Patterson Hood--What It Means
Moderators: Jonicont, mark lynn, Maluca3, Tequila Cowboy, BigTom, CooleyGirl, olwiggum
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
It's not just a issue within police culture; it's embedded in our culture period. It's similar to a convenience store owner automatically putting their guard up or getting anxious when they see a black person come through the door, the main difference being cops carry and are quicker to turn that fear into violence (and seemingly have a license to kill with impunity in many cases). The "better lock your door" line from McMurtry's "Twelve O' Clock Whistle" comes to mind and is so accurate; I heard my own grandparents say that almost verbatim. There are a few legitimate reasons that fit in with the mass of irrational ones that could explain where that mindset comes from and it makes it a hard fucking thing to talk openly and honestly about, but when it comes down to taking another man or woman's life, all those underlying reasons go out the window and don't mean shit. That's where i believe it becomes a police culture problem; if your prejudices and fear run that deep then you shouldn't be wearing a badge, and more than that the blue line of silence where it's sinful to speak out against a fellow cop for any kind of abuse of power needs to be eradicated (which I think is hard to do when you lump all of LE together in an "us vs. them" narrative).
Speaking of police abuses, you could change "rich man" to "police man" in "the Southern Thing" and it would be accurate as well. While it does seem like black people (particularly if they're poor) are more likely to get killed while unarmed*, poor whites do get harassed and unfairly profiled as well, so yeah it's also a class thing. The main difference from what I can see is that the stakes aren't quite as high when it's a white guy being pulled over.
So yeah, there's my disjointed Ambien-induced views on the subject. I guess I'm with Patterson in that I don't know what it means either.
*more white folks are killed by police than minorities annually, although not when adjusted for population. IOW, it's not an issue overall for white kids the way it is for black kids.
Speaking of police abuses, you could change "rich man" to "police man" in "the Southern Thing" and it would be accurate as well. While it does seem like black people (particularly if they're poor) are more likely to get killed while unarmed*, poor whites do get harassed and unfairly profiled as well, so yeah it's also a class thing. The main difference from what I can see is that the stakes aren't quite as high when it's a white guy being pulled over.
So yeah, there's my disjointed Ambien-induced views on the subject. I guess I'm with Patterson in that I don't know what it means either.
*more white folks are killed by police than minorities annually, although not when adjusted for population. IOW, it's not an issue overall for white kids the way it is for black kids.
E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
I heard the McMurtry line too.Smitty wrote:It's not just a issue within police culture; it's embedded in our culture period. It's similar to a convenience store owner automatically putting their guard up or getting anxious when they see a black person come through the door, the main difference being cops carry and are quicker to turn that fear into violence (and seemingly have a license to kill with impunity in many cases). The "better lock your door" line from McMurtry's "Twelve O' Clock Whistle" comes to mind and is so accurate; I heard my own grandparents say that almost verbatim. There are a few legitimate reasons that fit in with the mass of irrational ones that could explain where that mindset comes from and it makes it a hard fucking thing to talk openly and honestly about, but when it comes down to taking another man or woman's life, all those underlying reasons go out the window and don't mean shit. That's where i believe it becomes a police culture problem; if your prejudices and fear run that deep then you shouldn't be wearing a badge, and more than that the blue line of silence where it's sinful to speak out against a fellow cop for any kind of abuse of power needs to be eradicated (which I think is hard to do when you lump all of LE together in an "us vs. them" narrative).
Speaking of police abuses, you could change "rich man" to "police man" in "the Southern Thing" and it would be accurate as well. While it does seem like black people (particularly if they're poor) are more likely to get killed while unarmed*, poor whites do get harassed and unfairly profiled as well, so yeah it's also a class thing. The main difference from what I can see is that the stakes aren't quite as high when it's a white guy being pulled over.
So yeah, there's my disjointed Ambien-induced views on the subject. I guess I'm with Patterson in that I don't know what it means either.
*more white folks are killed by police than minorities annually, although not when adjusted for population. IOW, it's not an issue overall for white kids the way it is for black kids.
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
This is a great postbeantownbubba wrote:Let's start with the proposition that we as a society ask the police to do an impossible job. I mean that quite literally: It is not possible to be a police officer and follow all the laws, regulations, standards and expectations we apply to the job and to actions in retrospect. Some of that is inherent to the absurd bureaucracy that surrounds police work. But some of it is because we take no account of human behavior. I dare any one of us to be a cop in any big city for 90 days and not become measurably more racist (as defined by those of us w/ the luxury of not being confronted with the hard stuff). At the very least, how can you do that job for any period of time and not adopt some principles of profiling which are currently in disfavor? Now none of this is to excuse cops whose racist attitudes and violent tendencies result in unacceptable outcomes. But as Patterson says, by refusing to "clear the air," which means refusing to acknowledge the poisonous atmosphere that dominates many police departments, the based-in-fact-and-experience rationale that underlies some of that poison, the absurd and impossible to comply with demands we pout on the police AND the very diffcult questions addressing how criminals are made in this society, we never get down to the hard issues, the hard questions and the even harder answers. So whether you're on the "cops are not racists" side or the "cops are all pigs" side, you're wrong. Sorry. The core is rotten and we're all responsible for it.
Let's just take one relatively "easy" aspect of the problem: If we truly cared about reducing the number of criminals and the number of crimes they commit why would we create and administer a prison system that might be more accurately called the criminal creation and education system? If your answer to that question does not acknowledge the part that racism plays in how we approach the subject of incarceration you're just not thinking hard enough and/or looking at yourself critically enough. So, how much controversy have I created in 2 sentences addressing what appears to me to be one of the most easily understood and addressable aspects of the problem? This is hard, hard stuff and all the platitudes, righteous indignation (on whatever side of the equation), political correctness, knee jerk response and pseudo science in the world is not going to make the slightest dent in the problem.
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
jimmyjack wrote:This is a great postbeantownbubba wrote:Let's start with the proposition that we as a society ask the police to do an impossible job. I mean that quite literally: It is not possible to be a police officer and follow all the laws, regulations, standards and expectations we apply to the job and to actions in retrospect. Some of that is inherent to the absurd bureaucracy that surrounds police work. But some of it is because we take no account of human behavior. I dare any one of us to be a cop in any big city for 90 days and not become measurably more racist (as defined by those of us w/ the luxury of not being confronted with the hard stuff). At the very least, how can you do that job for any period of time and not adopt some principles of profiling which are currently in disfavor? Now none of this is to excuse cops whose racist attitudes and violent tendencies result in unacceptable outcomes. But as Patterson says, by refusing to "clear the air," which means refusing to acknowledge the poisonous atmosphere that dominates many police departments, the based-in-fact-and-experience rationale that underlies some of that poison, the absurd and impossible to comply with demands we pout on the police AND the very diffcult questions addressing how criminals are made in this society, we never get down to the hard issues, the hard questions and the even harder answers. So whether you're on the "cops are not racists" side or the "cops are all pigs" side, you're wrong. Sorry. The core is rotten and we're all responsible for it.
Let's just take one relatively "easy" aspect of the problem: If we truly cared about reducing the number of criminals and the number of crimes they commit why would we create and administer a prison system that might be more accurately called the criminal creation and education system? If your answer to that question does not acknowledge the part that racism plays in how we approach the subject of incarceration you're just not thinking hard enough and/or looking at yourself critically enough. So, how much controversy have I created in 2 sentences addressing what appears to me to be one of the most easily understood and addressable aspects of the problem? This is hard, hard stuff and all the platitudes, righteous indignation (on whatever side of the equation), political correctness, knee jerk response and pseudo science in the world is not going to make the slightest dent in the problem.
Good post.
I really love What it Means. Patterson put all of my recent frustrations into words. Especially the line about landing a rocket on a comet, the edges dazzle us but the core is something rotten. He just perfectly sums up the current political climate, especially the Presidential race. We are, as a human race, much smarter and better than we act. It is mind boggling to me that we can land a rocket on a comet, a rover on Mars, build a large hadron collider, map the entire human genome....and yet we are still talking about RACE? Really?
But, in fact, we are talking about race. Maybe, more importantly, we tend to sweep in under the rug a bit, often pretending the issue does not exist or isn't as bad as we expect. And that is just wrong. So, whatever the cataylst - BLM, Trump, etc. we need to drive a national dialogue and that starts by boldly admitting we have a problem. In this day and age, it is (or at least should be) totally unacceptable for skin color to lead to ANY difference in treatment anywhere, anytime. Period. That's my take, and I think Patterson did a damn fine job of laying out that argument. Sadly, he admits at the end of the song that he does not have any answers. I'm not sure I do either, but I know that we should find them. If we can put that rocket on a comet, then this problem should be solvable too.
If you have not read Ta Nishi Coats' article in the Atlantic, you should. Everyone should read it. I know this article and his following book were a big inspiration for the writing of What it Means.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ns/361631/
Love each other, Motherfuckers!
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
You realize, of course, that this is an old way of thinking and most SJWs / neo-liberals would disagree vehemently and might even call what you wrote an act of 'microinvalidation,' right? Or are you only talking about a negative difference in treatment being unacceptable? Serious question.pearlbeer wrote: In this day and age, it is (or at least should be) totally unacceptable for skin color to lead to ANY difference in treatment anywhere, anytime. Period.
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
jimmyjack wrote:You realize, of course, that this is an old way of thinking and most SJWs / neo-liberals would disagree vehemently and might even call what you wrote an act of 'microinvalidation,' right? Or are you only talking about a negative difference in treatment being unacceptable? Serious question.pearlbeer wrote: In this day and age, it is (or at least should be) totally unacceptable for skin color to lead to ANY difference in treatment anywhere, anytime. Period.
Yes. I'm talking a negative difference.
Love each other, Motherfuckers!
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
Ugh, that's one term I hoped would never surface on 3DD.jimmyjack wrote: You realize, of course, that this is an old way of thinking and most SJWs / neo-liberals would disagree vehemently and might even call what you wrote an act of 'microinvalidation,' right?
Why I hate the term SJW
If anyone starts saying "cuck", I'm outta here.
E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
Due to the original lyrics and it's implacations I've had a hard time coming around to this one. While watching the official lyric video this past weekend it hit me like a ton of brits. And talk about perfect timing! As a Kaepernick supporter, that flag flying in the background while Patterson sang the song was totally awsome. I never understood why people pledge allegiance to a flag.
and the rest as they say is uh er uh, well somebodies history somewhere?
- whatwouldcooleydo?
- Posts: 13693
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
- Location: Desolation Row
- Contact:
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
that word, and those who use it, should be waterboardedSmitty wrote:If anyone starts saying "cuck", I'm outta here.
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing
-
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:47 pm
- Location: WI
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
That's awesome, I'm gonna steal that and use it.Swamp wrote:Due to the original lyrics and it's implacations I've had a hard time coming around to this one. While watching the official lyric video this past weekend it hit me like a ton of brits. And talk about perfect timing! As a Kaepernick supporter, that flag flying in the background while Patterson sang the song was totally awsome. I never understood why people pledge allegiance to a flag.
ain't no static on the gospel radio
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
I may use it this weekend, since dogstar is on the way here.Duke Silver wrote:That's awesome, I'm gonna steal that and use it.Swamp wrote:Due to the original lyrics and it's implacations I've had a hard time coming around to this one. While watching the official lyric video this past weekend it hit me like a ton of brits. And talk about perfect timing! As a Kaepernick supporter, that flag flying in the background while Patterson sang the song was totally awsome. I never understood why people pledge allegiance to a flag.
Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff.
- whatwouldcooleydo?
- Posts: 13693
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:44 pm
- Location: Desolation Row
- Contact:
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
how many stone is a ton of Brits? And are we talking about a metric ton?
Son, this ain't a dream no more, it's the real thing
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
It was really nice of them to time this to coincide with the release of American Band.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... ce=copyurl
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... ce=copyurl
Love each other, Motherfuckers!
-
- Posts: 7894
- Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 9:51 am
- Location: Little Rock, Arkansaw
- Contact:
Re: Patterson Hood--What It Means
pearlbeer wrote:It was really nice of them to time this to coincide with the release of American Band.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... ce=copyurl
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be