Can Black Police be Color-Aroused?

In the Sean Bell case in New York, the police couldn't get an all-white jury in New York City, so instead they got an all-white judge.    Brilliant!

Not for nothing has the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association forsworn jury trials for cops indicted in the Bronx. Two decades ago when Officer         Stephen Sullivan went on trial for fatally shooting Eleanor Bumpers, a black grandmother, he did not appear before a jury. [In the Bronx juries are predominantly black and Hispanic.] Instead, he was tried before a specially selected white judge, who acquitted him. NYPDConfidential

But, this case demonstrates something else much more subtle and useful that I've been saying about color-aroused behavior.  One of the police officers who killed Sean Bell was Black, and he's the one whom the Police Benevolent Association put before the cameras after the acquittals.  Why?  Because the PBA knows that Blacks believe that "only whites can be 'racist' ", as a matter of doctrine.   So, once we learn that one of the police officer culprits was Black, that will take much of the wind out of our angry sails.  The New York Times reports:

In Harlem, Willie Rainey, 60, a Vietnam veteran and retired airport worker, said that he believed the detectives should have been found guilty, but that he saw the case through a prism not of race, but of police conduct. "It's a lack of police training," Mr. Rainey said. "It's not about race when you have black killing black. We overplay the black card as an issue." NYTIMES
The fact is that when society does not value Blacks as much as it values whites, this affects everyone's behavior, regardless of their skin color - both Blacks and whites.  When a Black police officer considers employing lethal and unnecessary force force against a Black person, OF COURSE he considers the fact that he knows there will ultimately be no consequences for doing so.  He acts in the knowledge that if he shot a white person 50 times, he might well be executed in some states.

The New York Times says,

Sean Bell has become a symbol of what they describe as police aggression and racial profiling in black neighborhoods. Had Mr. Bell and his friends been white, they said, the police would have responded less aggressively, and Mr. Bell might still be alive.  NYTIMES
But that NEVER happens, police shooting white people as they shot Sean Bell, because everyone knows that even a police officer cannot shoot a white person 50 times!  Certainly a Black police officer would not be permitted to do so!    

One New Yorker told the New York Times,

"I'm just concerned about what kind of message it's going to send on both sides," Ms. Fobbs said on Saturday. "The community here is going to feel like anybody is fair game, if something like this could happen to an unarmed man and nobody was held accountable. And then, with the officers, it sends a message to them that they can do these types of things and get away with it."NYTIMES
So, what we have here is "color-aroused" behavior on the part of police officers, based society's reaction to the skin-color of their victims.   For the Black police officer and the white one, the perception of the color of the Black victim leads police officers to ideation (he's not worth much in the eyes of society and the courts and so if I kill him no one will care, and they might even be pleased), and that leads to behavior, (shooting the person under circumstances and in a way that would never occur with a white person).

Of course, this is a more complex way to analyze the situation then accusations of "racism", but it explains perfectly why even Black policemen value the lives of Blacks less than the lives of whites.  The simple fact is that the legal deterrents are de facto less for executing Black people and this makes ALL people, regardless of their skin-color, more likely to kill Black people.  And the number of Blacks killed in America every year, by Blacks and whites, supports this analysis.

I'm not usually one to rely on economic analyses of human behavior, but I make an exception in this case.  When Blacks lives are cheaper in the criminal justice system and in our culture, it creates more demand.  When televisions sets are cheaper, white people AND Black people will express more demand for television sets.  And if they were free, as Sean Bell's life has turned out to be, then television sets would fly off of the shelves, into the arms of Blacks as well as whites.

Would Black people  shoot each other as we do now if we knew we would be hunted and prosecuted, just as if we had shot a white person with blue eyes and blond hair?  Of course not!  So color-aroused behavior, not "racism", is implicated even when Black people shoot each other!

This is why "racism" is frequently not an analysis of the situation based on the facts, but rather an ideology seeking anecdotal facts to support preconceived conclusions.   Blacks, we are told, cannot be "racist" because the "canons" tells us that they cannot be.  Blacks cannot be "racist" because we don't have the power in society to control whites' lives as they control ours.  That's the doctrine and the canons.   But, Blacks CAN be color-aroused in a way that makes us more likely to victimize other Blacks, because the facts tell us that we can be.

The author is editor of the American Journal of Color Arousal (AMJCA).

Tags: black, Color Arousal, New York, Sean Bell, skin color, WHITE (all tags)



Re: Can Black Police be Color-Aroused?

That's a good explanation. I've been thinking about this a lot. I wanted to write a diary, but I figured it would turn into a relatively pointless expression of my disgust, rather than a methodically written analysis of the incident and the verdict. Sharpton phrased it aptly when he called it, "An abortion of justice."

by sricki 2008-04-27 08:58AM | 0 recs
Blacks can be racist

and calling it "color-aroused," a truly laughable and antiseptic term, does not change the fact that it is racism.

by bigdcdem 2008-04-27 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Blacks can be racist

You mean racist against themselves? Meaning they think whites are superior? That's true I suppose.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Blacks can be racist

well, anyone who thinks another race is superior to their own just simply lacks self respect. if these cops did, may they bring shame upon themselves and their families

by DiamondJay 2008-04-27 09:44AM | 0 recs
can we stop with the nonsense

we have people quoting cases from over a decade ago.

We have tens of thousands of police officers of all colors patroling our streets.

The incidences of fatal use of force is so low it is unbelievable.

Almost all the time it is justified.
This is provably true.

yet, people pick out horrible accidents, mistakes, or maybe a few bad apples and make grand statements.

What about the grand statements that people don't write diaries about the thousands of "Sean Bell"s killed by young black men each year, which is 10 x's the problem of police conduct?

by yellowdem1129 2008-04-27 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: can we stop with the nonsense

And when it's not justified, as in this instance, and when there is a history of black being killed by this police force, it's notable.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 09:51AM | 0 recs
Stop being an apologist for racists,

I see why you're a black Hillary supporter.

by bigdcdem 2008-04-27 09:51AM | 0 recs
I am NOT a hillary supporter!

Haven't you seen my "Concede Now, Hillary!" petition, with over 1,400 signatures, including my own?

I once was a Hillary supporter, until she began using color-aroused politicking in an effort to win the presidential nomination.

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I am NOT a hillary supporter!

My comment was in response to yellowdem.

by bigdcdem 2008-04-27 12:29PM | 0 recs
Color aroused ideation is complex.

You assume that, in order to be color-aroused, you have to believe that people of another skin-color are superior or inferior to you.  But, color-arousal can involved myriad different ideation (thoughts).

For example, the though that, "If I kill a white person, there's going to be hell to pay," is a color-aroused thought.  It's equally true that the thought that, "If I kill this Black person nobody's going to care very much," is a color-aroused thought.

You don't have to believe that you are superior or inferior to others to have color-aroused thoughts, although that is ONE kind of color aroused thought that SOME people have.

If you feel envious (emotion) of Black people because you believe (ideation) that Black people are better at sports, then that is color-aroused ideation (inferiority), whether it is true or false, that arouses color-aroused emotion (envy).  It is ideation that is aroused in you by the perception or awareness of the skin color of yourself and of another.

People who insist that "racism" is simple are just as wrong as people who insist that schizophrenia and anorexia are simple.  Calling a schizophrenic a "goddamned manic" will not help him to receive treatment, and calling an anorectic a "stinkin nutcase" will not help them to obtain treatment for anorexia.

Likewise, calling color-aroused people "racists" doesn't help them to understand or obtain diagnosis and treatment what might well be a  color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior disorder.  

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 10:08AM | 0 recs
Sometimes scientific terms seem bland.

Science progresses when we describe things empirically and precisely instead of emotionally, distortedly and with frequent exaggeration and/or minimization.

Actually, the quotes from the New York Times show that the "racism" mindset actually covers up much of the color-aroused behavior that exists in society.  Because behavior that is obviously color-aroused but doesn't seem to rise to the level of "racism" is often discounted and/or ignored.

Admit it!  We usually ask ourselves, "Is it 'racism' or is it permissible?"  If it's not the Klu Klux Klan burning a cross, then many people will conclude that it doesn't rise to the level of "racism" and so it should be the focus of attention at all.  Your insistence on exaggerating the threshold of what constitutes "racism" means that everything that doesn't fit your exaggeration will be discounted as unworthy of public concern.

For example, everyone argues over whether Geraldine Ferraro's comments were "racist or true".  However, because her comments explicitly involved skin-color, they were clearly color-aroused, whether they were true or not.  Once we know that they are color-aroused, they should receive intense scrutiny even if they do not rise, in many people's minds, to the level of "racism".  

The courts, doctrinally, are actually very far ahead of the public discussion on this.  Every law that mentions skin color has to survive "strict scrutiny" or heightened scrutiny in order to be constitutional.  A law doesn't have to be pre-adjudged "racist" for the law to receive heightened scrutiny.  It is sufficient that the law show explicit color-aroused ideation for the courts to automatically give heightened scrutiny to such a law. That's why Geraldine Ferraro's opinions ought to receive heightened scrutiny: not because they are necessarily "racist", but simply because they are obviously color-aroused.

Every time someone makes an assessment about people based strictly on their skin color, that ought to start a process of intense examination.  Even people who do not believe the color-associated statements are "racist" will have to agree that they are color-aroused.

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Can Black Police be Color-Aroused?

oh please, until I see a conclusive study of self racism on the part of these cops, black cops killing a black was not out of racism.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-27 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Can Black Police be Color-Aroused?

You mean you don't believe it was.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 09:39AM | 0 recs
Excellent Analaysis

Saving this diary and Rec.d

What you have done is brought the argument of racism from a broad spectrum to a more defined palpable explanation of behavior.

Sure made me think and say 'you are on to something'.

by optimusprime 2008-04-27 09:36AM | 0 recs

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 06:17PM | 0 recs
Of course. IATs show that

African-Americans hold internally negative reactions to  African-Americans. You can't live in America and be bombarded with the negativity towards African-Americans and have it not effect you.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course. IATs show that

why is that white people's faults? Asians don't hate Asians, hispanics don't hate hispanics, Turks don't hate Turks, so really, this is an issue for their community to work on themselves

by DiamondJay 2008-04-27 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course. IATs show that

Because America is controlled by whites and whites are responsible for the message of white supremacy that has pervaded our country since it was founded...

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 09:56AM | 0 recs
Everyone needs to accept responsibility.

On the societal level, it's true that some have more power to construct and change society than others.  That's an important for understanding and changing society.

On the individual level, we all have to accept responsibility for our color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior, because that's the only way that we, as individuals, can change.

This is why the "racism" analysis is deficient.  It says that all whites are "racist" regardless of what attempts they make to change, and all Blacks are NOT racist, even if we engage in color-aroused behavior.

"Racism" is also a "black and white" analysis, because most of us assume that, like pregnancy, you're "either racist or you're not."  In fact, color-aroused ideation, emotion and behavior is much more like mental illness, in that an individual can have a mild mental disorder, a moderate mental disorder or a extreme mental disorder.  It is important that we look at it this way, so that we don't ignore all of the cases of "racism" that are mild and moderate.  

As with other mental disorder, mild and moderate cases sometimes progress to extreme.  If we insist that "racism" is a hideous disease whose symptoms are obvious to all, then we will miss the mild and moderate cases of color-aroused conditions that might otherwise be remediated if they received early and competent attention.

This is why people who insist that "racists" are all hideous people are not doing themselves or anybody else any good.  They're part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 10:26AM | 0 recs
Sorry Manic,

nobody's buying this bullshit.

by bigdcdem 2008-04-27 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Everyone needs to accept responsibility.

Not necessarily deficient. Just talking about different things. But I understand what you're saying even if, as is apparent, others do not.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course. IATs show that

No, that's a skewed assessment of the situation. African Americans have been uniquely discriminated against in this country. It is absolutely white people's fault. Back in 1954 when Kenneth Clark performed the doll test for Brown v BOE, the majority of African American children chose the white doll. And here's the really sick thing about our society: they STILL do. Go watch the video. The people conducting the experiment ask the children questions such as, "Can you show me the doll that looks bad?" Watch that video, and watch that little girl pick up the black doll, and it'll make you feel sick. 50 years after the first experiment, they try it again and get very similar results. Is that what we call "progress"? If you think the white establishment in this country isn't largely responsible for this, you're delusional.

by sricki 2008-04-27 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course. IATs show that

I don't see how white people are at fault for other's low self esteems. After all these years, I think Bill Cosby is right. You cannot continue to blame everyone else and think you are going to make progress

by DiamondJay 2008-04-27 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course. IATs show that

Wait a second. You honestly don't see how segregation and racism in our society was responsible for the results of that experiment in the 50's? You think black people just have inherently low self-esteem? The Court disagrees with you.

by sricki 2008-04-27 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course. IATs show that

in the 50's, sure. But today, 50 years later, this should not be the case. They have been given the rights that they wanted and duly deserved. They have made a lot of progress in society, so I don't see why today, in 2008, their self esteem should still be low like that.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-27 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course. IATs show that

So you think racism doesn't exist anymore? African Americans don't still experience discrimination on a daily basis? You know, for one thing, that generation of children from the 50's is still alive today. If you think they and their children and grandchildren were not and are not still affected by the racist "white superiority" mentality which was and is deeply ingrained in this society, then you aren't being realistic. It takes more than 50 years to eliminate the effects of generations of oppression.

And why do you think Bill Cosby can speak for the entire African American race?

by sricki 2008-04-27 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Of course. IATs show that

it does, but why do the Asians not hate Asians, the hispanics not hate hispanics, and the Turks not hate the Turks? Thats something that has gotta be asked

by DiamondJay 2008-04-27 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course. IATs show that

Maybe because the white man in America didn't whip Asians, Hispanics, and Turks for years upon years, while demanding that they call him master? And then Asians, Hispanics, and Turks weren't told to use separate facilities for everything and to get off the sidewalk when they saw a white person coming.

Hm. I wonder what the difference could be.

by sricki 2008-04-27 12:19PM | 0 recs
Slavery ended

150 years ago. There has been plenty of time to recover.

How about the Chinese exclusion acts, and internment camps the asians suffered, the store signs against them? They don't hate themselves, despite all of the malicious stereotypes put upon them

by DiamondJay 2008-04-27 12:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Slavery ended

You are completely blind. They say ignorance is bliss. I hope you enjoy it.

by sricki 2008-04-27 12:29PM | 0 recs
Please educate yourself

"150 years ago. There has been plenty of time to recover."

Jim Crow only ended 30-40 years ago.  And its only been 54 years since Brown (many school systems did not integrate until almost 20 years afterwards).

by bigdcdem 2008-04-27 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Slavery ended

So what? 40 years ago there was Jim Crow. That's this adult generation or their parents.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 03:54PM | 0 recs
That's right!

And that bombardment affects Blacks as well as whites.

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: That's right!

The responses to this post are sad.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 10:12AM | 0 recs
i know facts don't matter, but...

The police routinely do a good job under dangerous circumstances.

They often encounter people who pose threats to them for short periods of time, who under normal circumstances are very nice/upstanding people.

It is a ridiculous statement that police don't shoot white people in the same way.  The facts are that people judge those cases cooly based on facts, whereas when there is some racial aspect the facts are clearly secondary.

I would supply the evidence, but I really don't think it would change anyone's mind.

by yellowdem1129 2008-04-27 09:41AM | 0 recs
You can change my mind with facts.

Please do provide evidence about the skin color of police shooting victims.  I'm sure we will all learn something very useful.

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: i know facts don't matter, but...

Do you have statistics showing that police shoot whites in the same way?

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: i know facts don't matter, but...

1st of all you talk about this case as if, a black person was walking home and got shot by the police.
Here are the facts:

This is usually the case. But Left-wing activists, esp. american americans are trying to make political points against the police and America.

I will quote facts in my next post about police shootings.

by yellowdem1129 2008-04-27 10:07AM | 0 recs
Please do come with some facts.

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 10:09AM | 0 recs
Here is one example of facts: 1/national/main3359288.shtml?source=RSSa ttr=U.S._3359288

The study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics is the first nationwide compilation of the reasons behind arrest-related deaths in the wake of high-profile police assaults or killings involving Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo in New York in the late 1990s

Most of those who died in custody were men (96 percent) between the ages of 18 and 44 (77 percent). Approximately 44 percent were white; 32 percent black; 20 percent Hispanic; and 4 percent were of other or multiple races.
In this study, a plurality of police deaths were white, and over 3/4 were not black.

Yet we have people who make statements about how police "treat blacks".

Now there is an argument about "overrepresentation", but that goes along with also being "overrepresented" with criminal behavior.

by yellowdem1129 2008-04-27 10:24AM | 0 recs
Considering that Blacks are 13% of U.S.

In the statistics you cite above, Blacks are grossly overrepresented among those who died in police custody, because Blacks are only 13% of the population, yet we represent 32% of those who die in police custody.  We are 250% overrepresented among the people dying in police custody, if my math is correct, and that requires further explanation.

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 10:34AM | 0 recs
The correct comparison would be

Do blacks in police custody die at a higher rate than whites in police custody?  If blacks represent a disproportionately higher proportion of people in police custody they should also represent a disproportionately higher proportion of those dying in police custody.  But, that would only be a starting point to the investigation.

One cannot say flatly that women are discriminated against in salary and promotion, ceteris paribus, simply because women make less than men.  The differential is just a starting point to the underlying investigation of causality.

by lombard 2008-04-27 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: The correct comparison would be

What about shootings of unarmed people not in custody?

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Considering that Blacks are 13% of U.S.

the point is that numerically more whites than blacks were killed by the police.

Of course statistics can be argued. But people here and elswhere were arguing that police shooting blacks is some special phenomenon.

Yet, the facts show more whites than blacks are killed by police.

The answer to the "over-representation" is bad family's, bad values, leading to bad behavior, which leads to "over-representation" in contact with police.

Again, there is no one alleging 100% law-abiding black people are being attacked by police.  Though they are often attacked by black criminals.

We are talking about a small issue in reference to the danger posed to blacks by black criminals.

No one at mydd, but maybe ME  would write a diary about that.

Oh, the life of a yellowdog dem.

by yellowdem1129 2008-04-27 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Considering that Blacks are 13% of U.S.

Your math does seem a bit off to me in that you are using the wrong figures. You should be comparing the perecentage of blacks who die in custody to the entire population of people taken into police custody, not the whole population.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-27 12:17PM | 0 recs
I know the facts of this case.

How about those facts you referenced before.

by heresjohnny 2008-04-27 10:11AM | 0 recs
If the victim were white, it wouldn't be news

If a black and white cop shot a white suspect, few would hear about it because no movement to protest the injustice would develop among white people.  The incident would likely be viewed as a possible matter of police misconduct by a small number of interested parties but not as a social issue.

At least I didn't see any large groups of white people cheering after this verdict like I did after the announcement of the OJ verdict.

by lombard 2008-04-27 10:11AM | 0 recs
what's more

just like in Jena, and now in this sean bell case,

I'm shocked how people skip over the criminal behavior of the people involved, and start talking about "blacks" getting shot by police, as if Colin Powell or Harold Ford got shot on Constitution avenue walking to work.
This is racist in implying to blacks should accept the criminal behavior of some in our community as not relevant to their circumstance.

Most A.A.'s try to live upstanding lives and do good in the world.  We don't hang out at clubs that are under police investigation, and been arrested numerous times for various offenses.

All of this goes to the credibility of what may/may not have happened at the scene.

by yellowdem1129 2008-04-27 10:29AM | 0 recs
What would happen to arouse 50 bullets?

Can you give me a scenario in which it would be normal for the police to fire 50 bullets at suspects?  A bank hold up?  The apprehension of someone armed and suspected of killing a police officer?  A hostage crisis resolved by a SWAT team?

Sean Bell's case was none of those, and that's what leaves people angry and incredulous.

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 10:40AM | 0 recs
Agreed but I'm happy for the Jenna mitigation

of charges and sentences.  I thought the charges were far too harsh under the circumstances.

by lombard 2008-04-27 11:00AM | 0 recs
When did cops shoot a white man 50 times?

In a tense standoff between police and an armed gunman, you might expect that police would shoot until the victim could not move.  But, when was the last time that police officers (of any skin-color) shot an unarmed white person 50 times?  If anyone can find a case like that, I'd be very interested to learn about it.

by Manic Lawyer 2008-04-27 10:37AM | 0 recs
I'm sure you could find numerous examples

if you dug around but nobody takes much interest in them.

by lombard 2008-04-27 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Can Black Police be Color-Aroused?

I think the police are falling into an increasing "US" versus the evil "Them" attitude, with the populace at large being the evil "Them".  All citizens are becoming targets and the minorities are just larger targets.

by Demo Dan in Dayton 2008-04-27 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Can Black Police be Color-Aroused?

I haven't followed this closely enough to know if it truly has a racial basis, but I do know one thing:

If I put fifty slugs into an unarmed man and then claimed self-defense, I'd be put away for manslaughter pretty quick.

This whole thing is a real shame.  Very sad.

by freedom78 2008-04-27 06:50PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads