Preserved Topic: "Random" luggage checks (Page 1 of 2)

Its interesting that people with "mid-eastern" characteristics seem to "randomly" get selected for luggage checks at every airport.

I'm sure we'll be reading more about this soon.

Actually krets, I like racial profiling. You know why? Because it helps, I mean I am against stereo-typing, but if there is a mid-eastern person looking suspicious, shake em down! I mean even if it is segregating the crowd of people that flock to the airports everyday, it helps to inspect people further. Ok for example, I fly down every fall to see my dad in Tampa Florida, we went to Disney world as we do every year and decided to go to the Magic Kingdom since we haven't done that in a long time, well at the fantasy land section, there was a pirate ride sort of, at the gift shop (since I am so dramatic) I purchased a piggy-bank in the shape of a human skull to go on my mantle in my room. Flying back, the security was very rough all over. And when it was my turn to place my checked on items in the luggage scanner, I of course had my piggy-bank, they stopped me and asked me what it was and I told them, they made me open it and I showed them that it was carved wood and that it had a hold in it to place cash in. Now see these precautions won't hurt, I think it's a good thing now, because from now on people are going to look at mid-eastern people at airports differently. So I don't see a problem in racial profiling.

Thats because you're white.

You've never been singled out because of the way you look and neither have I.

You might feel differently if you could even come close to the feeling someone must get in that situation.

I have no idea why I've been typing each sentence on a seperate like lately.

I really need to cut that shit out.

Excuse me kretts, first of all you don't know if I am white, second of all you don't know if I have felt the way you are describing, basically you assumed I was what you said I was. Yes I am white, and YES I have been singled out because of the way I look, because usually I dress in almost all black, chains on my long jeans that hang over my boots, t-shirts with bands you probably have never heard of, spiked up hair, and spiked bracelets and other little wrist trinkets. As a matter of fact, 2 years ago flying to see my dad over the summer, before the 11'th even happened, I had a spiked bracelet on. The people that make you walk through metal detectors and check luggage with scanners stopped me and confiscated it and then laid it in on a table. My mother asked if she could come back and pick it up after my plane takes off (seeing as she wasn't getting on the plane with me she only drove me to the airport). You know what the guy said to her? He said "Sorry mam, when the police get here they have the right to do whatever they want to it." So waiting for my plane to arrive, I went back to see if it was still there (as you can see, I value my bracelets a lot). The guy said the police came and destroyed it. So yes I have been singled out many times thank you very much.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Doc.

After you click "Post Reply", and the 'post reply' dialog comes up, there is a button at the bottom called "Clear Fields".
Without the existance of that button, I think I would have just posted something mean -- really mean.
Thank you Doc for allowing that button, and saving me the embarassment of posting something mean.

mobrul

Insider, I don't see what your piggy bank story has one single thing to do with racial profiling. Usually, when you say you support something and then continue speaking, the following words should be elaboration, not masturbation.

And Krets -- it's better than writing everything in one, long-ass, run-on sentence.

Edit: Mobrul, it looks like you were clearing just as I was entering.



[This message has been edited by Wes (edited 12-20-2001).]

It was obvious that you were white from the fact that you actually support racial profiling. I just have one question for you:

Those clothes you wear, bands you listen to, and whatever else it is you are whining about..... Is that a choice you make?

Ah, there we are.

I don't support "racial" profiling but I think police should be allowed to do profiling where race is only one of countless other variables. If any and all profiling were to be eliminated then the police would only be there to mop up after crimes have been committed. Actually, they're not that far from that right now, and for good reason, namely to protect some of the freedoms we enjoy.

Let me give an example and I would like some thoughts on this one. Let's say it's the day after 9/11/01 where 18 middle eastern men succeeded in killing 2820 people. You are a security guard at an airport and you have a choice to search passengers. Would you search a 99 year old white woman with a walker exactly the same way you would search a middle eastern man in his 20's?

Because I have a brain, and that brain tends toward analysis (from time to time), I honestly don't think there would be zero distinction between the two passengers for me.

Is that way off?

We're not talking about the day after the event though, and of course you'd search a young, healthy man (regardless of race) differently than you you would search an elderly person. Let me ask you though, would you search an Indian person differently than you would a black or Hispanic man, or a white man? Here's an example of what I am talking about that was passed on to me by a guy I was sitting next to on my trip home last night:

His business associate is Sri Lankan, for those of you who don't know, Sri Lanka is a small island off the southern coast of India. This man always dresses in business suits and looks professional, he stands about 5'7" and is a relatively small person. Travel is his life and so he is frequently in airports. In his trips since 9/11 he has been searched at least once every time he has traveled. He's been selected "randomly" 3 times to have all of his luggage searched in 6 trips. He has had his carry on luggage searched at least once (most of the time its more than that) during each of his 6 trips.

I on the other hand am a white male, I am 6'5" tall and weigh 235 pounds. I could cause far more problems on an airplane than the man I just described yet I have only had my carry on luggage searched twice in 5 trips (thats at least 20 times boarding different planes) and have never been selected to have all my luggage searched.

So you tell me, is that right?

"FWB" Flying While Brown (or a shade there of.)

Your example, Bug, is a simplification of the real issue.
Granted, 99 yr old ladies in walkers TYPICALLY don't commit such crimes of mass destruction...
The real issue, however, comes with the 40-something white man that is behind the lady in line.
Do you (as a security guard) search that man exactly the same as the 20-something man with darker skin?
As there are people here who answer this question with a resounding 'NO!' (not necessarily you, bugs, I honestly am not sure how you would answer this question) let me remind you that the Federal building in Oklahoma was blown up by a white man, and the anthrax going around is looking more and more like it is domestic.
Ted Kaczynski is a white man.
Illich Ramirez Sanchez (Carlos the Jackal -- the main event in international terrorism pre-bin Laden craze) is hispanic (from Venezuela).
Henry Kissinger is a white man.
William Pierce is a white man -- lives open and free in West Virginia.
The KKK are, by their own definition, white christians.
Omar Torrijos, Leopoldo Galtieri, Roberto Viola, Velasco Alvarado, Guillermo Rodriquez, Hugo Banzer are/were all hispanics. (Bonus Question: What do these 6 men have in common, besides their ethnicity and occupation? Answer at the end of post!)

Need I continue?

That is not to talk about the many many arab, middle eastern, or muslim people who live here peacefully and usefully and productively to American society.
And while we're not talking, let's NOT talk about the Aryan Nation, who owns a MILITARY-esque COMPOUND in the middle of Utah.
...and let's not talk about mountain men militias in Montana.
...and let's not talk about the group of approx. 30 or so christians who went to Israel last Dec to blow up some holy sites in the hopes of bringing on the apocolypse. They were arrested and their plot was stopped. (That got less news coverage than...well, just about everything! You can guarantee if the conspirators would have been brown the whole world would have known about it. Surely Arafat would have had something to do with it...)

In short (yeah right!, like I ever keep things short...) we can talk about fairness and human rights, but many of you are willing to throw those out the window (as long as it is for the 'other' tribes...).
Let's talk about simply a matter of efficiency.
Start profiling and stopping every brown man in the airport and you'll forget about all the right wing (white) nut jobs out there who want the same result.
Kabooom.

mobrul

Answer to the bonus question:
They were all trained in their terroristic ways by the US Army in Fort Benning Georgia, US of A. It used to be called the School of the Americas. Because it was getting such bad press in congress, the UN and human rights organizations for training all of these latin american assassination and torture squads, they changed their name to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
Same product, different label.
Graduates of this school were responsible for such events as the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the El Mozotes Massacre, and the raping, torture and murder of 4 American missionary nuns. The US refused to investigate the nuns' "disappearance" due to "national security issues". A full confession came out years later.

I brought up the simplified example in order to make sure my main point was acceptable. I.e. this issue comes down to the nature of the profiling that is being practiced. So we are agreed that profiling with my example made sense.

Now with respect to Kret's last example. I would not be searching his Sri Lankan friend as much as other people because I think I could make better distinctions than that. I believe the security guard should be using as much information as he/she can get in order to better predict who represent the greater risks.

This is where things get problematic though. What if the security guard in question isn't terribly bright? Will they know the difference between an Indian Hindu versus a Saudi Muslim? There will undoubtedly be many mistakes where security guards search people simply based on the color of their skin. Did you see the polls that came out shortly after the attacks that showed a majority of American Blacks *favored* racial profiling for Middle Easterners?!? So the problems is even more complex.

So what's the answer? Don't search anyone for fear of causing them inconvenience? Should we search *everyone* to avoid any and all discrimination?

I honestly don't know the solution here. I am reluctant to mandate that *everyone* be searched exactly the same way because that eliminates the need for intelligence in the security ranks. Perhaps there are better technologies we could employ to speed up the process of searching everyone. Because isn't the main reason we don't want to search everyone because it would slow things down to much? If we can improve the searching process then we could kill two birds with one stone. ~just thinking out loud here~

mobrul, do you favor any particular solution to this one? How about you, Krets?

Kretts, just because I said that I support racial profiling doesn't mean that I am white. Actually the first person to say "I like racial profiling because...." was black. And yes it is my choice to wear what I want, and listen to the music I want, but it is also the choice of the guard if they want to randomly select middle-eastern men for luggage checks. Are you going to hold that against them? Probably, but if you hold something like that I wear and the music I listen to against me then you have a serious problem.

Wes, the piggy-bank story wasn't supposed to relate to racial profiling, it was just an example of how the airport security is today, just how deep they go to make sure it is safe.

Now kretts, I?m not saying that I think that all white men shouldn't be bothered with and that middle-eastern men should be checked because of there race, I?m simply saying, that just because they are middle-eastern they uphold potential danger to society, and so does everyone else. But it is because people check middle-eastern men randomly that they should check everyone the same way, because that would be putting in an effort, and I think that is what you wanted in society.

Bugs, when I was in the 5th grade, I took art lessons every Friday for oil paintings and pastels. When I first started going there, I met the person who changed my life and she was 4 years older then me. She was the person who got me into all that music and clothing. But here is my point. Our art teacher was a very intelligent and moral person, so when we had a problem we would confront her with it and she would try to help us. So my friend, we called her Sam (short for Samantha), was having trouble because teachers at her school would actually make fun of her and segregate her because of how she dressed. So she asked my art teacher for some advice, and here is my point bugs, my art teacher brought up a similar situation as to yours only it wasn't real, it was

quote:

---

"If you are walking down the street at night, and someone is walking behind you, and that person was a black poor man who lived on the streets, would you feel more comfortable with him behind you or a business man in a suit in the middle of the night?"

---

See what I am saying Kretts?

Actually, I'd feel just as uncomfortable if it were a white, black, yellow, brown, or purple poor man following me on a dark street. Just like I'd feel more comfortable followed by any color of business man versus any color of vagrant.

Get the point? Its not the color of the person's skin that should make you fear them. The people who perpetrated the 9/11 act could have been any color. As mobrul said, there are just as many fanatical groups of white men as their are of any other color.



[This message has been edited by kretsminky (edited 12-21-2001).]

But are we to ignore the fact that every one of the perpetrators were either Saudi or Egyptian nationals? Something bothers me about that approach.

Krets, you know I totally agree with you when you say the color of the skin shouldn't having anything to do with it. But the fact remains that the color of one's skin along with several other factors can certainly correlate with certain behaviors.

And believe me I'm very much aware of the fact that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

I'm on board with that. Skin color has nothing to do with it. It's the person wearing the skin and thier ideology that makes a difference. Maybe we should profile certain ideologies...that seems the real problem.
That being said, with the threat to security at hand by people wearing certain skin types, I guess it makes *some* sense to be more aware of one group than others. I'm not entirely comfortable with it though. It's too bad we are going through this is the first place, but I sure don't want another 911 to happen.

Here's the thing: with Al Qeada cells in over thirty countries, which group will they use next? Europeans? Africans? I guess they'll target whatever skin-type connected with whatever the latest threat nation is. Can you imagine the problems when Aryan Nation pulls something like this, or the Neo-naziz? Searching luggage of every blond-haired, blue-eyed, fair skinned person will really back up the lines huh? Security people really have their hands full. Especially since a lot of them seem to be aliens.

And krets, I thought I was the only one double spacing lol! (not this time since i read your post)



[This message has been edited by Allewyn (edited 12-21-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Allewyn (edited 12-21-2001).]

Bugs, with all due respect, you're looking at the situation all wrong. You ask, "But are we to ignore the fact that every one of the perpetrators were either Saudi or Egyptian nationals? "

When studying this particular case, no! But when studying terrorism or violence in general (which is what intellegent people do when trying to formulate policy -- that is, as opposed to policy reaction against ONE specific event intended to soothe the masses instead of increase safety) one will see that NOT "every one of the perpetrators were either Saudi or Egyptian nationals"

I have named in my earlier post all sorts of people who are wanted the world over for various terrorist activities...many of them far WORSE in casualties than 11September here.

And if we're going to pick out a distinguishing characteristic, we should maybe consider that they were all trained in Europe -- mostly Germany. Maybe we should pick out anybody who comes here from Germany.

One should consider that there are many people in Middle Eastern countries who express much the same grievences that bin Laden does, but do not act violently about it.
One should also consider, Bugs, there are people here in the US who feel much the same way you do about, say, abortion and DO act violently about it...in the name of christianity. (for your sake, I hope nobody starts a crusade against them and you get caught up in the mix...)

I think that the big problem is the media has been saying for years, 'muslim extremists', 'islamic terrorists', etc. as if the two words were inseperable. Never, never, never in my life of listening and dissecting and tearing apart mainstream media...NEVER, have I heard or read one mainstream journalist say 'christian terrorists', or even 'christian extremists'.
Even those wackos that went to Israel to start the apocolypse last December were described only as Americans. I think I remember one reporter calling them 'fundamentalists'...which apparently puts them in the same catagory as Jerry Falwell, also often described as a 'fundamentalist'.
The obvious connection to their christian belief (however misguided and screwy) was never examined in any sort of detail to my knowledge.
This has been going on for so long it becomes difficult to seperate the images of bearded men wearing turbans and terrorists.
This makes it easier to pick out ALL middle easterners as a 'potential threat'.

<As a side challenge, try to think of a terrorist. No, not bin Laden, but a terrorist who is NOT middle eastern. I would bet that most people in America simply can not name or recognise the face of one single non-middle eastern terrorist. I would bet that less than 15% of Americans can name a non-middle eastern terrorist group. The two images are so closely linked in our brains>

Walter Lippman wrote a book called 'Public Opinion' which essentially acts as a guide to PR people, especially in politics. It teaches that to 'control the mob'...that's you and me...you must persuade NOT with logic, but with emotion. Create symbols by repeating symbol and desired meaning over and over again. Then, when the time comes for support, just wave the symbol and all the meaning comes flowing in, regardless of whether it is appropriate or accurate for the situation.
He had a phrase, "manufacturing consent".

It is a good book, I suggest to anyone, read it. I guarantee your national leaders have...

To say that targeting middle eastern men for increased searches and detentions will decrease terrorism is foolish, short-sighted, and liable to cause more harm than good. Don't be blinded by the horror of 11 Sept and the waving flag of patriotism.

If the goal is to stop Egyptian and Saudi men from crashing planes into major metropolitin areas, then by all means, detain every one of them.

But, if the goal is to increase the relative safety of civilians from political violence, skin color means jack.

mobrul

Good god you people totally missed the point my art teacher was trying to point out.

Kretts I can say that I "think" that if you were walking down the street around midnight and a guy popped up out of an ally looking like a bum, you would have a precaution. No skin color doesn't matter but I still think that you would be more frightened of the person described then you would of the buisness man in a suit and breifcase (left the breifcase out on my last post).

Bugs is right though, it shouldn't matter but it still corellates with certain behaviors.

No, the point wasn't missed.
(I'll keep this short and sweet, I promise)
The real question is, do your fears align logically with the actual facts of the situation?
In your example the questions become,"Do street bums have a propensity for violence?" and "Do businessmen have a propensity for violence?"
Not to rely on 'emotions' or what you saw on TV, but the actual facts of the situation.
So, "Do middle eastern men have a greater propensity for violence relative to other ethnic groups?" If you look ONLY at data collected from the day of 11 Sept. 2001, in the US, the answer appears to be 'YES!' (still, 18 out of a few hundred thousand is hardly conclusive in any study...ask if you would accept that result in a medical journal...), but if you look over the long term and the big picture, the answer is clearly, "no".

mobrul,

First of all, I wasn't asking anything more than should any of the facts be ignored, which I'm sure both of us agree they should not.

Second of all, I couldn't be more for developing a policy based on as much relevant and crucial information that we can dig up. Absolutely 100% I *totally* agree with your point there. However, we are talking about a short term action based on a very specific threat related to the 9/11 attacks. In that scope, and in that scope only, the fact about the Saudi and Egyptian nationals takes on a more significant aspect.

The government is scrambling to look like they're doing something about the problem with airport security. We all know most of it up to this point has been an exercise in futility. So this comprehensive policy that will serve to protect civilians from political violence simply does not exist in any form right now. Therefore I would argue that some short term measures should at least be considered.

On the topic of manipulating the masses (or feckless hordes as I like to call them) you don't have to tell me. Our mainstream media is very biased in several different ways. I agree with the points you make about never hearing "christian extremists" and I hope you would agree that you will never hear the term "left wing extremist" when referring to say, the Unabomber. Even though his thoughts on the environment read just like Al Gore's book on the subject. So the wackos (as you so correctly labeled them that tried to induce the Second Coming) also had beliefs in common with millions of the protestants in the US, it's true.

Have you heard about the new book called "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg? I've asked for that for Christmas, it sounds like a good one along the lines you've pointed out.

On a related topic, mobrul my friend, you do more reading than I do of that I'm sure. Can you please tell me if you come across very many Islamic leaders/representatives that have publicly and adamantly condemned the attacks? I know there have been a few but I seriously not heard of many. In fact, I am aware of only one prominant religious leader in Egypt that categorically condemned them and he pointed out that he was quite alone in his position among his fellow clergymen.

(responses, paragraph by paragraph, from top down)

agreed

agreed

agreed, mostly. I am not really in favor of looking busy just for the sake of looking busy. That being said, I most definately understand, for whatever reason, that is what many (most) Americans want. They want to 'know' their gov't is doing SOMETHING...regardless of that "something's" actual importance.

AGREED!

No. I'll look into it. The Lippman book, Public Opinion, was published in...'22 or '23. Interesting to see if this Goldberg has any new spin on the tune. Thanks.

Unfortunately not.
(I assume that we are specifically avoiding the state leadership and focusing only on more 'hands-on' type people, clergy, etc....many heads of state have made condemnation statements [at least in English ].)
When I think about this, I tend to think about 3 different, but intertwining, perspectives.

1) While many, indeed most of the people in the Middle East do not support the tactics of bin Laden, et al. there is strong support for his cause.

Imagine if all anti-abortion 'moderates' (that is, people who attempted to change public opinion through speech and non-violent protest/civil disobedience) were jailed, silenced, tortured and/or killed.
Somehow, someway, Clayton Waagner was the only one left free to lead the movement, hidden away in some caves in the Ozarks. I imagine that it would be really difficult to convince people who believe in the pro-life cause to speak out against him. They may not like his tactics, but do you want to isolate yourself from the only leader you got? Some people (the good people) would stand up and speak out. Most, however, would just shut up and put up with it.

Wall Street Journal did a series of articles immediately after 11 Sept in which they examined the reasons why people in the region support bin Laden.
They did not interview the general public, but the people the WSJ always interview, the upper - upper/middle class, banker, business, laywer, invester types. These are people (Egyptians, Jordinians, Kuwaitis, etc) who LIKE American money, and deal regularly with American businesses. These are the people most likely to LIKE us.

What they said was a far cry from the 'they hate us because we stand for secular democracy and corporate globalization' BS we've been getting since 11 Sept, and even before.

They were saying things VERY consistent with the message bin Laden was putting out, namely the US stands AGAINST democracy in the region, and instead FOR authoritarian regimes in Jordon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.
...support for Israel's brutality over the Palestinians.
...blocking economic development in the region.
There is more, I've outlined it before here recently, if you're interested go to your local library and look at the back issues of WSJ from middle Sept. It is enlightening.

The point of #1 is, while the people don't necessarily agree with the tactics of bin Laden, they do believe in his message. And since he is one of a few who is/was allowed to stand up and speak, they go along with it.

Which leads us to #2

2) If the clergy go along with it, so will the masses.
We are dealing with a very 'politically immature' type audience here in most of the middle east. Seriously uneducated. The literacy rates in:
Afghanistan - 30%
Iraq - 60%
Yemen - 35%
Pakistan - 45%
Egypt - 60%
Saudi Arabia - 65%
to compare:
UK - 99%
US - 97%
Israel - 95%
(numbers off the top of my memory...please forgive if not absolutely accurate...but they are within +/-5% accurate)
Back to the Lippman theory of 'manufacturing consent'.
If Americans at 97% literacy have a hard time reading various news sources and developing indepenent thought based on analysis of data rather than emotional response to the TV, it is near impossible to expect citizens of these other countries to do that. They listen and respond to the symbols of hate and oppression layed before them.

3) I try to think about analogies a lot. I think, when appropriately and carefully applied, they can help us get past some of our prejudices and biases. There are some potential downfalls, but I try to remain aware of them and know the limitations of anlogies.
I read a few Isreali papers, Ha'aretz, Jerusalem Post; and some 'pro-Israeli' papers (I disagree that Israel's current policy is in it's best long-term interest, thus disagree with the 'pro' part...but that is a different talk) like NYT, indeed most major american papers.
I find it disheartening to realize that many rabbis or jewish leaders (Lieberman, for one -- there are many others) will not speak out against the injustice against the Palestinians. Actually, Israeli press is generally allowed more room to discuss peace options and dissident thought than American papers. Many things are printed in Ha'aretz, by respected journalists, that, if printed in NYT, would be blasted as anti-Semetic.
If one can figure out the reason for this phenomenon, one can easily translate it to the Arab/bin Laden situation.

I'm not sayin' it's right, but the first step to fixing something is understanding exactly what's wrong, and how it got f#*&ed up in the first place.

mobrul

<how is it that my posts *always* are so ungodly long...I try to keep them short, I really do! I'm sorry.>

[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 12-21-2001).]

"I try to keep them short, I really do! I'm sorry.>"

Don't you dare! and don't be <bg>

*Always* a good read imo.

The real dilemma, then, is to decide which is more important, liberty or security? I honestly don't know the correct balance.

"The true meaning of the effectiveness of this attack by a shadowy, hate-filled enemy will lie in how we reassess ourselves and our place in the world, and how we redefine, as inevitably we will, the balance between individual liberty and collective, national security. If we lose our liberties in the name of safety, the terrorists will have won. That cannot, must not, happen."

An overzealous and opinionated media that often skews the facts, an exaggerated threat, and a government scrambling to do something, have already made the decision. "Security" is more important.

(I intend to blend the works of Lipschutz and Waever with my own opinions. I?ll be speaking from the standpoint of an American citizen.)

What then, is "security"?

Security is constructed. It is nonexistent. We conceptualize security only because we construct the "other" as a threat. Accordingly, differences construct the threat. In a world absent of perceived threats, there is no "security" problem because inherent in the "security" construct is threat. In a utopia, "security" would never be conceptualized because no threats would be constructed.

As Waever describes it, ?security? is a ?speech act,? existing only in rhetoric. Ironically, in the international relations realm, ?security? is viewed as one of the most important, if not the most important, values. Therefore, the mere mention of a problem as a ?security? problem justifies whatever means are necessary to ?fix? the problem, whether it be intervention, war, or even genocide as in the case of Vietnam.

As the differences between nations and peoples diminish and the threat of the ?other? lessens, threats are then constructed because policymakers are obsessed with the idea of increasing ?security.? They must exaggerate and exacerbate unreal threats in order to justify their actions.

There is empirical evidence to support these claims--our genocide in Vietnam being the most obvious. Ask yourself. What possible real threat could a small communist country halfway around the world pose to the ?entire world order?? None. None at all. We constructed ?communists? as a threat, and our securitization of the communist issue served to justify the genocide that took place.

I find it interesting that the genocide that took place is almost universally referred to as ?involvement.? This is only evidence that the constructivist mindset has readily entrenched itself in the entire world population. The psychological conditioning is amazing, but that?s another discussion altogether.

The root of our international relations problem is our securitization of issues. It has lead to enormous intervention, which is certainly not the least of Osama?s problems with the United States. I suspect that, had we never constructed threats in the past, Osama bin Laden would have no problem with the United States today. It is the unjustified intervention alone that angers him and his followers.

Waever and Lipschutz also suggest the idea of the ?self-fulfilling prophecy.? That is, constructed threats often become real threats. When we construct a threat, we treat it as just that, a real threat. Our actions provoke a real response that inflames the conflict. This downward spiral continues until the threat becomes real.

Now then, is racial profiling justified, even in such dire circumstances? The answer is no. Racial profiling further conceptualizes security, which only leads to more threat construction. On a micropolitical level, racial profiling is just another example of unjustified intervention. It only perpetuates the reason why Osama hates the United States and heightens the conflict. The constructed threat of race, then, creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of hatred and eventual violence from one side or the other.

Look, somethings are plain stupid.
There is a law that permits ppl to carry blades/razors below 7 centimetres.
During the pos 911 period, the local polices of airports did not permit ppl to carry any kind of blade into the airplane. The funny fact (appeared in many newspapers) is that, inside the airplane, they served lunch to everyone, with steel sharp, regular kitchen knifes.

Anyone going to respond to my thoughts?

Violence, tragedy, fear, compassion, religion, love/hate, racism,

ignorance...

sorry, ive been busy lately and I don't come to this forum as much as I used too, it lost its fun what happened to darks "favorites" like favorite jokes and movies and quotes and all that good stuff

i dunno ill read it later lol

I guess I will take a shot at responding to your thoughts...

mbridge sez...

quote:

---

I suspect that, had we never constructed threats in the past, Osama bin Laden would have no problem with the United States today.

---

I guess mabye I should start with a request for clarification...Am I to understand that your position is that this whole thing is OUR, (the United States) fault. We brought this on ourselves. Some sort of self fulfilling prophecy? I may have gotten the wrong understanding of your position in your blend of Waever and Lipschutz's ideas?

Reading your comments I have problems equating this incident to this alleged genocide in vietnam. Whole books can be written on what went wrong with the vietnam conflict but I fail to see the correlation with current events. I dont think we should have been in vietnam and I know I am not alone in that view. My grandfather caught a mortar shell in that war and his remains are now in Arlington National cemetery but that is neither here nor there. Including the whole vietnam issue in a discussion of racial profiling seems like a bit of a red herring.

mbridge sez...

quote:

---

In a utopia, "security" would never be conceptualized because no threats would be constructed.

---

u·to·pi·a n.
2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform.

I think the reality is that we live in a sick sad world and 'utopian' ideals do not apply. Threats would exist wheather 'constructed' by us or not. Yes some threats are constructed and exaggerated. We construct causes, (or maybe even crusades) and the media/gov whips the people up into a MacCarthyist frenzy over these imaginary evils. But....there are real threats that would exist even if we were an isoloated utopia. The threat of terrorism was not something we fabricated terrorism is a reality that many others have to deal with daily but has recently been revealed to the naieve US general populace. Terrorism+soundbyte==film at 11.

I cant say I agreed with the 'meld' of your ideas and theirs but I can agree with you on a few points...I think you're dead on about the media, the sway they hold over the minds of the masses is disgusting. The media feeds the fears of the people, the gov attempts to allay those fears by implementing meaningless security measures. I personally do not have a problem choosing between which is more important, liberty or security. I have always seen security as a byproduct of liberty. Without liberty you abdicate your resoponsbility for ensuring personal 'security' to whoever you gave up your liberty to.

I had more but its lunch break....ummmm mexican food....

I was always under the impression that it was basically human nature to put people, plants, cars, shoes.... everything into their own little boxes.

We all learn the skills of observation from a very young age. With theise skills comes visual association. We associate certain values and properties of any object, be it person or otherwise based on visuals. We always have and always will.

You can't honestly believe that someone can be taught that a rusted up shit box of a car can be visually interpreted into the same set of values as a brand new BMW. Sure, people aren't cars and we do tent to tie less visual observations to people then anything else but much of it will always remain.

It's in the way we learn. The first time we see fire and are told it is hot, we may not know the meaning or concept of hot. So, we touch the fire and we get burnt. From then on we no longer touch the fire to make sure it's hot. From it's visual properties, we will always assume that fire it hot. The same thing happens with people.

The big question is weather this is right or wrong. Well, it's somewhat a natural reaction but in such a complex society it is viewed as wrong. Many of us know this kind of association or "boxing" when it comes to people is wrong so we have learnt to push aside our initial responses to these visual perceptions.

When it comes down to your job as a security guard your main ally are these visual assumptions. Right or wrong their all you've got. I actually think that the security guards themselves would feel bad having to search people based on such grounds but their duty dictates such actions in such times. This still doesn't make it wright, it simple makes it more justified.

That being said, if the september 11 attacks were performed by 20 yr old males who had long died black hair and wore black clothes and odd silver jewelry and listened to industrial music then there's no doubt I'd be searched every time I was to board a plane to Sydney and back. Would I be upset with the security guard? No I wouldn't. I'd have the common sense to understand why and I must accept that some circumstances are out of my control. I either live with it or I take the bus. Sure, I could change my appearance but that will only let people think it's ok to judge people like me. Instead I'd prefer to confront these issues head on and disprove them whne and wherever possible.

However, the problems start when such associations are created by the wrong kind of people for the wrong reasons. I remember when there was an incident in the US involving several kids who wore black trench coats and went on a killing spree in a school. I believe the Goth/Industrial scene the world over was slapped with the blame for that. Sure, if something like that happens check me for guns, but you don't treat me like shit because of it. I'm fine with you making a new found association about me but have the common sense to try and expel that asap. If than means you want to pat me down then go right ahead so we can all get back to living a normal bloody life.

Humm... I could go on for pages and pages about this but I think I'll end it here.

Edit: Oh, and Arthemis, In Australia we were given plastic knives and forks after those incidents. I think most austrlian airlines and still using plastic eating utensils but don't quote me on it.

Drac.



[This message has been edited by Dracusis (edited 01-05-2002).]

mbridge,

Are you saying that all threats are just in our heads and if we didn't have a need to construct them even the self-fulfilling prophecy ones would never happen either?

A little break to go back to the main question:

Due to my curiosity nature I don't consider myself racist or exclusivist in any way, I like all kind of people.

I have a LOT of americans friends.

IN MY OPINION:
americans are xenofobist (sp?) not from 9/11, but since I know them. I'm spanic, I lived in the USA, I know what I say.

In other way, the world is like my family:

Let's say that my brother is such a nice guy, he's a doctor, all the family trust him, he can get into the family's house whenever he wants!

I am the black sheep, when I was a kid, I stool my Grandma's forks. NOw, everytime that I go to the house, the have to check my bag!

That's another reasonable thing! Yep, maybe the luggage check is not so 'randomly' but I think that in some way, I understand Americans.


As a side note: When I got here, I came to Italy (fly: Miami - Milan - Madrid) my problems where just in Miami. Italy: check passport, nothing else. Madrid: they didn't check ANYTHING, even my passport.

OK, now you can continue your discussion....

Racial profiling is good.

Why? Because people of different races are, well, different! And different is bad!

Kind of like those kids who wear all that goth/punk crap and walk around with spikes and chains and bad hair-dos.

I recently read a few articles on the level of violent crimes committed by people who dress that way.

I think they should round them all up and put them in jail. I would feel so much safer then.


(yes insider, that was sarcasm...look it up)
__

insider - have you ever considered that maybe the reason people keep 'missing your point' is that you fail to ever actually MAKE a point?

I mean...try reading up on the wonders of 'grammar' and 'english composition' and other such delightful tools.

Wether You, I, or our Grandmothers agree or disagree with Racial Profiling its a fact of life, and has been for many years. This past year wasnt the first time it was introduced. Example : 1942 and the Asian American Population in the United States. Also I think there is a huge difference in Racial Profiling and Racial Descrimination. I dont know about every where else, but for the most part people in Tallahassee FL are treated the same when they board a plane. All go through thourough inspection, get their bags checked, remove their shoes etc etc... I really dont think if any person is profiled espically at a time like this is much to do with their Race. My father is one of the head officers in Organizing the sercurity for FL's Airports and he has told me that they arent just looking for the Middle Eastern Profile , but anyone who looks suspicious. Luggage checks arent being done because Arabic people are Flying around on airlines. They are being checked due to recent Terrorist Acts against the United States of America. ..


".. Silence : the most deafening sound of them all."

* chuckles at DL's "sarcasm" *

If we had a time machine we may have heard s il's great great grandfather speaking in 1860.

quote:

---

Wether [sic] You [sic], I, or our Grandfathers agree or disagree with slavery its [sic] a fact of life, and has been for many years. This past year wasnt [sic] the first time it was seen. Example: Just 3 years ago the Supreme Court of the United States said that black people aren't citizens of the country and therefore should not expect any protection from the courts....

---

Just to make sure I am totally clear in meanin, I will state it unequivicably.

1)Racial profiling is a form of racial discrimination. Look at the words. Discriminate means "To make a clear distinction; distinguish". Racial discrimination is "To make a clear distinction based upon race."
Profiling means "an analysis of data representing distincive features".
Racial profiling means "an analysis of data representing distinctive features based upon race".
Both are seperating race as a distingished and controlling factor with regards to ones behavior...laziness, crime, drug use, poverty, terrorism, etc.

2)Just because something has been around awile, doesn't mean we have to 'just live with it.' Welcome to the human race! The only species on earth blessed with the power to think through complex cause/effect relationships and base sociological decisions upon logic instead of immediate hunger or fright. Let's use it, huh?

mobrul

im sick of all this liberal bull shit, i can only argue about a topic so much its given me a head ache... ok dl this is where u can say something witty like "then dont come in here and read this" oh wait u cant cause i already said that, so ur gonna have to come up with something else if you wanna make me loook stupid like usual

[Since I was the last to post before InSider, I will assume he was addressing my post (maybe, among others).
If not, please disregard.]

Insider,
which part of my post was it that you consider 'liberal bull shit'.
Was it the part where I encouraged reading the dictionary to find meanings of words?
...or was it the part where I advocated people using their brains for logic rather than instinct?

never wanting to be known as a liberal,
mobrul

Mobrul , Maybe my last post came across with the wrong main idea. What
I meant was, in this time the people chosen/elected/servicing to protect
this country are obviously holding people of middle eastern nature as more
of a threat then other races at this time to the acts of 9/11. Does that mean
that we as Americans should descriminate against people of that nature at
this or any other time ? No. Alot of people dont seem to realize that (not
middle eastern people, rather) the Taliban, and organizations of the like, hate everything
this country and many other countries and their cultures stand for. Its not
as much as a racial issue as a cultural Issue. None-the-less, by no means
does it give us civilians any right to descriminate or accuse with out meaningful
evidence. As I said before, the same thing was happening in the early 1940's
due to Japans attack on Pearl Harbor. Do you still see us singling out Asian
Americans today and accusing them of recent Terriorist attacks? No, due to the
fact we have no good reason too.


Basically there is a difference in luggage checks and discrimination, yes.
The latter is wrong, no matter what race it is against. The other is a prevention
method of Sep 11th's events from reoccuring, no matter what race is involved...

Hope that makes a lil more sence...


".. Silence : the most deafening sound of them all."

no mobrul it was nothing against ur post its this whole 9/11 osama bin ladin thats starting to get annoying, very.... very..... very............

nothing against ur post.....

insider - I have never made 'witty comments to make you look stupid'

I add my comments.

You make yourself look stupid (refer to my earlier post for an explanation).