UKC

What does UKC think about this episode?

For anyone who missed it; white woman walking dog off leash in Central Park challenged by black birdwatcher who asks her to put the dog on a leash as required by park regulations. WW refuses, saying the main dog-shitting area is closed and therefore it must be OK to let the thing range free in the park. Words are exchanged, in the course of which BBW says that 'if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it.'. BBW also happens to have to hand doggie treats, which he tries to feed to the dog to lure it away from bushes where he thinks birds may be nesting (I am guessing there was some history here, if he had come prepared with these). WW calls police, saying a black man is threatening her life and her dog's. BWW films incident (here)

youtube.com/watch?v=iUQWd4q3tjA&

Video goes viral, WW widely condemned (mainly for supposedly mistreating dog, though some are more inclined to treat the incident as attempted murder), and loses job. Back in the news today because the dog has been returned to her having been found to be in perfect health by the rescue centre she got it from.

BBW has not so far as I know given any explanation for his words quoted above.

It all seems a bit odd to me. If I were a woman alone with a cross man, and cross man said that to me, I would certainly be alarmed and one thing I might well do is call the police. If I were witnessing the event as a third party, I definitely would. I also wouldn't at all like strange cross men trying to feed stuff to my dog.

I do understand the problem that in America the cops tend to shoot any black man they meet. But it seems to me that's the problem, rather than WW as such. Not that I'm defending some aspects of her conduct.

What does UKC think? I'm guessing I know what Coel thinks, but how about the rest?

jcm

TBF Black people film interactions because of stuff like this. Many film interactions with the police. I think her actions justified his decision to film.

Had he not filmed her it would be his word against her and he'd likely be in trouble, quite easily detained for a while.

Whether she should have lost her job? Personally I don't think so, 're-training', race relations etc. 

Sure, it's a well-established genre on youtube. Obviously this one got more traction because of its timing.

I don't think anyone was in much danger of being detained as it went because by the time the police turned up they'd both left.

My point was more that it seemed to me that the behaviour of BBW would scare many people and in UK terms would justify calling the police.

jcm

Birds in Central Park? Obviously fiction

Re detained, thats why she made the threat. had the police come, you don't know. It happens all the time. Plenty of videos on line of guys being detained for no reason. A College quarterback was recently detained because he had bird shit on his car and the police got a false positive for cocaine (which they know is a very poor test that often gives random false positives). 

There's this one here, a black student cycling supposedly on the wrong side of the road. It's just such heavy handed policing of a minor violation. In the UK that would just be a shout out.

youtube.com/watch?v=GAA2XYUPygQ&

Almost any interaction with the police risks being more serious. And she knows it's scary for him, hence why she is using it as a threat. 

I posted a video today of two guys fined for jay walking. I've ran 20,000 miles since moving here 6 years ago and jay walk most runs. Nothing. 

I didn't think he was being aggressive but i can see it being taken that way. Personally, as a runner when approaching women in remote locations I always call out and keep away just to avoid any trouble.

I wonder why she did not just walk away.

She specifically says she will call the police and tell them she is being threatened by an African American male. That is the problem here, why specify that unless it's a threat.

The bit that is shown in that clip did not seem in any way like the man was agressive or threatening. As a tiny wee woman, I would not have been intimidated (from the limited information on that clip!)

I don't get why she didn't just put the dog on the lead?? If that is the rule, then the request is reasonable and holding the dog like she did is causing it a lot of discomfort! 

But yes, the main problem is that she is using his skin colour as a threat against him. 

Dog owner becomes aggressive and threatening when caught breaking the rules and then ups this in the worst possible way.

Thing is this happens all the time, minor panic, bad decision (my wife was driving), it’s a childish response or an in build response to that panic moment that you’ve done something wrong and are going to get into trouble.  You end up in far more trouble.

I hope she can explain herself, makes a proper apology and people learn something and some good comes from this.

Clearly he is a bad guy though.... cycle helmet.  Menace no doubt just prior to the clip he was riding on pavements and jumping red lights and being a danger which entirely justifies anything she did.  

Cheers

Toby

The kind of person who could walk away would not have had their dog off the lead in the first place perhaps.

Crikey, thats a broad brush, I really cannot see how you can make that statement. She was a well dressed person with a non aggressive dog, which she was actually over restraining.

I note one like for that, so far, is that jcm, who I believe has a bias against dogs, and reminded me of this when they called the dog a thing in the OP.

Hang on, JCM said the BW said  'if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it.' , that could be straight from a Dirty Harry or Quinten Tarrantino film, or are you siding with him because he is a cyclist, part of your gang.

So far we have

• Gender inequality
• Racial inequality 
• Cyclist inequality
• Dog owners and their rights.
• Rights to privacy
• Animal rights, the dogs and the birds.
• The rights of people who dislike dislikers.

there must be more, I could do a 10,000 word essay on this, and not have to pad it out.

That bit really needs a lot of context, dropping it like that I think is very unfair. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/nyregion/amy-cooper-dog-central-park.htm... 

She lunges towards him in the video, probably to try and stop the filming, he keeps well away from her. It's seems pretty much indicative of all the underlying racist stuff in America that she or anyone else could possibly start going on about him threatening her life from those words. 

If a big black guy threatens my life when we are both in a secluded bit of forest far from any other person that can offer help i would also just stand there, attempt to get close to him to snatch his phone, and take my time to do a phone call to the Police after telling the person threatening my life to stop filming.

Common sense innit. Same innate response which allowed us to survive the dinosaurs.

What about if the big black guy just asked you to put your dog on the lead, as required by local regulations? 

According to your script, the big black guy is threatening your life, but you have time to make a phone call. Surely if he was really threatening your life he wouldn't give you the time to make the phone call?

How do we know he is big?

You know what. I think you are right and i agree with you

That's the script given by Mr Lopez. 

Lopez was being sarcastic I believe

Really? If so, my mistake, for which I apologise.

Even if this seemed appropriate, why who it be necessary forher to make something up that obviously wasn't happening?

My fault. Been up since 5 and already had too many coffees so effective communication from my part is not a given

She was wrong not to have her dog on a leash.  She was wrong to call the cops and wrong to claim that her life was under threat.  

He was wrong to feed someone else's dog without permission.

I got it! Was pretty clear.

Yes, giving someone elses dog a treat is completely comparable to using someones race to threaten them.... or maybe its an irrelevantly small point in the wider context of the situation...maybe?

I got the sarcasm 😊

The quality of policing in the States is appalling, that is the real issue. I was once in a bar in Milwaukee where they came in and arrested the bloke I was having a drink with as he looked suspiciuosly like somebody else who had caused trouble at the bar. Fortunately everyone around us told the police it was not my colleague ( it was hilarious)and they stepped back. This sort of false arrest issue arises all the time.

There are 18,000 different police forces in the USA , training varies from  a few weeks to a year.

Its a shocking mess.

On the other hand over the past few days you have seen some real community policing where the officers have gone out of the way to be seen to be side by side with the protesters and calm things down.

Some, but not I, could accuse you of using a provocative racial stereotype, but thats not helpful, and derails discussion. Some elements of one part of the political spectrum have used this against other parts of the political spectrum for about 10 years now, and in my opinion put back the debate on integration by years.

If I put dog biscuits down it’s not my fault someone else’s dog isn’t trained not to accept food from strangers.  Dog biscuits are a useful way of diffusing a badly trained dog situation - I’m going to start carrying them after an incident with a free ranging farm dog and Jr when waking far from anywhere.

I would rather say he was wrong to litter.  

Neither, just an observation and I think a fairly accurate one (as a ex dog owner     )and then a joke.

Cheers

Toby

She's a hysterical racist. Have you watched the video?

She got fired and her dog taken away from her. End of story.

One further comment, I doubt very much he was some towering football playing type, he was bird watching and people generally, in my experience don't come on that strong if they feel threatened by someone.  Turning it round, I doubt very much the bird watcher would have confronted the dog walker if it had been a big guy with a pit bull. 

We've all seen this, you can't park there ******** **** **** you can't smoke here **** ***** *** we all fall short in our reactions to being told but I think in this case it showed something more about US society.

Cheers

Toby

What a stupid bitch, "Don't come close to me." as she walks up to him (who is clearly not moving).

My dog wouldn't have been off the lead anywhere it could annoy nesting birds anyway. If I was unaware of the nesting birds and someone asked me to put the dog on a lead, I'd have done it and walked away. (But then I also like birds and since my dog is no longer with us I get to see them a lot more).

If a man I don't know approaches me in the park (it happens from time to time, even when we were at the height of lockdown, on my daily exercise walks, which I was especially unimpressed with given I was wearing big headphones and definitely not looking for a chat), then unless he is only looking for directions or something, my response is, in the first instance, to walk off briskly. Not hang around threatening the police. If he really wanted to hurt me he could do it well before the police got there anyway. She knew what she was threatening.

Looks scary to me....

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1265338098256424973?s=20

(just to be clear, I was being sarcastic)

He didn't use a threatening tone.  He asked her to step away from him.  She walked towards him. 

She threatened him with calling the police.  

Her behaviour is the problem here.  

I think that classifying her as a Karen is a form of stereotyping which does nothing to heal a fairly incendiary situation ( I'm talking about his later reference to her , not your post title). 

As a white man, I would be wary of approaching a lone female if I was not with another female. I think this man was unwise, to approach or speak to her, regardless of his colour, particularly at the heightened tensions at the moment due to the Pandemic, people are twitchy about personal space.

However she is also way out of order, and should have just walked away, and I think she is panicing and semi hysterical, and using the levers she thinks may work. The comment she uses does betray an underlying racism, that I suspect many white people have. 

It would be interesting to know a little more about her, what her normal attitudes are, and how they compare to how she acts understress.

Ps, I have cheered up a bit, and trying to moan less

Racial stereotyping indeed.

This guy says it's just genes https://images.theconversation.com/files/126099/original/image-20160610-292...

Watching the video it's obvious that she's way out of order, either lying hysterically or at least wilfully misinterpreting the black man on the phone to the police. She's also really aggressive, and completely fails to understand that she's in the wrong if her dog is supposed to be on a lead.

She should have apologised, put the dog on a lead, and walked off. Instead she started a confrontation, tried to stop him filming which he has every right to be doing, and essentially tried to get the man arrested and potentially sent to jail for something he didn't do.

Only thing he did wrong (at least going by that account) is feeding the dog a treat - should never feed someone else's dog anything without asking them. It might be intolerant, be on a restricted diet, or the owner might simply be worried that you're trying to do it harm (some people are just that sick that they do poison food and try to get dogs to eat it).

If she were genuinely worried for her safety then she wouldn't have confronted him like she did, and wouldn't have made the phone call in the way she did. 

I really don't think there should be any disagreement over who's is in the wrong here. 

Didn't she prove the stereotype to be true in her case?

I can see what you are saying, it would certainly have been easier for him to not get involved but he was worried about the baby birds which is obviously something important to him.  

Her behaviour was entitled, hysterical and racist.  Presumably she has been brought up to be scared of black men and that is part of the bigger issue.  

I don't think it's fair to blame him for trying to do the right thing.  

Get your head out of your arse!

I think its important to make it clear that the consequences could have been more than arrest or prison.  

This situation could have escalated to his death.  

This is interesting https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/who-karen-and-why-does-sh... in looking at the Karen meme, but in it they talk about how in this case it seems particularly funny because Mr Cooper, not only is Harvard educated, professionally accomplished, an active birdwatcher, and activist for LGBTQ rights, but just seems so nice in general. I think they called him "every mother's hoped for son-in-law".  

I bet Ms Cooper is normally perfectly nice too, IIRC she starts her 911 call with "I'm sorry but...", what's scary is how when stressed all this dark stuff that might normally be hidden away comes out. There's probably a good chance as an educated professional living in NYC she would normally say the way that way police treat black men is wrong, but in such a facile encounter she uses that knowledge to threaten him - that's awful.

I agree.

I just see a woman behaving abominably and with racist overtones.  "there's a black man threatening my life" when as far as the video shows he was nothing other the firm and polite.

How would you feel if you were the man in that situation? After making a polite request you are accused of being a criminal while your ethnicity is being noted.

That said I don't understand why she was sacked or her dog was taken away. They sound like massive over reactions. Surely pointing out to the world that she's a vindictive lying cow is enough?

Ah well, now there's a can of worms.  Stereotypes (of all sorts) often do have quite a dollop of truth in them.

But that's rather different from whether stereotyping is appropriate behaviour -- since the stereotypes will definitely not apply to all members of the category.

I wouldn't take kindly to a stranger filming me if I was out in the park. Or my wife if she was out on her daily exercise walk.If the intention was to video shame her for having the dog off the leash he left it a bit late.

Lots of people would have reacted angrily to what he did, though they might have expressed their anger by different means. As someone else said, if it had been a large male walking a pit bull the situation might have panned out differently.

Do you think it is reasonable to phone the police and make false allegations? 

What might have happened if he didn't film it? 

This comes straight of To Kill a Mocking Bird. Fifty years of civil rights struggle and it still goes on.

Like setting the dog on him, beating him up then calling the police and saying it was self defence?

I think this would come under Post Colonial theory in that Black people where portrayed as different to white people, by colonial powers, in many ways and because of this it was reasonable to take their lands and enslave these people, and part of this process was to portray the black man as something to be feared, and this will run deep, and at times of stress, it may some to the surface. I do not wish to be prurient but its a common thing for people to make jokes about Black men's penis size, this is all part of the same thing. Also most white people in the USA and the UK tend to live separately from people of other ethnicities, with certain cosmopolitan places, such as London possibly being outliers, but even there, people tend to live people like themselves, either by wealth, race, religion or education. And people are suspicious and even fearful of strangers.

I'll have a look.

She strikes me as the kind of girl who'd call the police and tell them you were hitting her if you broke up with her. Would have a staring role in an 80's movie involving boiling rabbits. 

Excellently put.

Unrelated to the topic, and not a dig or a criticism, but why do you so often use the present participle (“I’m thinking”) rather than the present (“I think”)? Is there a nuance of language that I am overlooking?

I think people are missing the point. The video starts well into the interaction (as recounted by BBW on various US talk shows). Before this point BBW had attempted to feed WW's dog, and had also said 'I'm going to do what I want, but you won't like it.'. That's a pretty sinister thing for a man to say to a lone woman in an isolated situation. It's not surprising she was frightened. I'd have been frightened. And it's hard to imagine that BBW didn't intend for her to be frightened.

Certainly WW didn't behave so beautifully - frightened people don't -, but having deliberately frightened her and (yes) having used his blackness and maleness to do so, I think it's a bit rich of BBW then to act quite so racially victimised. 

jcm

OK. As I said, no criticism. It just makes your posts really recognisable (similar to your use of question marks at the end of sentences and statement to try to look humble). 

So would you advise all black men who come across white women in Central Park that filming them is appropriate behaviour just to be on the safe side. It still hasn't been explained why he was filming her.

In answer to the question "What might have happened if he had't started filming her?" there are all sorts of possibilities. Since it seemed to be the filming that really got her back up, a likely answer is that if he hadn't started  fiming she might just have flipped him the finger and carried on her way. She might  have abused him verbally, even racially.  But it seems to be the filming of her which causes her to approach him and then decide to use the phone call to the cops as a retort. Unless he knew in advance she was going to call the cops on him with no need, there isn't any real reason for him to have been filming her. 

Ok, thanks.

Do you have a link to the account of what happened prior to the filming?

 A possibility yes, although if the police came in all gung ho and murdered him without any further provocation then that's their responsibility not hers from my point of view. Even with what she said on the phone you wouldn't reasonably expect police to come and kill him.

Don't think this situation needs any exaggeration for it to make her look really bad, which it does.

Trying to portray it as attempted murder is a bit like saying everyone that gets in a car is an attempted murderer. Sure there's a chance someone might die, but it's pretty unlikely and not most people's intention. 

People of all races start filming incidents that they worry might escalate. e.g. a car accident where at least one of those involved is behaving aggressively. I think it is almost encouraged by some institutions. 

A classic one that went viral was a near-altercation between a bus driver (who was in the right, and filming) and an idiotic passer-by who was trying to be a hard-man "knight in shining armour" helping a stupid woman who had parked obstructively and was now blocked by the bus. Bus driver and passer-by both filming each other. 
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/traine...

We can't know what happened before he started filming, I'd say anybody who felt like they were dealing with an erratic person and are worried they'd be accused of something could be sensible to film the interaction (depending on said erratic person). If it was me I'd probably just walk speedily away, but since we all have different psychologies it's not my place to judge what he did (I think the lady probably needs to ponder her world view and some of her racial preconceptions).

Firstly it was his sister I think who put the video up, not Christian Cooper himself and in the video itself he seems to do absolutely nothing that is being "racially victimised". Beyond that what evidence do you have for him saying anything "sinister"? The context to what he has reported himself as saying, was a discussion about a dog needing to be on a lead! He was going to give the dog treats and perhaps restrain it himself. Why is his blackness frightening? American history tends to show that white women should be frightening to black men, not vice versa.

I'm happy to believe his account of what happened.  He hasn't indicated that she was in any way threatening before he started filming and it seems to be his decision to start filming which was the catalyst. 

Did having her dog off the lead illicitly make her an "erratic person"? What was there about her that made him feel that he might" be accused of something" - the fact that she was a middle class white female? 

Sometimes one gets a sense that somebody could be, there's nothing in my mind to suggest that she'd be other than how she turned out to be while being filmed however. 

I'm not sure if that's prescience, hindsight or a crafty blend of both.

You can read an account of the run up to the filming here:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/27/amy-cooper-doesnt-deserve-sympathy-but...

I just meant that he could have started filming because he thought she seemed as erratic/whatever one would call it as she turned out to be. Occasionally people do do (do do doo do).

You forgot suicide amongst middle aged white working class males, as I lost the will to live half way through JCM's turgid prose.

I was also disappointed at the cultural appropriation of 'BBW' by someone who isn't a female of larger build.

Yes, occasionally people do. We had a bit of a debate on this at the start of the lockdown: whether it was right for individuals wielding cameras to be uploading videos  of perceived wrongdoers rather than going through official channels. I suspect that Mr Cooper himself now wishes that he had not shown the video to his sister.  His reasons  filming the tail end of the interaction aren't very clear to me but his sister's motives  in uploading it onto the internet are fairly obvious.

When I see the UKC PC race warriors frothing, I always wonder how many have ever had someone other than possibly someone they met at uni, of a different ethnicity round for tea.

Exactly, I certainly fit a few of them.

Surely if you, at least partly, fit a stereotype you have control over, they you deserve some criticism, or at least to have it pointed out.

Maybe walk a mile in his shoes and find out

When black people in America are scared of being killed by the cops, who know what counter measure people think are appropriate.

If someone hadn't filmed George Floyd being slowly murdered, what would be happening now?

He'd be another dead black bloke who was resisting arrest, and everyone would move on again.

Well not all stereotypes are bad, so not all stereotypical behaviour deserves criticism.

But yes, the Central Park lady in this incident does indeed deserve criticism.

That's rather a different issue from whether it is appropriate to use racial-stereotype expressions such as "Karen". If people are against racial stereotyping in general then maybe they should avoid the expression. 

Isn't it the validity of what is being said/thought/posted which counts?

It could seem odd to suggest that only people with recent friends of other races should make a fuss about racism.

Edit: Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, that is. 

I don't know, but I doubt we'd have been discussing a bit of a spat between a dog walker and a birdwatcher which now seems to have more news value than the deaths of thousands of people worldwide in all manner of catastrophes..two weeks before the George Floyd disgrace  it would have been a You Tube/ Facebook bomb.

https://depauliaonline.com/48254/artslife/the-karen-meme-is-everywhere-and-...

It's not a term I've ever used, but this seems to suggest that a 'Karen' is an entitled white woman who is unaware of her white privilege. My own way of putting how the lady with the dog in Central Park was being might have been 'A lady making a hoohar out of not so much in a way which might led to trouble for the black guy with the phone given racial politics in the US'. 

Disclaimer: Other definitions and perceptions can also exist and be valid, & my posting the above does not mean that they don't, have a nice day UKCers, I'm off out in the sun...

Amongst all the posters querying the build up, it turns out thta the clip you linked isn't complete. See 3:00 in here for a rather telling few seconds more:

youtube.com/watch?v=RuU-SHQljDQ&

But that's exactly the answer to your question earlier about why was he filming, it's because that's SOMETIMES what you need to do as a black man in America, to make sure people believe you or to make sure other people can't distort the truth.

The attitude of the woman, is the attitude of many people in the US, which is why George gets killed, can you not see how these things are linked, along with many other instances?

If I knew what a 'Karen' was, I might agree... or I might not...

[edit: now enlightened a little by later posts...]

Yes, I think you have the wrong end of the stick, its easy to be non racist in a twee white enclave, less so in an inner city area cheek by jowl with people of other cultures.

I do find it amusing sat in climbing huts listening to the PC prattle, and imagining what would happen if a pair of black people walked in.

George got killed first and foremost because he ran into a bad cop, one with murderous proclivities who should have been weeded out years ago if his record is much to go by.

I can see what's wrong with the dog walker's response to a run- in with a black man but that is not the reason George got killed.

If it's a genuine concern among black males that any chance encounter with a middle class  white female might end up with you being a victim of death by cop, by all means keep on filming.  But once you've had the luxury of hindsight and replay, think very carefully before broadcasting your altercation with the  entire world. What sort of recompense do you really want for an argument in the park? Apology?  Humiliation of your opponent? Loss of their  job? Death threats? Incarceration?

Mr Cooper , to his credit, shows an awful lot more humanity in his response to Ms Cooper's fate than a lot of commentators. 

Both of these are linked, the cop didn't get fired earlier, because that's their "system", the woman knows what the "system" is like and used it to her advantage.

I'd imagine the reason it got disseminated, and I can only surmise why I might want to do it in his position, is it demonstrates how the system is stacked against him. It explodes the myth of "no such thing as white privilege" because both of them know how it works.

People should be outraged that she KNEW if she called the cops and told lies, it would be him that would be in the shit, sadly many people aren't. sadly many people would be happier if shit like this never saw the light of day, it stains all of America, and in a way all of us who stand by and wonder why people would want to record any interaction.

This is true, but like the wife who doesn't want to press charges against her, wife beating husband, it doesn't mean she didn't do anything wrong. In the same way a parent sometimes forgive the killers of their children, it's nice if you can do it, but it doesn't make everything perfect or normal.

Are you suggesting it shouldn't have been seen by a wider audience?

I'm suggesting that it should have been  his call and that with hindsight he would have probably slept easier if he hadn't let his sister take charge of events.  I don't see him as quite the beaten wife that you do,  or the parent of a murdered child. 

On the last last example you gave, one of the most heartening expressions of humanity I've ever come across was the man who forgave the IRA hours after he had felt his daughter's life slip away after one of their bomb attacks. It was very far removed from  just being "nice if you can do it" .

Edit: Gordon Wilson. His response to his daughter's death became world famous and probably advanced the NI peace process by a considerable degree. Maybe there's some of the Enniskillen spirit in Mr Cooper and if so, he shouldn't be faulted for it.

Ah, gotcha, it's trickier when in a situation where one's prejudices might surface each day and need to be looked at, rather than lay dormant when living in more of a bubble of one's own race. At least they're not talking about society having gone downhill and Britain being lost to it's own race and that kind of thing.

Depends what you think is important. I think it's important not to use stereotypes that form part of a history of treating people of a certain race (etc.) as second class. As for stereotypes that don't carry such associations, I don't think they matter.

If you think it's important not to expose yourself to hollow, insincere criticism from people who have a very limited understanding of issues surrounding discrimination (the kind of people who say, like a child in a playground, "aah, that's racist" in response to any utterance referencing skin colour regardless of meaning or context) then, yes, you should avoid expressions such as "Karen".

Which is the usual "punching up versus punching down" reply.

I'm very dubious about that reply. I think that the whole "critical theory" tactic of analysing such all interactions in terms of racial and gender groups and power relations between them, is overall harmful. 

I think that if it's a bad thing to have derogatory labels that are only used for one race, then it's a bad thing to have derogatory labels that are only used for one race.

"Punching up versus punching down" is an expression used about comedy - it's why we think it's funny to mock the powerful, but unfunny to mock people who are vulnerable.

I don't think it's got anything to do with "critical theory" (which I don't have the first clue about) - that sounds like the kind of thing someone who thinks "post-modern neomarxists" are threatening western civilisation would say. I don't know what you're on about.

That's a nice simple rule for you to use then. But please don't expect me to abide by it, because I'm quite capable of considering the consequences of the things I say based on social context.

Perhaps you are over reacting because you interpret the black fellow saying he can now do what he wants as meaning he will do her harm thereby reinforcing a perceive white prejudice taught to us from our culture that black men are violent/rapists of white women/criminals. 

It's an old trope spread by white people partly through fear but mostly to justify racism and extrajudicial lynching. 

It's also used much wider than that, including the idea that it's ok to use derogatory racial stereotypes about some races (make that one particular race) but not about other races.

It's all about analysing everything in terms of "oppressed groups" and "oppressor groups". 

I'm suggesting that the long-term consequences are not good. 

For example, the critical-theory identity-politics stuff started in the US.  Does it seem to be making the US a contented and united place?

I think it's simple to avoid using stereotypes that leverage a history of discrimination against someone. I can do that without having any idea what you mean by "critical-theory identity-politics stuff". 

They don't seem to like police brutality against blacks very much. And they voted for a president who's a racist and misogynist. Is that what you mean?

Partly, yes, since that was, in part, a reaction to the identity politics of the left and the critical theory on which identity politics is based.

Things there do not seem to be getting more harmonious.

You're missing the very basic facts on the surface and trying to find something underneath that suits your agenda. When in comes to the difference between the stereotypes "black man threatening my life" and "karen", you don't need a "theory" all about analysing everything in terms of "oppressed groups" and "oppressor groups". It's all on the surface in front of you. You seem to think that there's some kind of new-fangled political movement that's at fault in drawing some harmful distinction - that's not what's going on. It's been unacceptable to use stereotypes against minorities who've suffered a history of oppression for a long time. It's still unacceptable. The things that make it unacceptable are not present when you're using a stereotype about white (etc.) people. 

Do you have any gut intuition about the different consequences of using the stereotypes "black man threatening my life" and "karen"? Isn't it just glaringly obvious what the enormous differences are? Can you see that accusing someone of being a "karen" is mocking someone's behaviour, not their skin colour? I don't think a textbook on "critical theory" would help you to understand that.

Which are all great, but those people weren't the underdogs for all there lives, they probably weren't under the impression they might be killed like so many other that looked like them, and by people who are supposed to be protecting them.

What you've posted is very far away from the life of a black person in the USA.

Obviously people can forgive, there's load of example, but they're still rare, even rarer still in the US where more than likely they'd be calling for the death penalty.

I don't see him as the beaten wife either, I see him as someone who was wronged and it should be investigated, no matter what he thinks or wants. Who knows she might be a serial liar, and she may well have cause the death / incarceration of some previous or in the future.

She was malicious and dangerous, next thing she'll be crying rape! Possibly

"Threatening my life" is also a behaviour, and there are also lots of other stereotypes about the behaviour of racial groups, not just their physical attributes. 

You are obviously shitting me, fine, but there are some pretty thick people around who might actually think "yeah, that's a good point". So for the benefit of those people:

When the white lady says to the police switchboard "there's an african american man threatening my life", she isn't referring to his behaviour. You can tell this, because the video shows that he isn't threatening her life. What she's doing is using a stereotype of black men being violent and dangerous, a stereotype with a long, extremely serious, dark history against the black man. It's this stereotype that's the reason the police may be more likely to believe her, and possibly to mistreat him. 

All in all, using that stereotype isn't very nice, because it has bad consequences.

Describing the lady as a "karen" is using an internet meme about white middle aged women who act in a condescending and entitled manner. Calling her a "karen" is mocking her behaviour. It's not a stereotype that carries any consequences with its use. It doesn't matter.

Seriously, just what the f*ck do you imagine would happen?? 

jcm

I'd say it was more reinforcing the trope that men who say to women they're now going to do what they want are not generally about to do anything good.

jcm

Because all black people in the US live the same lives, yes?

Obviously not, but I doubt there are many who suddenly lose a loved one to someone who commits mass murder based on religious grounds.

The issue in the US at the moment, is black people, from whatever background are living in fear of people who are supposed to protect them, not some faceless unknown enemy.

Black people know who they're targets, it's just they're powerless to prevent themselves being victims.

They victims you posted didn't know they were targets, indeed they usually weren't targets, it was only after people found that fact out.

Living with that thought every day might be very different from suddenly being caught up in something you didn't know was coming.

You haven't told us what you think. 

Correct, but she is referring to a stereotype about the behaviour of black males.

And I said that in reply to you making a distinction between behaviour versus physical attributes:

"Isn't it just glaringly obvious what the enormous differences are? Can you see that accusing someone of being a "karen" is mocking someone's behaviour, not their skin colour?"

There I suggest you're wrong.  I suggest that using such racial-stereotype terms increases divisions in society.  The term originated in the US, and is (a very small) part of the increasing disharmony there. 

That's a good point which I agree with as in many cases it would be true but if look at it from another point of view you can see that when two strangers interact it should be with courtesy, respect and good manners, until that is one treats the other rudely or in a disrespectful way then the aggrieved party will think well if you will not treat me with the same common courtesy I have shown to you then the gloves are off and i will now behave toward you in a disrespectful manner. That however only means violence if you think most men are always going to be violent/aggressive/abusive toward a women in that type of situation. What I'm trying to say in my muddled way is that there are a ton of ways to diss or take the piss out of someone without being aggressive or even threatening or violent. 

Christ. It's a stereotype that associates a negative behavior with the colour of someone's skin (and gender) *in general*. It's *about* skin colour. "Karen" doesn't say "you're white so you're like this" - it's not *about* skin colour. Your point really is very shit. 

What a load of shit. It is not a stereotype created by black people to use against white people.

This point you're trying to argue, just because you're unable to back down, is absolute nonsense. Give up! 

BBW has a special meaning on the internet. Did the BBW have a BBC?

From your description I thought Central Park was a sitcom. I wouldn’t watch it. Sounds rubbish.

Hmmmm...it seems to me that the problems in the US are due to the actual oppression of a minority group rather than critical theory.  

Yes, that is exactly what it says.

And read up on "whiteness studies" (a real thing now in US universities).

No, but it is a term created by woke people to use against white people.

There are underlying racial tensions and divisions, yes, but critical theory is exacerbating them rather than helping.  

And it is really true to say that minority groups are "oppressed" in the US today? 

Karen says "you're white and middle class" with a lot of assumptions about what that means. It's rarely used for poor whites and it's never used for blacks.

It might not have been created by black people but it seems to be a very easy slur to throw into the mix - both Mr Cooper and his sister were very quick to use it in their accounts of the incident. 

No it isn't. It's about a certain type of behaviour (and even haircut if Google serves me correctly). 

What the f*ck has that got to do with anything? 

Come on then, show me how "Karen" was created by "woke people" and is something to do with the f*cking frankfurt school, or whatever nonsense it is you're going on about. 

A certain type of behaviour attributed to white, middle-class women, a type of behaviour that exemplifies "whiteness".

It has absolutely everything to do with it! 

It is about white middle class women (possibly with a certain haircut) who are expected to behave according to a stereotype. How many definitions of Karen can you find that don't make reference to skin colour?

This Karen meme is news to me though isn't it just a new way of calling an entitled woman a diva which anyone from any race can be called, even men because it isn't about a person it's about a specific attitude? 

Here's some statistics for blacks killed per year in the US: 

9200 total blacks killed, of which typically:

8500 killed by black non-cops

500 killed by white non-cops

100 killed by black cops

100 killed by white cops. 

And, yes, US cops are way too aggressive, are often too brutal and kill too many people, and they should be held to way higher standards. 

But: "According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with Whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost eight times higher than Whites, and the victim rate six times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of White victims killed by Whites and 93% of African American victims killed by African Americans."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

So yes, the likelihood of being killed in an interaction with police is way too high, but it is very far from being the main source of danger.

It says "you're behaving like an entitled patronising bitch, a behaviour I associate with certain middle class white women with a certain haircut". It's not used against any old white woman to put her down for being white. And it *definitely* isn't leveraging a history of second class treatment against anyone, which is the whole reason racial stereotyping is unacceptable! Jesus! 

So what. 

It is unfortunate that you can't distinguish between the requirements of basic decency, and your political agenda about "woke ideology" "critical theory" and all that bollocks. 

Jeez Coel, you're a valuable contributor to this forum, and you often post challenging and important stuff*, and then you blow it by pursuing this ridiculous argument.

"Honky" is a racist term to refer to white people. Karen, Chav, Wigga, Hooray Henry, Gammon are all terms that are only used to refer to white people but are not racist, because the slur is not referring to the person's colour - it's referring to their behaviour. "Coconut" is a slur only applied to black people, but I'd argue that it's not racist because it refers to behaviour rather than race.

*Your post about the death statistics showing that the biggest killer of black men is black men being a prime example.

It does seem to have been created to describe a certain type of entitled woman, namely a white woman in early middle age (as it seems to be tied into being lower-to-middle-management which "suits" that demographic), hence choosing a "white" name that was popular in a certain generation. 

However, some of the most "Karen-like" behaviour I've personally witnessed in England - which is not a lot - has been from Asian or black women. A particularly memorable one was in Lidl one time when only the self service tills were open as it was evening time, but there were staff in the aisles. An incredibly entitled Asian woman basically ordered a shelf stacker onto the tills to serve her. I regret not intervening or at least asking her who the hell she thought she was. The hapless shelf stacker just did as he was ordered, I guess to avoid creating a scene. 

So what? I'm sure Mr Cooper avoids or acts in certain way in some predominantly black neighbourhoods where he might be scared of crime.

Secondly, interactions with police don't have to end with someone being killed to be intensely negative. They don't need to even be violent to have big negative consequences on someones life.

What really is your point? It comes over as you trying to diminish the experience of racism that others face, although I'm sure you will dispute that. 

So, semantically and culturally,  what makes "honky"  racist when the rest of your list is not?

You seem to be saying that behaving like an "entitled patronising bitch" is something only to be associated with middle class white women with a certain haircut, never blacks or Asians? 

Or rather, people who use the word "Karen" make this specific association.

Because "Honky" is referring to a person's colour and nothing else. Honky applies to any white person regardless of any other distinguishing features that person has, and therefore is a slur about being white. All the other terms don't apply to all white people, they apply to a particular group or behaviour. They are not a slur based on race, therefore they not racist.

It’s a good job we haven’t got a global pandemic killing hundreds of thousands of people and possibly the biggest economic recession ever to deal with so we’ve got time to argue semantics over the precise definition of the label ‘Karen’... FFS. 

There are loads of racist stereotypes about blacks that also refer to their behaviour (do you want me to list them for you?, things like "rape white women") -- does that make them ok? 

Just when I think you can't go lower you go for it.  

Where does "cracker" fit into your reasoning? 

It doesn't apply to all white people, just a sub-set, but I would say it's as racist as honky in its application.

..or even a tiff in a park over a dog being off its leash.

F*ck me. I point out that you're getting yourself into a bit of a hole and your response is to start digging your way to Australia.

You're going to have to explain "cracker" to me. I've never heard it. I tried Google but I'm still none the wiser.

So are racist stereotypes based on behaviour ok for you or not?

(And Australia is a mighty fine country to visit!)

In a controversial sense it's the white "n" word and I'm surprised that Googling hasn't turned much up about it.

Used disparagingly, mostly by blacks to describe poor Southern whites. The complication is that some  Southerners use it among themselves  with a sort of pride in their humble roots but that doesn't automatically mean that outsiders can use it about them without it being an insult.

There's a lot of debate now about whether it is in fact a racial slur, inevitably much denial about it being the equivalent of the n word, but its relationship with honky is very close, the main difference that it's usually limited to poorer Southern whites. I was also going to cite "peckerwood" but it seems that it has been increasingly adopted by Aryan prison types  so better leave that one out of it.

No.

I guess you could call it a "character stereotype", like on Little Britain. It's just taking the piss out of a certain type of person, like vikki pollard or any other character. Harry and Paul is similar (and better imo) for this kind of humour - if you honestly think "Karen" is an offensive racial stereotype (and you don't, because that would be ludicrous), your bar for being offended must be so incredibly low that every time you turn on the TV and see a character being ridiculed, you get all offended? Do you? Really? 

A crucial point you're missing is that in a world without racism, there would be no taboo about references to skin colour. In a world of equality, everyone would be making jokes about black, white, asian etc people and it would all be fine. There wouldn't be an issue. But when you use stereotypes against people who've suffered racism, you're making a contribution to keeping that racism going. Character stereotypes like "karens", "tim nice but dims", etc don't do this. They don't cement any existing prejudice, all they do is take the piss out of specific type of person. 

And btw the argument "that racism is in the past, why can't they just get over it" isn't going to hold a lot of sway in the current climate, because it is false. 

It most certainly is. Have you not noticed how black people are treated?

..is the bit I was referring to. The behaviour only seems to be associated with one social class and one race.

Come on, this point is not difficult to understand, don't play dumb. Insults like "gammon" and "Karen" are not used against their targets because of their skin colour. They're used to take the piss out of their behaviour. 

A similar stereotype of a different race would be "pushy Asian mom". It's not an offensive racial stereotype because it doesn't use a history of discrimination against someone.

When a society is historically racist and opportunities are unequal, it even becomes the case that positive stereotyping of black people (as being say good at sport) are seen negatively. They're seen as patronising, carrying an implication that that's *all* black people can do.

The consequence of *racism* is that it has made almost all reference to race somehow loaded with negative connotations. It's not a consequence of f*cking "critical theory" or "woke ideology" FFS.

The fact that you think critical theory and leftist academics are the problem makes you look like an utter ding-dong. 

Of f*cking course "Karen" is a derogatory racial stereotype, that is the entire point of the coining!   I mean FFS!

For more background on such attitudes in the US, the Sarah Jeong affair is illustrative.  Jeong is an Asian American, and that group has (overall) higher salaries, higher educational standards, lower rates of incarceration, etc, than whites.  It's not tenable to regard Asian American as "oppressed". 

She, personally, is also a highly privileged person in a prestigious and influential job as a writer for the New York Times, America's most prestigious "paper of record". 

And yet, when she was found to have a long history of derogatory anti-white Tweets her behaviour was excused. Was she fired? No.    It is this sort of thing that is helping to divide America. 

For commentary on the Jeong affair read: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/08/sarah-jeong-new-york-times-anti-whi...

Do you think it's "the equivalent of the n word"?

I haven't seen anyone suggest that, I'm happy to say.  (Or perhaps I hadn't, until now.)  It would be a ludicrous thing to suggest, so much so that it's hard to credit it could be down to ignorance alone without a little pinch of malice as well.

"Inevitably much denial"!?   I should bloody well hope there is.

It's a type of character that is white, middle class and obnoxious. Just like the way Tim nice but dim is a character who is white, upper class and thick. What part of this is upsetting for you? 

Wow.

That's one for debate then. It sounds like the American version of Chav. IMHO ( and I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise) if other white people use the term then like Chav it's a possibly classist but not racist term. If only black people use it then it's a bit more dubious, but even so if it doesn't apply to all whites then it's arguably not racist in the same way that honky is.

People calling themselves cracker is neither here nor there. Plenty of groups have adopted a term of abuse to describe themselves. 

I didn't invent the notion of "cracker" being a racist slur, any more than  Hoo did when he cited "honky".  If you care to Google it you will find a lot of debate about it, none of it instigated by me. 

You could start with the Trayvon Martin murder case.

I just don't agree that "uses a history of discrimination against someone" is a necessary part of being a derogatory racial stereotype.

I think they are part of the problem (not "the problem") in that they are exacerbating and entrenching divisions, and leading away from a better society.

The expression was coined to oppress white people? Give us a f*cking break.

I did ask you to back up your claim that the Internet meme is from "woke" people into "critical theory". Getting anywhere with that? 

You just refuse to see that that's what makes it *matter*.

Perhaps critical theory is dividing American society, and the post modern neomarxists really are destroying western civilisation as well. I don't know. But what I do know is that it has precisely f*ck all to with the Internet meme "Karen"! 

Definitely. But it doesn't stop the term being racist if used by the wrong party, does it?

Not at all, but like I said I'd never heard the term until you mentioned it so I'm really not qualified to say whether it's racist or not.

I don't have the heart for that now, your own posts and Coel's are already depressing enough to be going on with.

And let me guess, just skip right on by the murder of that poor kid and the appalling failure of the police and the legal system to hold his murderer to account, to find 'racial epithets' directed towards his killer?  Someone who literally got away with murder.  But 'white privilege' is not a thing.  Riiiiiight.

Did I use the word "oppress"?   No I didn't. So why reply to me as though I did?

I said it was coined to be derogatory about white people and about "whiteness".  And it quite obviously was.  

By the way, there's an interesting Twitter thread here by a PhD student who studies this stuff (read the whole thread):

He tracks how certain phrases have recently become a lot more prevalent in the mainstream US media. This results from the "critical theory" that took root in academia a couple of decades ago, that then produced a cohort of arts/humanities graduates steeped in critical theory, who were then hired by the mainstream media and now dominate the output.

https://twitter.com/ZachG932/status/1267505999516237825

And for the nth time, so f*cking what. Tim nice but dim is derogatory towards white rich men. It's funny. It's not using someone's race to keep them second class, it's not an issue of racism. It *doesn't matter*. 

Punching downwards with comedy, jokes, stereotypes always has more affect than the same directed upwards or sideways. Jokes like the Karen meme might not encourage dialogue between layers of society (though the meme is about total lack of empathy 😏and self awareness) but let’s not have any false equivalence about the long term damage done by downward punching stereotypes.

Why does it matter? Well, for starters, Trump won over Clinton by only a few thousand votes in a few places.  

Clinton's attitude towards many Americans summed up in her phrase "deplorables" (and similar remarks over time) likely cost her that many votes. People are repelled by the identity politics of the left, summed up by terms such as "deplorables" and "Karens".

Wouldn't the US be in a vastly, vastly better place now if Clinton were president?

...... the left

The "it" in my post was use of the Internet meme "Karen". This did not cause the trump presidency, and the idea that it's somehow emblematic of the "woke" political movement that you believe lost Clinton the election (rather than her being generally a shit insincere candidate who failed to connect with the electorate emotionally) is nonsense. 

It would. But it takes a lively imagination obsessed with finding ways to blame the world's ills on "critical theory" to connect the Internet meme "Karen" to this parallel history. It's total bollocks. 

Hillary lost mainly because the white christian GOP establishment pretty solidly backed Trump... despite knowing what he was. A majority of the while college educated voted for him. They looked forward to lower taxes and hoped his idiotic behaviour would be modified in post.

She also lost because too many in the poor rust belt areas lost confidence in the system and bought the lie that this was all due to Obama's inaction. Trump exploited this and lied about what he would do for them.

She had bad tactics in her campaign state choices ... missing better efforts in some she just lost, despite campain advice to do otherwise.

She was unlucky with her health.

She faced a weaponised campaign on her email security that was unfair but based on her stupidity with her IT practices.

She was affected by dog whistle politics.

So, as ever although I share your concerns about some on the left unfairly demonising ordinary people, you stretch the argument until it's ridiculous. I do think your concerns had a much bigger influence on brexit and Boris's large majority. It's hard to convince people not to believe lies when you insult them.

What i'd like to know though, is at what point in this thread the term Karen became a staple of the left when the argument was it was being used by black people? Is black people the left? is the left black people? Left lives matter? Have the thread been flushed down the toilet into Coel's rabbit hole? Does it come with fries?

(1) The "Karen" label is part of a wider pattern. (2) Lots and lots of things could have made a difference of a few thousand votes.  (3) Part of "failing to connect with the electorate emotionally" is regarding swathes of the electorate as "Karens".

And, overall, "the left" in the US and UK seem to be continually surprised at why they lose elections, but never seem to learn. 

Again, I'm not blaming all of the "world's ills" on critical theory.  I'm saying that it is part of the problem.

To repeat, the term "Karen" was invented by the woke, as part of their critical-theory analysis of "whiteness".  

Is the "Karen" label from The Left?

At no point did I say that no other factor was relevant to that election. 

Indeed, I was explicitly saying that aversion to identity politics was important because that election was unusually close. 

If Clinton had displayed some emotional warmth towards swathes of the electorate instead of displaying attitudes summed up by the phrases "deplorables" and "Karens" it could indeed have tipped the balance.

The "Karen" label came from the woke, and yes the woke are on the left, usually hard left.

Bullshit. You are making shit up to match your obssesion with 'The Left". The "Karen" label is part of black cultural use dating all the way back to slavery, with only the actual name changing over time but having the same use and application. You can't just rewrite history to fit your fanaticism.

Edit: Some reading https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/30/us/karen-meme-trnd/index.html

We are trying, but - you know - it's the weekend and I fancied a beer. Also, when you fundamentally believe that truth is merely sedimented political power that needs to be overturned by revolutionary methods, it is very hard to agree on a date and venue for the next meeting.  

I'm afraid I couldn't finish the article on jeong, because it used the word "neomarxist" in such a way that it descended into parody. 

However, I get the jist of the story, and obviously anyone who writes the sort of hateful gibberish she did should be sacked (I don't think her freedom of speech should be protected, in line with the law about "worth of respect..."). Presumably you don't think she should have been sacked, but to do so would at least be consistent - fair enough.

When I read her tweets though, they literally had no effect on me as a white male. I think they were pathetic and silly, but entirely inconsequential. Still, because of racism, you can't go around dishing out abuse on the basis of people's race (as explained at enormous length, this is not what character stereotypes like "Karen" and "gammon" are about).

It's quite easy for me to see the difference in when abuse matters. If some calls me a "white middle class cvnt" I think it's a bit rude, but I don't actually care. It's inconsequential. However if someone starts to use my sexuality against me, I'll want to kill them. If someone uses some thick-as-pigshit homophobic stereotype to assert their superiority over me, it creates a visceral reaction of anger and contempt that will stick with me, and motivate my behaviour in an extremely negative direction. It matters. It has consequences. 

Why do you think I don't care if someone references my class and race in an insult, but I lose my shit when it's sexuality? Do you think I'm just being totally irrational, and I should either be just as upset with the race and class stuff, or upset by neither? Or can you see the difference? 

I don't want you to repeat your assertion, I want you to provide some reason to believe it. I think you're taking bollocks to support a bollocks narrative. 

You're a very tolerant person.

I doubt that someone on the receiving end  of "black middle class c*nt" would consider it inconsequential. 

Can you actually demonstrate that? Do you think it was put forward in peer reviewed political studies journal or something?

You're on your own with that opinion! 

I don't think so, I think Trump's racism is not something his supporters overlook but his biggest single attraction to them.

jcm

This sounds a tad minor compared to the routine police murder and brutality towards the black population.

The statistics don't support your claim that the US police exhibit "routine murder and brutality towards the black population".

They are indeed over-aggressive and trigger-happy towards the US population in general (partly a reaction to dealing with a population with a huge number of firearms).

Really!

https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/map-of-police-violence-against-black-a...

Yes, really.  Blacks are roughly twice as likely to be killed by police, but they're also roughly twice as likely to be involved with crime and therefore have interactions with the police.

On a per-interaction basis, the police kill blacks and whites at roughly the same rate. 

As I linked to on the now-archived thread:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/04/why-black-lives-matter-has-been-ba...

2.5 times more likely to be killed than whites by police.

4 times more likely to die  from gunshot than whites as a general statistic. For whatever reason.

The death rate is substantially higher than the x2 that you claim and earlier you claimed there was no difference. 
 

The idea that black people are twice as likely to be involved in crime therefore have twice as many interactions and are therefore twice as likely to be killed is also highly problematic.

Many studies have shown that black people are much more likely to have interactions with the Police when no crime has been committed, compared to white people. Also the treatment of black and white people in relation to very minor crimes is also very different.

As for the Spiked article. I would take the views of revolutionary communists paid for by hard right billionaires too seriously.

Are you sure it's not that black people are roughly twice as likely to have interactions with the police and therefore twice as likely to be recorded as being involved in crime? 

Classic Coel being a deliberately provocative silly sausage.

What is your point?

I didn't claim there was no difference in rate, I claimed that there was no difference in rate after adjusting for the different crime rate.

After all, police kill vastly more men than women.  Is that a bias against men? No, it's because men are vastly more likely to be involved in violent crime.

Well let's again quote the wiki page linked up-thread:

"According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with Whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost eight times higher than Whites, and the victim rate six times higher."

If African Americans are committing homicide at "almost eight times" the rate of whites, is it then surprising that they are 2.4 times more likely than whites to be killed by cops?

Which is factually incorrect, before we even get in to issues around why the crime rate and interactions are problematic adjustments. 

 If you are a member of American black society your chances of being killed by someone shooting you are four times greater than if you are white. I assume police involved shootings make up a part of that statistic but I can't really speculate about the rest. Probably a whole wealth of reasons .

Edit : suicide being the main one. I've also found a statistic which doubles your 2.5 times more likely than whites figure but it becomes a bit of a game trying to out point each other with numbers.

No one was killled in Central Park (on this occasion). That's something to be positive about in itself.

Have you ever even talked to a white college educated Republican supporter? Why on earth would you expect most of them to be a racist?

"According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide convictions from 1980 to 2008, with Whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The conviction rate for African Americans was almost eight times higher than Whites, and the victim rate six times higher."

FTFY

(I presume that you have heard of Rubin Carter.)