Well the implication is that the parent assumed that the officer was racist against [ethnic group]. It's not a fact that that's who was stealing, it's an observation filtered through the man's biases.
Not that I think it's appropriate to assume malice on the part of the police officer, nor to censor everything race-related that you find objectionable.
There may be no such thing as a racist fact, but there's definitely such a thing as racist dissemination of a fact.
If, for example, you post a list of facts about crime rates among a particular ethnic group apropos of nothing, it's probably racist, regardless of whether or not the facts are true.
That said, in this case I think it's just the bad taste that one often gets in their mouth knowing that a racist might read a comment you make and have it confirm their prejudices.
As for how it's combating information: is there meaningful information lost here? He could have told you what colour his pants were, too, but it wouldn't add a whole hell of a lot to the story.
I agree it carries that implication, and I think it's right.
Very little is added to the discussion of curbing gang crime by bringing race into the picture. What are the specifically Black solutions to gang behaviour? What are the Hispanic ones?
On the other hand, the culture of racism and intolerance such discussions engender has real and measurable downsides. Cf. every discussion of police interactions by minorities.
The culture of black Americans is unique. It's different than the culture of Asians, Hispanics, Whites, ect, and initiatives will effect each culture differently. That much seems certain to me.
To say that there is a one size fits all solution to gang violence is to ignore important cultural differences.
To just look at family structure: 75% of black families are not married and 60% of mothers with multiple children have them to different fathers.
As for how we tackle gangs, I'd need to study to problem longer. But its a hunch of mine that the above family statistics play a role in their formation.
If a fact shows an ethnic group in negative light, then its possible its better to ignore that fact and not speak of it. By not speaking of it, it may make the overall problem of racism go away faster.
I don't find that theory very sound. Facts that are unspoken become "things everybody knows but can't speak of", and in a society governed by things everybody knows but can't speak of things that aren't actually true can't be refuted.
How does reality being racist imply that a fact is racist? And not other things? Is everything racists under a racist reality? How do we draw these lines?
I don't see why you think it's a jump in logic. And I'm saying facts are racist. I'm not saying other things are not racist. I'm not really sure where you're leading with this point.
Let me be more concrete and give an example.
Blacks living in the U.S. have (in a statistical average sense) a higher sensitivity to sodium than whites, leading to higher rates of hypertension in that demographic. If you're a physician treating black patients or you're a black American yourself, this is an important fact to know. This is a racist fact, because it differentiates reality along racial fault lines.
There are plenty of examples of situations where I could get you to say that one course of action is the rational or best option, but if I keep the same logical structure and swap out some nouns and adjectives, what was once the best option is now racist, and I'm a racist if I take this course of action. I won't give any examples because they're too inflammatory, and I don't feel like getting downvoted into oblivion. I'm pretty sure you can fill in the blanks if you're so inclined.
Since realizing this, I no longer view "racist" as a derogatory. It's the way the world already is, so my choice is either to have an accurate view of reality or an impoverished one.
The irony is that the inhabitants of the "San Francisco Castro neighborhood" also form an ethnic group by virtue of living in the same place. Notably, it's a gay neighborhood. Takeaway? Gangs rob stores in gay villages. Oh, and cops are racists. Moral? Let people think for themselves, you can't get away from prejudice.
> An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences.
If the parent didn't want to associate a group of people with stealing, they could have just started the quote at "gangs" and it would have worked just as well...
But really, any reader who doesn't already have racial prejudices will recognize that the operative word is "gangs", not "[ethnic group]". It's a bit of an insult to the sensibilities of HN readers, and it doesn't protect anyone from anything.
What's with everyone getting offended over "[ethnic group]"? What probably happened was that the employee said it and the GP censored it before quoting, without much thought. No need to get all worked up about it.
Yeah, the (G)GP probably wanted to avoid the thread derailing into conversation about how "[ethnic group]" is a victim of racism. But it seems that HN is entirely capable of having that conversation with "[ethnic group]" being a free variable...
interesting way to combat racism...