Seattle Times banning the word "Redskins"

[RiverDog]

Yeah, that’s too bad about the story behind the funding of the statue...they couldn’t have chosen a more notorious representative of their heritage, but in their defense, a lot of the things we know now about him didn’t really come to light until the 21st century. You’re right that the back story didn’t matter much, though. You can call it an orgy, and minimize Columbus as ‘not a very nice guy’, but I don’t view him as acting on par with the times. He was a major figure and influence of the times he lived in, so I don’t quite see him as merely a participant.

I wasn't trying to minimize Columbus and probably shouldn't have qualified his behavior even though what I said is completely accurate. He did live in what we would call a very barbaric, uncivilized society. But his bio wasn't really relevant to the point I was making.

I consider any act of vandalism an 'orgy' of destructive behavior. As anyone that's ever TP'ed a house could tell you, the participants experience a pleasurable surge of adrenaline, ie an "orgy". Defacing or destroying property, public or otherwise, should never be considered an acceptable form of protest, and this incident in Walla Walla is a good example of one of the reasons why as the vandals were likely unaware of the history behind the statute. Even absent the thrill seeking aspect, vandals are foisting their opinion on the rest of the public by forcing the removal or altering of something that is in their opinion not appropriate.

You're right about the people that chose Columbus as their icon, born and educated in the 19th century, were almost certainly naive to his exploits. I'm sure that the officials that accepted the gift were equally naive as well. Heck, I was born in the middle of the 20th century and was never taught the full story behind Columbus.

I sympathize with the decision county officials have to make, a decision that has been compounded by the vandalism: Do you use taxpayer funds to have it restored? Do you try to contact the descendants of those that erected it? Do you hold a referendum, perhaps reconfigure the statue to represent Galileo?

[RiverDog]

Hmm. Does the intent behind the donation usurp the atrocities Columbus is accused of? They could pick someone with a better background than Columbus. It's real hard to overlook his mistreatment of the natives.

As I noted, it's a near certainty that the people that paid to have the statute erected were unaware of Columbus's full biography, and I agree, it is difficult to rationalize Columbus's behavior even when you consider the times he lived in.

One of the problems is finding a credible authority to represent the people that paid to erect the statute. Living decedents are at least 3 generations displaced, so is their opinion anymore relevant than the commissioners themselves? Can you make a determination just by a last name if a person is of Italian heritage? Is there a group recognized as being the representatives of Italian American issues that can be consulted?

In a county that has a hard time coming up with money to repair the roads, it would be difficult to do anything with the statute by using taxpayer funds. It would be nice if a grass roots movement emerged to raise private money to alter the statute to represent a less controversial Italian like Galileo. Rather than expending so much time and energy complaining and protesting, perhaps those vandals should go on a money raising gig to have the statue altered.

[I-5]

Seems like you're beating a dead horse with the Columbus statue. With what we know now, I wouldn't assume his descendants living today would want to see it restored...it would probably suffer again from public humiliation, and their values may not align at this point. He was a terrible human in world history, doing much more evil than his role required of him.

By this definition, the Boston Tea Party was an orgy. That helped give birth to a new nation, so we can deduce that the term orgy isn't a judgement; it's just a decription. Correct?

[RiverDog]

Seems like you're beating a dead horse with the Columbus statue. With what we know now, I wouldn't assume his descendants living today would want to see it restored...it would probably suffer again from public humiliation, and their values may not align at this point. He was a terrible human in world history, doing much more evil than his role required of him.

Where was it that I assumed that their decedents would want it restored? I said that county officials have a tough decision to make, which included restoration. The descendants might want it completely removed with no replacement at all, restored with added security, replaced or modified to represent a different Italian. Except for the comment about the times he lived in, I did not defend or qualify any of Columbus's behavior, to the contrary, I've already stated that a less controversial Italian may be in order and suggested they reconfigure the statute (if that's possible) to represent Galileo. IMO it would be unacceptable to simply removed it with no effort to replace it with something in the spirit of those that were responsible for erecting it.

By this definition, the Boston Tea Party was an orgy. That helped give birth to a new nation, so we can deduce that the term orgy isn't a judgement; it's just a decription. Correct?

Not a good analogy. The Boston Tea Party was not an act of vandalism. As a matter of fact, the colonists reportedly cleaned the decks after they were done tossing the tea overboard. They were not defacing a permanent, century old symbol with no other purpose other than to cause its removal. They were destroying consumable goods that the British government stood to benefit from a tax on the sale of that the colonists felt was unfair.

But in reference to the term 'orgy', yes, I think that it's safe to assume that the participants in the Boston Tea Party experienced a rush of adrenaline similar to the one that vandals often experience. But I doubt that the colonists were motivated by the thrill seeking aspect as I would expect was present in the vandalism in Walla Walla, or as an extension, much of the violence (separate from the peaceful protests) that has wracked the nation since the Floyd murder.

[I-5]

But I doubt that the colonists were motivated by the thrill seeking aspect as I would expect was present in the vandalism in Walla Walla

How would you know, or why would you think it’s different?

Who decides what is a good analogy?

[RiverDog]

But I doubt that the colonists were motivated by the thrill seeking aspect as I would expect was present in the vandalism in Walla Walla

How would you know, or why would you think it’s different?

Since they cleaned the decks after they were done tossing the tea overboard, I'm pretty sure that the colonists weren't motivated simply by destruction of property and that their primary motivation was the tea tax. Since 30% of the adults in this country can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map, I'd bet a hefty sum that the bozos that vandalized the statute didn't know the difference between Columbus and Columbia.

Who decides what is a good analogy?

I do. It's my opinion.

[I-5]

Since they cleaned the decks after they were done tossing the tea overboard, I'm pretty sure that the colonists weren't motivated simply by destruction of property and that their primary motivation was the tea tax. Since 30% of the adults in this country can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map, I'd bet a hefty sum that the bozos that vandalized the statute didn't know the difference between Columbus and Columbia.

They also wore mohawks and native american costumes, which I imagine were accompanied with at least a few faux war chants. I think it's a good analogy (my opinion), because I think both movements have value and are principled. I know there has been looting and other nonsense, but most of the footage I've watched with my eyes showed more whites than anything doing a lot of the damage. This feels a lot different than Rodney King to me. The Boston Massacre was another event that involved what the british establishment would call 'unruly' and 'hooligans' and led to deaths at the hands of soldiers, but because it led to the birth of a new idea/nation, those deaths are now considered sacred. History provides perspective.

[RiverDog]

They also wore mohawks and native american costumes, which I imagine were accompanied with at least a few faux war chants. I think it's a good analogy (my opinion), because I think both movements have value and are principled. I know there has been looting and other nonsense, but most of the footage I've watched with my eyes showed more whites than anything doing a lot of the damage. This feels a lot different than Rodney King to me. The Boston Massacre was another event that involved what the british establishment would call 'unruly' and 'hooligans' and led to deaths at the hands of soldiers, but because it led to the birth of a new idea/nation, those deaths are now considered sacred. History provides perspective.

Unless you're advocating the overthrow of our government, colonial America is not a good analogy to the crisis we find ourselves in today. I disagree with your associating vandalism and other acts of violence with the BLM movement. As a matter of fact, there are many within the movement that are going to great lengths to separate their cause, which is largely peaceful, from the common criminals that are taking advantage of the current atmosphere.

But you're right about one thing: This is different than the Rodney King demonstrations. One of the major difference is the pandemic, the shutdowns, the high unemployment levels. Plus white America has changed, in a good way IMO, to where they are more sympathetic to the movement than they ever were in the past. I do think that there will be some tangible changes made this time around.

The problem they have now is losing focus and going too far to where ANY police involved shooting is assumed to be unjustified or that ALL white Americans are complicit in white supremacy. They risk a backlash that could undo all the good their movement has achieved.

[I-5]

I wasn’t associating vandalism with BLM. I was doing the opposite. I agree with you that most blacks have made a point of protesting with non-violence.

And yes, I do think it is about overthrowing a system built inherently on racist principles at the core. It doesn’t necessarily mean a new country or government, but something much more substantial than ‘police reform’, which has proved itself useless over time.

[Aseahawkfan]

I wasn’t associating vandalism with BLM. I was doing the opposite. I agree with you that most blacks have made a point of protesting with non-violence.

And yes, I do think it is about overthrowing a system built inherently on racist principles at the core. It doesn’t necessarily mean a new country or government, but something much more substantial than ‘police reform’, which has proved itself useless over time.

I wouldn't say built on so much as infused with. Much of what was built was legalistic and bureaucratic in nature, the common way you build institutions, but it was infused with racist rubbish due to the years of that philosophy being taught. I hope they are able to get rid of the poison of racism that runs through everything it has touched. That poisonous philosophy needs to die and be drawn from everything it has infused. It was not created by The Founder's of America, but it was continued by them unfortunately. It's been a poisonous form of thought for far too long. I hope this pushes it ever closer to the death it so richly deserves.

[RiverDog]

I wasn’t associating vandalism with BLM. I was doing the opposite.

So in your opinion, if not motivated by the BLM movement, what was it that drove the vandals to take action and deface the statue?

I agree with you that most blacks have made a point of protesting with non-violence.

There's also a huge number of whites, Hispanics, etc, that have participated in both the non violent as well as the violent demonstrations.

And yes, I do think it is about overthrowing a system built inherently on racist principles at the core. It doesn’t necessarily mean a new country or government, but something much more substantial than ‘police reform’, which has proved itself useless over time.

I'm not sure how you overthrow a system without overthrowing the government that supports it. Unless you come up with an entirely different constitution and form of government, there will be no sustainable changes that would satisfy your desire for something more than 'police reform.'

[RiverDog]

I wouldn't say built on so much as infused with. Much of what was built was legalistic and bureaucratic in nature, the common way you build institutions, but it was infused with racist rubbish due to the years of that philosophy being taught. I hope they are able to get rid of the poison of racism that runs through everything it has touched. That poisonous philosophy needs to die and be drawn from everything it has infused. It was not created by The Founder's of America, but it was continued by them unfortunately. It's been a poisonous form of thought for far too long. I hope this pushes it ever closer to the death it so richly deserves.

That seems to be a little more pragmatic point of view.

The words in the Declaration of Independence and the preamble of the Constitution are fine, and although we can make technical objections to the Articles and Amendments, there's nothing inherently racist in the words written into them, either. In theory, there's nothing wrong with the system as far as it's laid out.

The problem comes in the application and interpretation of those words. The reason why the founding fathers could get around the "all men are created equal" statement of purpose yet maintain a system of slavery is that they did not consider black Africans to be men. Then you have things like Executive Orders, such as Roosevelt's EO to remove Japanese Americans from their homes and imprison them for several years, confiscate their property, without a trial or even an accusation.

[RiverDog]

Back to the OP.

It looks almost official that the team will "retire" the Redskins moniker:

Washington won’t be the “Redskins” after Monday, according to multiple reports, as the NFL team associated with the nation’s capital will bow to mounting public pressure including from its biggest sponsors and drop the name.

Sports Business Journal first reported the Monday announcement plans, which were later confirmed by the Washington Post, WSJ and USA Today among others. SBJ and the Post both reported a new name wouldn’t be unveiled Monday because the team’s preferred replacement is involved in a trademark fight.

https://time.com/5866143/washington-red ... me-change/

That tells me that the preferred name is the "Warriors" as my guess is that the trademark fight is with the Golden State Warriors of the NBA.

If, indeed, the new name is the Warriors, it's a curious choice as it doesn't seem to completely put to rest the nickname controversy. In 1994, Marquette University did away with their Warriors mascot as it was deemed offensive to Native Americans. So why would Snyder and Co. essentially change the name from Redskins to Redskins Lite? Are they taunting their critics?

[NorthHawk]

The name Warrior is fine, but the difficulty would be if it was associated with any identifiable group or used as a slur against them via a mascot.
I don't see any dishonor in being called a 'Warrior'.
Whether or not Warrior is copyrighted or not is another hurdle to cross.

[RiverDog]

The name Warrior is fine, but the difficulty would be if it was associated with any identifiable group or used as a slur against them via a mascot. I don't see any dishonor in being called a 'Warrior'. Whether or not Warrior is copyrighted or not is another hurdle to cross.

I don't, either, but obviously some do or else Marquette wouldn't have ditched the name. There's an argument to be made that associating Native Americans to a violent, war-like symbol is not representative of their culture and heritage.

If, according to surveys, the overwhelming majority of Native Americans didn't feel that Redskins was offensive yet it caused this tsunami of criticism, it wouldn't take very many to get their briefs in a wad about the term Warriors to cause a stir. It's an odd choice as you would think that they'd want to get completely away from any controversy.

[c_hawkbob]

The name Warrior is fine, but the difficulty would be if it was associated with any identifiable group or used as a slur against them via a mascot. I don't see any dishonor in being called a 'Warrior'. Whether or not Warrior is copyrighted or not is another hurdle to cross.

I don't, either, but obviously some do or else Marquette wouldn't have ditched the name. There's an argument to be made that associating Native Americans to a violent, war-like symbol is not representative of their culture and heritage.

If, according to surveys, the overwhelming majority of Native Americans didn't feel that Redskins was offensive, it wouldn't take very many to feel the same way about Warriors to cause a stir. It's an odd choice as you would think that they'd want to get completely away from any controversy.

while I have always and continue to disagree with your assertion that an "overwhelming majority of Native Americans didn't feel that Redskins was offensive", I too see nothing wrong with Warriors, Chiefs, Utes, Seminoles or Indians etc. as long as the associated imagery and mascots are not offensive or promulgating a ridiculous stereotype.

Redskins though was bad and needed to go a long time ago.

[RiverDog]

while I have always and continue to disagree with your assertion that an "overwhelming majority of Native Americans didn't feel that Redskins was offensive", I too see nothing wrong with Warriors, Chiefs, Utes, Seminoles or Indians etc. as long as the associated imagery and mascots are not offensive or promulgating a ridiculous stereotype.

Redskins though was bad and needed to go a long time ago.

It's an opinion supported by the results of multiple surveys, and unless there's been some more recent samplings taken, I have yet to see one that supports your opinion. But I'm all ears if you have information to the contrary.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Multiple surveys have shown a majority polled are not offended by the name. Dig into it a bit, and the controversy comes from issues with the sample size, the sample source, and not asking the question: “Do you think the name should be changed.” The latest poll by the Washington Post looked a like a pretty good effort but NA opponents to the name didn’t like the amount of reservation NAs polled and that they relied on self-identification. I would imagine no self respecting person would claim to be Native American [Edit] when the are not [Edit], but it opens the possibility of misrepresentation. NAs on reservations aren’t as exposed to the public so their indifference could be due to not being exposed regularly to the term Redskins and it’s depictions. This may not be enough to invalidate support for the polling results, but I can understand why the NAs firmly against the name would not like it. I think therein lies the real question: How many persons is required to remove something likely this? 20%? 30%?

Posted this because I was curious how it went down. Despite the results of these polls, there’s enough vocal support against the name Redskins now, and that same amount of support could influence the use of the word Warrior. That’s what I got from you, River. I don’t see anything wrong with Warrior or specific tribe names. Depictions should also be tactful.

[I-5]

I'm not sure how you overthrow a system without overthrowing the government that supports it. Unless you come up with an entirely different constitution and form of government, there will be no sustainable changes that would satisfy your desire for something more than 'police reform.'

I think by cities reconsiderering the function and budgets of their police departments, like Seattle’s, I think that’s a pretty good example of changing a system without overthrowing the government. These changes have a chance to be long-lasting.

I fully agree with your statement that whites, hispanics, asians, and other non-blacks have played a huge part. In fact, without them, this us movement would not have had the same effect. After all, BLM has been around for years, but it took the George Floyd video to finally anger enough of the public, even though it’s been happening for decades.

[I-5]

I wouldn't say built on so much as infused with. Much of what was built was legalistic and bureaucratic in nature, the common way you build institutions, but it was infused with racist rubbish due to the years of that philosophy being taught. I hope they are able to get rid of the poison of racism that runs through everything it has touched. That poisonous philosophy needs to die and be drawn from everything it has infused. It was not created by The Founder's of America, but it was continued by them unfortunately. It's been a poisonous form of thought for far too long. I hope this pushes it ever closer to the death it so richly deserves.

Well said.

[c_hawkbob]

I would imagine no self respecting person would claim to be Native American, but it opens the possibility of misrepresentation.

Did you mean to say that no self respecting person that were NOT Native American would claim to be so? Because I'm not sure how to read this ... I have plenty of self respect and I have no problem telling folks that My great grandmother on my fathers side was reservation Jicarilla Apache from the New Mexico res. Though I do wish I didn't feel the need to pin it down so specifically ... on the one hand I don't want people thinking I'm claiming to be something I'm not, on the other I certainly don't want anyone to think I'm less than proud of that heritage! I think I wish I were more Apache so I'd feel comfortable claiming to be so on the census and polls like the one in question.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Oops, sorry there cbob. Didn’t finish my thought. No self respecting person would claim to be a Native American “when they are not.”

Nothing disrespectful about Native American heritage.

[c_hawkbob]

Oops, sorry there cbob. Didn’t finish my thought. No self respecting person would claim to be a Native American “when they are not.”

Nothing disrespectful about Native American heritage.

Figured as much, no worries.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

And I am talking about verifiable ancestry (as in yours) and not the stuff I heard growing up about having NA in our family tree way back just because tribes were around. I suppose it is possible there is some NA blood on me; the family dates back to the MS gulf coast in the early 1700’s but I would not be surprised it wasn’t there.

[RiverDog]

Multiple surveys have shown a majority polled are not offended by the name. Dig into it a bit, and the controversy comes from issues with the sample size, the sample source, and not asking the question: “Do you think the name should be changed.” The latest poll by the Washington Post looked a like a pretty good effort but NA opponents to the name didn’t like the amount of reservation NAs polled and that they relied on self-identification. I would imagine no self respecting person would claim to be Native American [Edit] when the are not [Edit], but it opens the possibility of misrepresentation. NAs on reservations aren’t as exposed to the public so their indifference could be due to not being exposed regularly to the term Redskins and it’s depictions. This may not be enough to invalidate support for the polling results, but I can understand why the NAs firmly against the name would not like it. I think therein lies the real question: How many persons is required to remove something likely this? 20%? 30%?

Posted this because I was curious how it went down. Despite the results of these polls, there’s enough vocal support against the name Redskins now, and that same amount of support could influence the use of the word Warrior. That’s what I got from you, River. I don’t see anything wrong with Warrior or specific tribe names. Depictions should also be tactful.

The difficulties in finding a representative polling sample of Native Americans is legitimate. One of the problem stems from Native Americans themselves. They are an extremely diverse group that covers scores of tribes. Interracial marriage has severely diluted the culture to the point where they would become extinct if they didn't lower the bar, which they've done in a rather haphazard manner. Some tribes have a requirement with as little as 1/16th blood to be considered for membership while the Bureau of Indian Affairs has established a 1/4 threshold for higher education grants. Many if not most NA's don't live on the reservation or are official members of a tribe. If you want to be fair and equitable about it, if you have 1/16th blood, you'd be entitled to 1/16 of a vote in a survey like this as it wouldn't be fair to the full blooded NA who might have more legitimate complaints than the guy that can only claim a great great grandparent on one side of the family that he/she probably didn't even know. Trying to figure out just who is a Native American and who is not is a very messy problem.

But nevertheless, the results, whether influenced by shaky sampling or questionable wording, are decidedly negative. When you get out into the 80+% region like some of these surveys have, things like wording and sampling issues tend to become minimized. It would be like complaining about the officiating when your team loses by 6 touchdowns.

I don't see a problem with Warriors, either. But obviously some people do.

[RiverDog]

I'm not sure how you overthrow a system without overthrowing the government that supports it. Unless you come up with an entirely different constitution and form of government, there will be no sustainable changes that would satisfy your desire for something more than 'police reform.'

I think by cities reconsiderering the function and budgets of their police departments, like Seattle’s, I think that’s a pretty good example of changing a system without overthrowing the government. These changes have a chance to be long-lasting.

I disagree. I don't care what you call them, we're still going to have some sort of local security agency that's responsible to elected governments, and as long as they have to pull their officers from the human race, and with roughly 800,000 cops in this country, we're still going to have problems with rouge cops, not to mention the possibility a good cop making a mistake. They have to make a split second, life or death decision. I don't see any end to this problem.

I fully agree with your statement that whites, hispanics, asians, and other non-blacks have played a huge part. In fact, without them, this us movement would not have had the same effect. After all, BLM has been around for years, but it took the George Floyd video to finally anger enough of the public, even though it’s been happening for decades.

It also took the pandemic and associated shut downs to put millions out of work, of which the most affected group are low income minorities, which always the first to suffer in an economic slowdown. The combination of the frustration of being cooped up for two months and the availability of time by being out of work is what set the stage for these protests. There's been other egregious police actions but none of them occurred under situations remotely similar to what we've seen during the pandemic. The Floyd murder was the match that set off a pile of gasoline soaked kindling.

[I-5]

I disagree. I don't care what you call them, we're still going to have some sort of local security agency that's responsible to elected governments, and as long as they have to pull their officers from the human race, and with roughly 800,000 cops in this country, we're still going to have problems with rouge cops, not to mention the possibility a good cop making a mistake. They have to make a split second, life or death decision. I don't see any end to this problem.

No one said the problem would end. I certainly didn't. We're talking about changes to the system. No one was talking about overthrowing the government at this time. The mention of the Boston Tea Party and Boston Massacre didn't suggest a new country this time, just that time looks more benevolently on those events as catalysts because of what happened after. I think that part is relevant to me.

We've all seen dozens (unfortunately) of examples of police brutalizing blacks (they pick on whites, too, I'm aware), but none of them showed the calmness and coldness of an officer (Chauvin) commiting murder in broad daylight with multiple cameras around him and people yelling at him to stop. The other contextual factors you mentioned also count, but I think it's the extreme calm of Chauvin committing murder like it's a regular day on the job, and the asian cop protecting him, is what is shocking and different about the video than any other video that I've seen. At no point can Chauvin say he feared for his life, with hands in his pockets. That's what I think, doesn't mean you're wrong.

[Aseahawkfan]

Oops, sorry there cbob. Didn’t finish my thought. No self respecting person would claim to be a Native American “when they are not.”

Nothing disrespectful about Native American heritage.

You might be surprised by the number that claim to be Native American to get benefits. We have a guy at work who is like 1/16th Native American and is using the association to keep his long hair and beard because he's in a rock band. I've known more than a few folks in that 1/8th range who are getting reservation benefits. I didn't realize you could get reservation benefits. I didn't think they even counted the fractional percent of your heritage. Apparently they do because it has something do with how much reservations receive, so they accept people with relatively low associations of Native blood. It's interesting to see that even the various Tribes have had to work through a bureaucracy for the government money they agreed upon when creating The Reservations.

[Aseahawkfan]

I read on Camden, New Jersey with the press selling it as a shining example of police reform and defunding. Then I read articles on why it happened. They defunded the police to cut the state and city budget, then broke the police union, and hired back more cops at lower pay. I'm betting you're seeing all these politicians on board with this "defund the police" movement because they plan to do the same across America with the budget shortfalls so many cities and states are facing after the COVID19 pandemic. They'll talk it up like they're doing it for a noble purpose and then we'll see it was a far more pragmatic purpose of simply cutting the police budget to help cover the huge budget shortfalls coming. I tell you our politicians are so much sharper than the American people. They seem incompetent so often, but they're usually playing chess while the American people are playing checkers.

Even their Russia investigation was to get control of social media. That's why both parties were ok pushing the idea of a foreign power using social media to tamper with elections. Once they sell that to the public, they can next start putting laws in place to gain more control over social media. Social media companies have been trying to fight government intervention by doing so themselves, but the seeds are placed. It's only a matter of when, not if, they get control of social media.

Politicians really know how to seed the waters, then hop on a movement, and make it work for something they want done. I don't know how you deal with that when they're three or four steps ahead of the people who think they're making the huge difference. At the end of all this we'll probably end up with lower paid cops, nearly just as many in number, get just as many problems, and the main beneficiary will be states and cities who get to save a bunch of money in their budgets and will likely end up hiring private security to protect government buildings and places important to them at half the cost or more in savings.

[RiverDog]

No one said the problem would end. I certainly didn't. We're talking about changes to the system.

That's not what you said. You didn't say that you were talking about changes to the system. You said: "And yes, I do think it is about overthrowing a system built inherently on racist principles at the core. That sounds an awful lot like to me that you're advocating something radical, like the defunding of police departments or self policing ala CHAZ as some have proposed. If you want to walk back from that remark, that's fine, but it's how I got the impression that you feel that the entire problem is "a system built inherently on racist principles" and therefore solvable.

We've all seen dozens (unfortunately) of examples of police brutalizing blacks (they pick on whites, too, I'm aware), but none of them showed the calmness and coldness of an officer (Chauvin) commiting murder in broad daylight with multiple cameras around him and people yelling at him to stop. The other contextual factors you mentioned also count, but I think it's the extreme calm of Chauvin committing murder like it's a regular day on the job, and the asian cop protecting him, is what is shocking and different about the video than any other video that I've seen. At no point can Chauvin say he feared for his life, with hands in his pockets. That's what I think, doesn't mean you're wrong.

I agree with everything you said, including your description of the murder. But we have to keep it in perspective. In a free country with 330 million people, 800,000 cops, and hundreds of thousands of incidents a year where police come in direct contact with suspects, it's inevitable that something like that would happen. No matter what we do, the numbers tell us that it's going to repeat itself. Indeed, there's already been several questionable officer-involved homicides since the Floyd murder involving a white cop and a black suspect. It's a reality that I don't feel enough people have come to grips with. That doesn't mean that we have to accept it or that we can't improve, just that it illustrates the size of the task before us.

[I-5]

You didn't say that you were talking about changes to the system. You said: "And yes, I do think it is about overthrowing a system built inherently on racist principles at the core. That sounds an awful lot like to me that you're advocating something radical, like the defunding of police departments or self policing ala CHAZ as some have proposed. If you want to walk back from that remark, that's fine, but it's how I got the impression that you feel that the entire problem is "a system built inherently on racist principles" and therefore solvable.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

[RiverDog]

You didn't say that you were talking about changes to the system. You said: "And yes, I do think it is about overthrowing a system built inherently on racist principles at the core. That sounds an awful lot like to me that you're advocating something radical, like the defunding of police departments or self policing ala CHAZ as some have proposed. If you want to walk back from that remark, that's fine, but it's how I got the impression that you feel that the entire problem is "a system built inherently on racist principles" and therefore solvable.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

So what are you saying? In one post, you said I do think it is about overthrowing a system built inherently on racist principles at the core. which would suggest to me that the problem is 100% the fault of that inherently racist system and therefore solvable with a new, enlightened system, and in subsequent remarks, you said No one said the problem would end. I certainly didn't. We're talking about changes to the system.

You can't say that you're for both the overthrow of a system and changes/reform of the system. Pick one.

[c_hawkbob]

I think you're problem is that "100%" ... you tend to read what people say in absolutes, which in the real world just don't exist.

[RiverDog]

I think you're problem is that "100%" ... you tend to read what people say in absolutes, which in the real world just don't exist.

And I qualified my remarks by saying that "the impression" I got was that the premise of the proposal was that the problem is 100% solvable. But in any event, let's let I-5 make that correction as it was directed at him.

[c_hawkbob]

It is an open forum.

[RiverDog]

It is an open forum.

Understood. But I quoted I-5. It was his statement that I was seeking a clarification of, and only he can explain it. You're making a supposition of what you "think" the problem is.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't even understand where either of you are going with this line of thought any more.

[I-5]

You can't say that you're for both the overthrow of a system and changes/reform of the system. Pick one.

I'm for changing the system, specifically the police system. The concept of police reform has proven itself to be an oxymoron, at least to many people of color, so I think things like significantly altering the police budget is a great first step.

I'm not for ovethrowing the government, if that's where you thought I was going.

[RiverDog]

You can't say that you're for both the overthrow of a system and changes/reform of the system. Pick one.

I'm for changing the system, specifically the police system. The concept of police reform has proven itself to be an oxymoron, at least to many people of color, so I think things like significantly altering the police budget is a great first step.

I'm not for ovethrowing the government, if that's where you thought I was going.

OK, good. Thanks for clearing that up.

In my view, slashing budgets or defunding police departments is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Cutting their funding is almost certainly going to result in lower salaries, fewer benefits, etc. Combine that with the psychological beating that cops have been taking over the past few months and you'd literally have to be crazy to want to be a cop. It's a similar mindset that the military had to overcome in the post Vietnam era when military service was not seen to be an honorable occupation like it is today.

We need to be making police work an attractive, rewarding occupation so that we get a lot of people apply for open positions. With the pre-coronavirus unemployment numbers being at historic lows, there's a lot of competition with other industries for workers, particularly those viewed as good candidates. By attracting more applicants, police departments will have a greater ability to screen out questionable applicants and lessen the probability of hiring a bad cop. In addition, it would allow them to be able to maintain a stricter set of disciplinary standards and give them the flexibility to suspend, transfer, or fire a cop for poor work performance.

So long as police departments are having to recruit from members of the human race, there's always going to be that small percentage, say 2 or 3 percent, that was a bad hire. Two or three percent of the 800,000 or so cops in this country is 16,000-24,000 bad cops. 2 or 3 percent bad hires in other occupations would constitute a phenomenal of recruiting and procurement. That's less than one bad worker on a crew of 20. If you want perfection, you're going to have to pay for it.

I'm not sure how you do that by cutting their budgets.

[c_hawkbob]

In my view, slashing budgets or defunding police departments is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. Cutting their funding is almost certainly going to result in lower salaries, fewer benefits, etc.

No it's not, not if we begin by ending the stupid failed war on drugs, do away with 90% of the "vice" type operations that are in effect policing adulthood (obviously except where children or trafficking is concerned) and refocus on getting more cops actually out on the streets in uniform doing the whole protect and serve thing. A big part of the equation would also be doing away with our for profit prison system and stop over-incarcerating the American people to keep dirty politicians and their "contributors" happy.

Defunding does NOT equal abolishing. In fact it's a terrible word (although no one has complained much about the decades of defunding the education system) ... refocusing our law enforcement resources would be a much more appropriate way to put it.