Racial Profiling and Our Current Predicament
This from the NYT is sort of interesting. Most liberals don't want to admit it, but it is patently obvious that it's absurd to search elderly Japanese women when we're looking for al Qaeda suicide bombers.
I'm one of those blond-hair-blue-eyes types (one of J. Quest's nicknames for me is "Aryan boy"). If the white supremacists ever become a big threat, I am going to be pissed off if I don't get singled out for searches. There is, obviously, a certain asymmetry here; but to ignore racial markers when they are, in fact, actual and important indicators seems like madness.
On the other hand, one might argue that America's racist past prohibits us from using such indicators when it is minorities that are in question. Given our sorry history in this regard, singling out minorities is prohibitively threatening and humiliating, whereas singling out white males is not. That doesn't seem like a crazy point to me.
But, seriously, isn't there already a (justified) form of what we might call sexual profiling in this country? If, say, a violent crime has been committed, is it as likely that the perpetrator was female as it is that he/she was male? Young males commit most of the violent crimes, and if the police didn't acknowledge this they'd be crazy. So how is racial profiling intrinsically different?
The threat from al Qaeda isn't really that great. But if it were--if, for example, we knew that al Qaeda had several ten-magaton nukes in the country--could we continue to stick our collective head in the sand of political correctness?
Among the many reasons I love this stupid country, however, is that we've continued to try to stick to our egalitarian guns in this case despite that fact that it's so obviously dopey. God, we're a big lovable bunch of dummies sometimes.
This from the NYT is sort of interesting. Most liberals don't want to admit it, but it is patently obvious that it's absurd to search elderly Japanese women when we're looking for al Qaeda suicide bombers.
I'm one of those blond-hair-blue-eyes types (one of J. Quest's nicknames for me is "Aryan boy"). If the white supremacists ever become a big threat, I am going to be pissed off if I don't get singled out for searches. There is, obviously, a certain asymmetry here; but to ignore racial markers when they are, in fact, actual and important indicators seems like madness.
On the other hand, one might argue that America's racist past prohibits us from using such indicators when it is minorities that are in question. Given our sorry history in this regard, singling out minorities is prohibitively threatening and humiliating, whereas singling out white males is not. That doesn't seem like a crazy point to me.
But, seriously, isn't there already a (justified) form of what we might call sexual profiling in this country? If, say, a violent crime has been committed, is it as likely that the perpetrator was female as it is that he/she was male? Young males commit most of the violent crimes, and if the police didn't acknowledge this they'd be crazy. So how is racial profiling intrinsically different?
The threat from al Qaeda isn't really that great. But if it were--if, for example, we knew that al Qaeda had several ten-magaton nukes in the country--could we continue to stick our collective head in the sand of political correctness?
Among the many reasons I love this stupid country, however, is that we've continued to try to stick to our egalitarian guns in this case despite that fact that it's so obviously dopey. God, we're a big lovable bunch of dummies sometimes.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:24 AM
12 Comments:
A few points.
Random searches are not likely to discover a person carrying a bomb, but that is not really the point. Deterrence is the real point.
If the search is truly random, and neither arbitrary nor rationally narrowly tailored (i.e. profiling young men of middle eastern appearance)the elderly Japanese will be searched occassionally.
Non-random searches are far more objectionable than random searches. Violating the right of young men of middle eastern appearance to be secure in their personal effects is not too far down the slippery slope toward internment of all Muslims living in the United States. Mr Sperry may not mind taking the first step in that direction. But if no one objects to that first step, it will be harder to stop the next step. I object to taking that first step, and that objection is not obviosly dopey.
First, behavior is a far more telling characteristic than racial profile. Half-finished flight school, one-way tickets, cash up front, and other actions taken by a passenger will say much more about his or her intentions than their national origin.
Second, if we were to enact racial profiling as you prescribe, who's to say the terroists won't get wise to this? And what would stop them from recruiting passengers who can pass as Asian, African, or Caucasian?
Third, no screening system possible can prevent mad men with bombs from killing hundreds or even thousands of people through other means, e.g. subways and buses.
I recommend we consider the motivations of those who have been or would be terrorists. What could motivate a young man to suicidally hijack an airplane intending only mass murder? The answer: they blame America for the dismal state of things in their homeland, and want to retaliate.
America is the Great Satan to the Middle East because our politicians and businessmen (and those of most of Western Civilization) have imposed their will upon those nations from the beginning. The national borders in the area were largely conceived by diplomats in Europe, for example.
The deep hatred of America will only cease when our nation stops imposing itself upon that region of the world. This will mean changes in the most basic aspects of our daily lifestyle, e.g. our sordid affair with the automobile, but it will also mean the end of violent and devestating attacks on our citizens.
azael wrote: "the vast majority of terrorism in this country has been carried out by native white people - Christian white people."
If you are looking at a time period that goes back to the 18th century then you are probably right. But if you look at a relevant time period - say, the last 20 years - then you are wrong. The bulk of recent terrorism has been perpetrated by people who are not Christian (Oklahoma City) or not white (9-11).
If you believe that there is terrorism being perpetrated by white Christians that dwarf the two examples above and which are being surpressed by the media so that people aren't being told the truth - well, that's not the kind of theory that we usually discuss in this forum, but help yourself.
j, it is true that national borders in the ME were conceived by Europeans. But you cite that fact as a reason why ME'ers hate America.
I don't get it.
"If the white supremacists ever become a big threat, I am going to be pissed off if I don't get singled out for searches."
Hmmm. Ditto.
If Irish Catholics from Philly ever start taking out human beings and real estate in significant chunks for whatever reason, profile me. In fact, I demand it.
(Wouldn't that be [ugh] patriotic?)
The deep hatred of America will only cease...
I don't think it's deep, it's just visceral, like rooting against Yankees at the Olympics or in The House That George Steinbrenner Rebuilt. It's lonely at the top.
If it were deep, no Muslim would be caught within 10,000 miles of here instead of semi-cheerfully selling me beer down at the 7-11.
I mean, anybody here who wants to move to North Korea? Cuba, mebbe? Nah, didn't think so. I mean, we even get more than our share of Frenchmen.
Ever notice how Azael always manages to make his own points sound crazy?
But in other news, I want to make it clear that I'm not what you'd call a fan of racial profiling, but I have to admit that I find most of the arguments given above decidedly unconvincing.
Despite Azael's characteristic nastiness the first link he provides is interesting. Seems to me that it doesn't prove the point, though. Rather, it indicates that--if efficiency were the only consideration--we'd want to use a combination of profiled searches and random ones. Or, at least, we'd want to SAY that we were doing random searches but actually use profiled ones.
I'm very sympathetic to fairness arguments, especially in this context, but none of the efficency arguments seem to work very well.
But if we focus on fairness arguments, then I'm weakly inclined to stick to my guns here: I'd be willing to be searched to thwart the Klan. In fact, I'd be happy as a pig in shit to do anything to thwart the Klan, even if it meant being singled out for searches.
But, again, the good response seems to me to be that the situation is asymmetrical: as a white male in the U.S. I (unfairly, of course) get a certain status that makes it harder for such things to humiliate me, whereas minorities are not granted such status.
I don't like arguments like that, but it seems plausible to me.
Okey dokey.
If her facts are wrong, say so. You offered no citations for your bald assertions at all. She did.
Chill.
nice. grear reading a blog on eminem ticket I like this blog here too eminem ticket
Nice Site. We have Free Houses on my site. Please take a look new home construction pa
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a flamingo las vegas site/blog. It pretty much covers ##KEYWORD## related stuff.
Come and check it out if you have time :-)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home