First, let me say that I do not dislike Marc Lamont Hill. When I watched TV news years ago, it was amusing to watch him butt heads with Bill O’Reilly. He could talk faster than anyone I know, which is probably a mark of high intelligence. Apparently, CNN offered him more money so I guess he doesn’t clash with O’Reilly on Fox anymore.
CNN is featuring this rant by Dr. Hill about racism, which can easily be refuted. I’m picking and choosing quotes from the op-ed.
This perception of mistreatment held by blacks and Hispanics is supported by empirical evidence.
For example, a UCLA study showed that black boys are viewed by law enforcement as “older and less innocent” than their white counterparts. This leads to circumstances where officers may excuse the behavior of a white teenager as a youthful indiscretion while treating a black or brown youth as an adult (and perhaps violent) criminal.
What Hill does not acknowledge is that the LEOs view about black boys is based on facts, experience, and evidence. Antiracists like Hill don’t like facts because they’re racist. It seems that Hill thinks that blacks should NEVER be confronted by cops.
Unfortunately, the psychology of racism is so deeply embedded within all of our minds — black officers often make the same errors of judgment — that people of color are disproportionately read as criminals.
Heh, heh. So black cops hold the same views as white cops. It’s kind of hard to say that black cops are racist against blacks.
Similar issues emerge in courts when white police officers are charged with shooting black citizens. In these cases, defense attorneys compel jurors (and the broader public) to put themselves in the shoes of the officer. Jurors are then legally tasked to asked to invoke the “reasonable person” standard of common law: “What would a reasonable person do under the same conditions?” While such questions are typically helpful, they falter under the pressure of white supremacy, which has normalized the fear of black bodies for nearly 400 years.
Hill is smart. He deserves credit for the way he presents his arguments. But he offers no objective standard to replace the “reasonable person” standard, which applies to all defendants. He wants to insidiously inject into the mind of every juror the idea that being reasonable is unreasonable when it’s applied to blacks and only blacks. In short, he wants white cops convicted of murder.
As a result, jurors can relate to Darren Wilson’s fear of unarmed Michael Brown or even George Zimmerman’s fear of unarmed Trayvon Martin and decide that a shooting was justified because they, too, would have done the same thing. They too, saw the unarmed teens are violent threats.
I guess that the good professor thinks that “unarmed teens” (love that phrase) are not dangerous because they have no weapon and they are teens. Hill is playing to the emotions of liberals with this junk thinking. Ewww. This line of reasoning stinks.
In order to truly address racial injustice, we must acknowledge what Princeton professor Imani Perry refers to as “post-intentional” racism. The concept, in part, suggests that we don’t need the presence of angry, foaming-at-the-mouth racists or blatant discrimination to legitimize or experience racism.
The challenge of this realization is that we can’t simply locate and eliminate racist “bad apples” — a blatantly racist police officer or a white supremacist juror– from our society. Rather, we must take up the deeper challenge of addressing the structural and psychological dimensions of racial injustice that exist everywhere, even the most “polite,” “progressive” or well-intentioned spaces.
In short, what Hill is implying is that the white race must go the way of the dodo bird since even well-intentioned white anti-racists are irredeemable racists who will never give the black man justice.
There’s more of Hill’s well-written, highfalutin nonsense in the piece. I’m sure his university will approve and give him a raise for making all the white liberal administrators feel even more guilty.
It’s that white guilt that Marc Lamont Hill so loves to exploit. He can sell it on CNN, but I don’t think it will fly with readers here. You see, you can “prove” anything by imputing how people allegedly think because it can’t be proved or disproved.
By the way, if all Whites are racist in Hill’s eyes, then here’s a suggestion for him: Your black brothers in Africa await you, sir. No whites and thus no racism. Take a good look at a black-run sh*thole and then decide: Do you want to live in a predominantly white country or a black one? You and I both know the answer to that one. Like Reverend Al, you make a nice living as a race baiter.