Maybe I'm reading too much into this . . . .

[All-American]

Check out this video.

[youtube]XR8oHo6nQE0[/youtube]

I saw this video on facebook. A person whom I greatly respect had put it up, amused that the little punk got what was coming to him.

I suppose he may be right. Certainly, lots of people commenting on the video agreed with him. But I can't help but wonder what we would think if it had been a black man giving a little white trash punk what he deserved.

[UtahDan]

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=19280

[Hallelujah]

Check out this video.

[youtube]XR8oHo6nQE0[/youtube]

I saw this video on facebook. A person whom I greatly respect had put it up, amused that the little punk got what was coming to him.

I suppose he may be right. Certainly, lots of people commenting on the video agreed with him. But I can't help but wonder what we would think if it had been a black man giving a little white trash punk what he deserved.

We're supposed to be color blind so what does it matter what color either person was?

[Maximus]

Looks liek both of them are idiots.

[old_gregg]

"call da amber lamps!"

[fusnik]

The video is comprised of two idiots purported at 67 and 50.

One person upset at an apparent 'shoe shining' comment. (Why wouldn't we think the other person didn't say something insensitive as he also uses the term 'China Man') Both lobbing obscenities at each other, both walking away, one touching the other, one beating the crap out of the other.

The reaction of the 'white folk' I know, respect, and love has been very disturbing. They seem to revel that 'the old white dude' beat up the 'young punk black kid.' Their reaction is the PC 2010 version of racism.

[All-American]

We're supposed to be color blind so what does it matter what color either person was?

Actually, that's a very good question. If the purpose of fighting against racial discrimination is to remove the question of race from how we look at other people, why insist on bringing it up and injecting it where it otherwise doesn't belong? This is a case of a punk harassing an older man, who just so happens to be a war veteran who bloodies the punk up. Why bring up race at all?

An article by Dan Kahan and Donald Braman studied the subject of "Cultural Cognition and Public Policy." In it, they studied the effects of race in the perception of facts of cases and found that jurymen are more lenient to members of their own race and more likely to make judgments in conformity to their own world views. That may or may not come as a surprise. In tweaking some of the variables, Kahan and Braman came up with results that led to their argument that the variable is not a conscious, but a subconscious factor. That is, race may not be a reason a juryman makes a certain decision, but it can alter his perception of the facts.

The reason it may not be enough to simply ignore the issue of race is the fact that on a collective basis, we as a nation may have been able to drive racial discrimination from our consciousness, but it may very well abide in our collective subconscious, where it still affects the way we look at the world. We may not look at this video and see a black man challenging a white man and getting put in his place, but the fact that he is black may encourage viewers to see a punk trying to pick a fight with an old man, whether they realize the way race affects the view or not.

To the extent that this is the case, it speaks to the necessity of acknowledging, not ignoring, the issue of race. To remove race from the equation is an appropriate response where racial discrimination is a result of conscious cognition. It would be conscious racial discrimination were one to say, "I'm not going to do X for this man because he is black"). It doesn't help if racial discrimination is the result of a subconscious interpretation of facts. One might say, "I'm not going to do X for this man because he is a punk and a thug," and believe he has not made any judgments on the basis of race, but not realize that he more readily came to the conclusion that the man was a punk and a thug because of his race.

Until this tendency has been corrected, where issues of race exist, the decision not to acknowledge issues of race may, ironically, only serve to perpetuate subconscious racial discrimination.

I should note, for the sake of fairness, that my initial response to the video itself is that the guy clearly picked a fight, and that the older man was probably justified in his retaliation. On the other hand, I don't think that the older man was entirely blameless in occasioning the situation. Notice, too, that others seem to have thought him the more blameworthy party. He was the one that got kicked off the bus, after all, and the woman videotaping the incident (who sounds like she was an African-American) apparently thought that the video could be used to prosecute against the older man.

[Indy Coug]

If the younger guy had been a white punk, I would have more easily cheered for the older guy because there wouldn't be any white guilt getting in the way.

[DU Ute]

If the younger guy had been a white punk, I would have more easily cheered for the older guy because there wouldn't be any white guilt getting in the way.

Seriously. I look forward to the day when people can enjoy a youtube clip of one idiot beating up another while not considering the color of their skin, but rather their complete lack of moral character.

[All-American]

If the younger guy had been a white punk, I would have more easily cheered for the older guy because there wouldn't be any white guilt getting in the way.

It would be interesting, if possible, to create an identical video and substitute a white punk for the black punk and a black 67 year-old vietnam vet for the white 67 year-old vietnam vet and see the reactions to THAT video.

[DU Ute]

It would be interesting, if possible, to create an identical video and substitute a white punk for the black punk and a black 67 year-old vietnam vet for the white 67 year-old vietnam vet and see the reactions to THAT video.

All the hilarity with none of the guilt!

[All-American]

All the hilarity with none of the guilt!

But I wonder if we would think it was as funny. It's easy to say now that it would be, but I suspect that there would be far more lamentations of how unsafe the world is, and much less rejoicing that the punk got what he deserved.

Maybe not. Who knows.

[clackamascoug]

Check out this video.

[youtube]XR8oHo6nQE0[/youtube]

I saw this video on facebook. A person whom I greatly respect had put it up, amused that the little punk got what was coming to him.

I suppose he may be right. Certainly, lots of people commenting on the video agreed with him. But I can't help but wonder what we would think if it had been a black man giving a little white trash punk what he deserved.

The preponderance of your question is showing a personal bias like white socks with dark shoes and pants. To me the issue was not black and white, but a 67 year old man trying to avoid a confrontation on a bus by moving seats, and the young punk pushing the issue to the point of throwing the first punch.

Old versus young, wrapped up in self defense - plain and simple.

If an old black dude whipped butt on a young white punk, I'd feel just as glad for the young white punk to have his ass handed to him. See how my socks match?

[All-American]

The preponderance of your question is showing a personal bias like white socks with dark shoes and pants. To me the issue was not black and white, but a 67 year old man trying to avoid a confrontation on a bus by moving seats, and the young punk pushing the issue to the point of throwing the first punch.

Old versus young, wrapped up in self defense - plain and simple.

If an old black dude whipped butt on a young white punk, I'd feel just as glad for the young white punk to have his ass handed to him. See how my socks match?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at with the "white socks" bit, but you are going out of your way to prove my point. We all recognize that we ought to look at this situation no differently than we ought to see an identical hypothetical scenario where the two races are reversed. Congratulations are due to all for abolishing racism from our conscious construction of our world view. That's a marvelous accomplishment, considering where we were as a nation just a few decades ago.

Where racism in this country remains, by and large it abides in the subconsciousness of its citizens, where it is all the more difficult to detect or to correct. Maybe all in this thread who claim they would see the two scenarios no differently are correct, but there is substantial reason to believe that for most, perception of facts IS skewed by race, even when race isn't a conscious factor.

[BoylenOver]

Actually, that's a very good question. If the purpose of fighting against racial discrimination is to remove the question of race from how we look at other people, why insist on bringing it up and injecting it where it otherwise doesn't belong? This is a case of a punk harassing an older man, who just so happens to be a war veteran who bloodies the punk up. Why bring up race at all?

An article by Dan Kahan and Donald Braman studied the subject of "Cultural Cognition and Public Policy." In it, they studied the effects of race in the perception of facts of cases and found that jurymen are more lenient to members of their own race and more likely to make judgments in conformity to their own world views. That may or may not come as a surprise. In tweaking some of the variables, Kahan and Braman came up with results that led to their argument that the variable is not a conscious, but a subconscious factor. That is, race may not be a reason a juryman makes a certain decision, but it can alter his perception of the facts.

The reason it may not be enough to simply ignore the issue of race is the fact that on a collective basis, we as a nation may have been able to drive racial discrimination from our consciousness, but it may very well abide in our collective subconscious, where it still affects the way we look at the world. We may not look at this video and see a black man challenging a white man and getting put in his place, but the fact that he is black may encourage viewers to see a punk trying to pick a fight with an old man, whether they realize the way race affects the view or not.

To the extent that this is the case, it speaks to the necessity of acknowledging, not ignoring, the issue of race. To remove race from the equation is an appropriate response where racial discrimination is a result of conscious cognition. It would be conscious racial discrimination were one to say, "I'm not going to do X for this man because he is black"). It doesn't help if racial discrimination is the result of a subconscious interpretation of facts. One might say, "I'm not going to do X for this man because he is a punk and a thug," and believe he has not made any judgments on the basis of race, but not realize that he more readily came to the conclusion that the man was a punk and a thug because of his race.

Until this tendency has been corrected, where issues of race exist, the decision not to acknowledge issues of race may, ironically, only serve to perpetuate subconscious racial discrimination.

I should note, for the sake of fairness, that my initial response to the video itself is that the guy clearly picked a fight, and that the older man was probably justified in his retaliation. On the other hand, I don't think that the older man was entirely blameless in occasioning the situation. Notice, too, that others seem to have thought him the more blameworthy party. He was the one that got kicked off the bus, after all, and the woman videotaping the incident (who sounds like she was an African-American) apparently thought that the video could be used to prosecute against the older man.

I appreciate how thoughtful and in-depth you are. Even for this board, which I hold in high esteem, this is more than what you expect or hope for on the interwebs.