Why is race indicated on criminal related posts?

[Rockrz]

Yep, them liberals only see it in their direction.

They demand that you see it from their point of view...
but, how dare you ever suggest that they look at it from your point of view

[The Annoyed Man]

My opinion is that too much importance is attached to the inclusion of race and gender in a perpetrator description, but that importance is being attached by those who object to the idea of including the information in the reporting.

Worrying that including the information may serve to perpetuate stereotypes is a valid concern, but that still doesn't mean that the information is not useful. What that means is that some people are bigots and will assume generalities about race and gender. However, those people are likely already bigots, and the information only serves - in their eyes - to confirm their suspicions. But that still does not mean that the information is not useful. The solution is to deal with the bigotry, not to suppress truth.

My view is that it is journalistic dishonesty not to include all the facts in reporting a story. None of us likes it when the media misreport gun "facts." Why should we like it when they hide or misreport other facts? Truth is what it is. If people have difficulty with the truth, then they need to deal with that instead of trying to suppress it.

So, how do I see that being applied in terms of this discussion? Well, I think it is perfectly legitimate, for instance, if a Member A posts about an "interview" he/she had, and mentions that the "interviewer" was of a different race or gender than Member A is. The reason it is acceptable information is that it helps Member A to draw a picture of exactly what was going down. Maybe there was some racial tension involved. If so, then that is relevant information. However, if Member B steps in and says "well, that's just typical of purple people," then Member B deserves to get slapped down for making a bigoted remark. So, it's not really the information that is at fault. It's what the viewer does with that information that can be a problem if it is not appropriate.

In other cases, maybe Member A really is a bigot him/herself, and that bigotry will become apparent in their opening post. But I don't think that the inclusion of racial and or gender descriptions is what makes them a bigot. Rather, it is the way in which the information is included that telegraphs Member A's real heart.

[WildBill]

My view is that it is journalistic dishonesty not to include all the facts in reporting a story. None of us likes it when the media misreport gun "facts." Why should we like it when they hide or misreport other facts? Truth is what it is. If people have difficulty with the truth, then they need to deal with that instead of trying to suppress it.

Maybe that is why, in court, the sworn oath is "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
I hate it when the Annoyed Man is more eloquent than me.

[Oldgringo]

I say call a spade a spade - NO PUN INTENDED!

When an APB is issued, how are we to know who to look for if we don't know who to look for?

In the meantime, tell it like it is - what's wrong with the truth?

I am so sick of all of this political correctness bull. In the future, please refer to the Oldgringo as an Anglo-American as opposed to a white guy, honky or non-person, etc.

Bitte unt Danke

[TX Rancher]

What can I say, skin color/tone is a discriminator. Its use doesn’t necessarily denote racism on the part of the person using it.

My horse is brown, my wife’s is black. When I point my horse out to someone I general say “the brown one”…it’s easier to say than “the horse in the field that’s closer to us and a little to the right”. No racism involved, color in that case is being used for speed and clarity.

If there are two blonds and a redhead standing in close proximity, and I wanted to draw attention to the one with the red hair, I would say “the redhead”, I wouldn’t waste time with “the one all the way on the left”. Again the intent is utilization of a discriminator for speed and clarity in communication.

Skin color is no different (or at least it doesn’t have to be). “Are you talking about the black guy on the left”? “No, I’m talking about the white guy on the left”. There’s no racism there, both individuals were on the left…color was just an easy and quick way to identify the right person.

The issue for many posts is color/race is really extraneous data that doesn’t materially contribute to the transfer of information, unless your point is to show race association with the crime (which doesn’t necessarily link the use to racism).

But I think in many cases we’ve been conditioned to add that sort of information, just the same as we’ve been conditioned to add gender when it really doesn’t matter.

But just because someone adds it as extraneous information shouldn’t be taken as a sign the person is racist.

Also, to me, just because something is a fact doesn’t mean it’s pertinent to the discussion. “A white male, who had blond hair, attended Catholic school, drove a Chevy, and was left handed attacked another white male, who had a Sears refrigerator, owned stock in Wal-Mart, forgot his mother’s birthday, and had a dog named Fritz” contains a lot more facts than required to get the intent across. “Facts” are not always useful…

What I feel is more important than the use of race, sex, religion, or any other potentially disparaging descriptor is the intent when they are used. Most of us can discern the intent of a post. If the intent is racist, than it doesn’t belong on an open forum. If its intent is not racist, then don’t see what ain’t there.

[McKnife]

As long as it's true, I see no harm in it.

In fact, I encourage it!

[rm9792]

Forgot Moms birthday? that didnt end well.

[Armed-Texan]

um because race is a fact. not a determining factor of who will or won't be a criminal but a fact of who actually committed a crime. if the police issued a warrant or a BOLO for a man in jeans and a t-shirt, who do you think they would look for. they wouldn't have a stinkin' clue as to who to look for. if it was an alien it would be a green male, in a shiny space suit seen wielding a photon blaster and demanding to be taken to our leader! it is a fact of the case/

[dihappy]

I noticed a disturbing trend. I have read many postings that discuss a news event, or situation that occurred to the post, and the race is always pointed out of the attackers.

What other adjectives would you have one use to describe a criminal???

"A human person robbed the bank at 5th & Main Street today"

Like, duh! What did the person look like???
Was he white, black, brown, yellow...that's part of a person's description.

Sorry, but you can't get around that.

Read the newspaper, it is rarely ever mentioned. When you dig deeper you do find a trend in certain areas of town, not being racist, simple facts. Reporters go out of their way to not mention race and especially ignore it if they are illegals.

And, that's part of the problem...ignoring the facts just cause it might hurt someone's feelings.

Dude, are you serious? As if an African American must always be dark skinned, or a "Mexican" brown.
I know a few "mexicans" who are "whiter" than some "anglo" Americans. And describing them as "Mexican" would do nothing in describing their physical looks.

And no one says, a "brown" male assaulted a womam. I can imagine that i could easily confuse you by saying something like "A Latin male..." and you would probably have a "brown" male in mind, when in fact i could very well be describing a very dark skinned Cuban guy.

[Rockrz]

Well, they always call me "white guy", or "cracker" and I'm not actually white...

[shootthesheet]

For most it is because that is the way the news article identifies the criminal. Sometimes, it is because the poster may live in the area and other news sources, especially TV news, does everything they can to not mention the race or the immigration status of a criminal. It is only later in a written, online, article that the race of the criminal is identified.

I get what the O.P. is hinting at but reject the underlying tone of racism somehow hidden on this board. That is a load and I don't hesitate to write that. And, if someone hints at it, that is their right. I don't think generalizing is good and in fact is a simpleton’s game. However, as long as racist language is not used, I have no problem with it.

The majority of what I have seen is used for technical and factual accuracy. The OP has not been here long by his/her own admission. In time, maybe that person will see that is the case for the majority of posts. Mentioning someone’s race is necessary and possibly dangerous. I say that because if those here only view blacks or Latinos or Indians or Muslims as a danger they may be caught off guard if their attacker was white in a possible future.

If a person looks for racism and only finds hints then they have seen no racism at all. It is only their opinion. If the poster does not use derogatory statements about a person of another race then they have done nothing wrong. They may be racists but they did nothing but show their limited faith in humanity. So what. This Cracker, Whiteboy, White Devil, etc., has no White Guilt to play on. I have never owned a slave or burned a cross or held someone back because of their race. I do question any person of any race that accuses a person or group of being racists without any proof. That is pre-judging that group out of the accusers own opinions and preconceived notions of that group or race. It doesn't matter if it is a white accusing other whites or one race on another. I say racism is prevalent in this nation in unfounded and unproven accusations. No matter how subtle that accusation is.

[Wildscar]

When the event involves a white criminal, you generally don't see the poster indicate that attacker was white. So I ask, why do we feel that race should be indicated on the posts when referring to an criminal event?

Why do you assume that the person must be white if the race is not listed. That's basically the same thing is it not?

Honestly why does it matter?

[Rockrz]

I do question any person of any race that accuses a person or group of being racists without any proof.

If you are white, then your ancestors owned slaves...or they looked the other way while their neighbors owned slaves, so that makes you a rasict!
(at least this is how the liberals in the black community spin it)

Why do you assume that the person must be white if the race is not listed. That's basically the same thing is it not?

Gonna make some liberals upset...betta be careful...

[KD5NRH]

Read the newspaper, it is rarely ever mentioned. When you dig deeper you do find a trend in certain areas of town, not being racist, simple facts. Reporters go out of their way to not mention race and especially ignore it if they are illegals.

Yup; often to the point of rendering the story useless. Case in point would be one I posted several months back with so-and-so LE agency wanting people to watch for some jail escapee, with no photo, locations but not descriptions of tattoos, hair and eye color, height and weight. No name, race, skin color, etc. Except for the tats, it could have been me or several thousand others based on their description. Eventually, another paper published his name, race and booking photos of his face and the tattoos. The text of the tattoos made his race pretty clear by itself, as did his name which is apparently why the first paper felt the need to leave those details out.

Be careful on the tattoos.

[DoubleActionCHL]

I haven't noticed it in posts that much. I do, however, notice that race is conspicuously absent in news reports. I agree that, after the fact, race is not terribly significant. When the perpetrator is still at large, however, I believe reporting his race is very important. Whether or not people want to admit it, race provides us with a factor in identifying the individual. The PC crowd has taught us that race has no purpose or value, and should always be ignored. Race serves a very valid purpose in some cases, but we definitely tend to use it when it's not terribly relevant.

Now, on to my rant about racism...

It's normal. It's ingrained in our DNA from the caveman days. We tend to categorize or generalize things (and yes, people) we consider a threat. If Zug and Thor go out on a hunt and are killed by a sabertooth tiger, even though Grug keeps one as a pet, the rest of the cavemen categorize sabertooth tigers as a potential threat. The same things happens in modern times, but we call it racism. If we watch the evening news and repeatedly notice a black face associated with burglaries, robberies, rapes and murders, our subconscious score keeper adds a click and forms a generalization that black equals criminal. Of course, it's not true, and we must consciously and rationally resist the temptation to react to this generalization, just as we resist the urge (most of us) to revert to our baser instincts and club a woman over the head and drag her to our cave.