonder if it still exists to the degree which Gates and the other, more prominent race baiters and hustlers I mentioned above insist that it does, and without their gracious assistance in keeping the fire stoked. How many blacks in this nation in, say, the last 20-25 years, have encountered blatant, real, undeniable racism? Probably not as many as one might think, and they probably wouldn't know how to react if they did."

I remember Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days program in which he got a redneck with strong anti-Islamic views to spend 30 days dressed as a Muslim. One of the first things this man commented on was how incredibly differently he was treated, down to the most subtle things like constantly being stared at.

Then there are incidents that could be racially motivated, but might not be. There is a tendency for black people to be overdefensive about things and blame things on racism. But equally, there is a strong tendency for the JU Right to pretend that just because nobody said anything about race, that there wasn't a racial motivation. In some cases, they mayb be right. But it is naive to think it doesn't happen. The overreaction of black people stems from the fact that they know they deal with these sorts of incident a lot more often than most of the rest of us. Funny coincidence huh.

There are also little things that aren't particularly negative, but which show something's still not quite right in people's minds. A friend of mine likes to laugh at the story of how often he has the following conversation (he is black, and we live in Australia to give you context):

"Where are you from?"

My friend: "Australia"

"Yeah, but where are you really from?"

No one ever asks me the same question. It's not a particularly negative experience for him, but it just shows the way people still don't quite accept the idea of him being as Australian as me.

Maybe if people like yourselves weren't so quick to pretend there is no more racism at all, black people wouldn't be so keen to claim it all the time.

Oh, yes, that's a huge problem...

We have many Muslim immigrants in Europe. And pretty much all of them are obvious Muslims. If any of them try to hide it, they do it well. But those that don't hide it don't seem to be too afraid of being known Muslims.

I find such experiments very interesting.

My favourite combination is of course about sending pro-Israel and anti-Israel activists into battle. The Zionist should dress up as an Arab (or Arab nationalist) and walk through Tel Aviv and the anti-Zionist should dress up as a Jew (or Zionist) and walk through Cairo. Then both can experience how the two sides treat each other. I often offer myself as a candidate but could never find an anti-Zionist who was willing to put his opinions about who hates whom to the test.

Peace is what you have when both sides merely stare at each other.

Quite the opposite here in many cases. Lot's of black folks will tell you they are from Africa, yet they (or nobody in their family going back 4 or 5 generations) have ever even visited Africa.

On the team I work with, I'm the only white guy (and only conservative to boot), yet we all get along like brothers, which is great since our work takes us around the world. Three weeks ago, my co-workers and I were talking about a recent National Geographic show about everyone coming from Africa. I joked about my "African" heritage, and we all had a laugh.

Now last week, while waiting on some access issued to be resolve, my co-workers and I were waiting with the receptionist, a nice 40ish black woman. She was asking a bit about each of us, were we were from and all. When she got to me and looked at my last name, she asked were I was from. I told her Africa. Her eye's grew big as saucers and my co-workers were practically rolling on the floor laughing. One of them told her about the NG show and she finally got a chuckle too.

My point is I don't care where you think you're from, when I ask the question, I mean where were you born, because I know we are all "from" Africa. I gage folks on how they treat me and others around them. IMO race relations have advanced so far that some people just can't believe it isn't nearly the issue it was even 20 years ago.