Monday, April 6, 2015

Statement Analysis of Jackie Ward: "Racist" Event in Question


Is this another "Fake Hate"? 

 Is it another example of propaganda against police?

Or, is it a truthful account of racism in Portland, Maine?

Local newswoman Jackie Ward wrote a piece about hearing a racial comment yelled out in Portland, Maine, recently. 

Did the writer see and hear what she wrote in this statement?

According to some Facebook commenters, the story was shared on a blog with a photo of a  Portland Police Officer.

The Portland police officer and Portland Police were not part of the story. When comments pointed out this very thing,  the photo was pulled but the article remained. The person who put the photo of the Portland Police in an account of a racist incident indicated a form of deception, just as Josef Goebbels did when he showed pictures of rats next to pictures of Jews in Nazi Germany.  The association, itself, is a form of deception.  I have written about the racial divide of our nation, and how police, in general, are being portrayed in increasing rhetoric, as both racists and bullies.  "Hands Up" was a lie, making all that which followed, based upon a lie that media was quick to spread.  

Racist cops are not the norm.  When they make a statement, they are seen for who they are.  Link:  http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/01/officer-cynthia-witlatch-rarity-of.html

Here, police are "worse than ISIS":  http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/03/ernie-chambers-police-worse-than-isis.html

Staged, scripted or "fake hate" do not help. 

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  The obvious inference regarding Portland Police is to connect them to racism, but for us, first, we seek to learn:

Did this happen?

Is the subject truthful?  

Did this happen as reported?

Did she see it happen as reported?

Here is the post.  The writer related the "mom" in the statement is also a writer, who is known locally to write about racism in Portland, Maine. 

The subject, a writer of racism, was walking through Portland when she allegedly witnessed a racial incident that just happened to been done to another writer, who also happens to be a writer who writes about racism.   

The coincidental nature of the account is noted.  

A journalist concerned with racism happens upon a racist incident in Portland, Maine that just happens to have happened to an anti-racist and well known local blogger.   

 We first view the statement, and then the statement again, with emphasis and Statement Analysis in bold type.  The article came from the Bangor Daily News. 

http://tides.bangordailynews.com/2015/04/04/home/local-news-anchor-shares-poignant-story-of-racism-in-portland/


Local news anchor shares poignant story of racism in Portland

"Yesterday in the Old Port, an adorable family of four was walking down Fore Street enjoying the day, popping in and out of stores along with everyone else in downtown Portland. I was waiting outside of a store with my dog when they were walking on Fore Street. Suddenly, a man driving by screamed the n-word at them as he sped off. (The family consisted of a black mom, white dad, and from what I can tell a 12-year-old daughter and a 20-year-old son.)
The son quickly said something to his mom, dropped his bags, and sped off after the car. This all frightened the little girl tremendously. What happened next is what made me the most sad. As the dad crossed the street to see if he could see how far his son was running, the little girl started getting visibly upset with what was going on. But the mom remained calm and stern. She told the girl her brother is a grown man who can stand up for what he believes in. “People are going to use that word and you need to know how to stand up for yourself.”
My heart broke for that little girl as she harshly learned how our society has such a long way to go when it comes to racism.
It’s happening everywhere, every day. Yes, even in Maine. Do something about it and don’t add to this evil.”

This followed the copy from FB at the bangor daily news:

Note: An earlier version of this post included a picture depicting racial profiling from a post I published last summer. I’m hesitant to include this note, because I don’t want the focus to be on me, but the inclusion of the picture at this point was causing some understandable confusion. I inserted the picture into the post because, as I see it, racism is a persistent problem in Portland and the incident that I caught on tape last summer was a clear indicator of that (although many people did not agree with the message in that post either).
I also was unaware, when I was putting the post together yesterday, that the family that Jackie Ward wrote about just so happened to be Shay Stewart-Bouley with her husband and children. Stewart-Bouley is known to many as the #BlackGirlInMaine, and she operates her own blog which focuses on racism in Maine.
Stewart-Bouley, after realizing that the story had been shared on social media by Ward, and then by me on my blog page, responded with a blog of her own.

On FB, Ward herself linked to the blogger for a "first hand account."  Is this an admission that her account is not "first hand"?

Did the writer see and hear what she wrote in this statement?
This claim, itself, can change the analysis.  

We begin with the statement itself, which appears to be written as an eye witness account, and the analysis will follow this assumption.  

Here is the statement, with emphasis added for Statement Analysis.  Statement Analysis is in bold type with color added for emphasis. 

It is 237 words in total.  


"Yesterday in the Old Port, an adorable family of four was walking down Fore Street enjoying the day, popping in and out of stores along with everyone else in downtown Portland. 

Please note where she chose to begin her account.  She described the family of four as "adorable."  What caused this description?
Is it normal to describe strangers as adorable, and if so, under what circumstances?

Generally, we find young children and pets to be adorable, or young adults in love.  We may find someone we know to be "adorable."  
She does give us a description of the family, as noted below, with this order:
1.  mom
2.  dad
3.  12 year old daughter
4.  20 year old son.  She qualifies this below.  At this point, we note the order and the age added to the 12 year old and 20 year old. 
If you did not know a family, would you:

a.  know the age of a 12 year old girl?
b.  know the age of a 20 year old male?
c.  know the status of the 12 year old as being related?
d.  know the status of the 20 year old related?
She also, as a journalist, was able to discern that not only was this family "adorable", portraying them in a positive light, but they were "enjoying" the day.  How did the subject know the family was "enjoying" the day?

Please note the location:  she began with "Old Port" in her description of the location.  She does not say "Fore Street in Old Port."  She then said "Fore Street."  
Question:  was she following them?  Was she watching them "popping in and out of stores?"  If she was watching them, why was she watching this particular family? 

I was waiting outside of a store with my dog when they were walking on Fore Street. 

Note previously that they were "walking down" Fore Street  and they were "along with everybody else" which may lead to the question, "How were these four picked out among the rest?
If she did not know them:
How did she know they were related?
How did she know their ages?
How were they picked out among the crowd?  
"With my dog" is noted as distancing language.  "Adorable" is used to describe the four individuals walking but no pet is ascribed to them.  

Suddenly, a man driving by screamed the n-word at them as he sped off. 

Note, "a man" is given no description.   We do not know his age, nor the color of his skin. Yet, we see the parathentical view with specific descriptions given.  Was the driver white?  Was the driver black?  

 This week, we saw a black basketball player use the "N" word regarding a white opponent.  He was deceptive in his "apology" about "jest" as analyzed here:   http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2015/04/analyzing-tweets-andrew-harrison.html

Next, please note that she does not say "drove by" but "driving" by, with the verb tense not establishing the commitment.  In the same sentence of "driving" (present tense), she used the past tense "screamed."  
This is an inconsistency in verb usage.  
Please note that "driving by" in the present tense becomes "sped off" in time sequence.  Temporal Lacuane is a passing over of time.  In this sentence:

1.  We have three elements of time;  "Suddenly", "driving by" (present) and "sped off" (past tense) in the same sentence. Since she reports one singular word used, and one event, what has caused this to become "two" regarding the timing of the event. 

Please note that "suddenly" is an interruption of something in time.  It is the subject's first reference to time in the sentence.  The second is "driving by", and the third, "sped off", is also used for the one incident which challenges the chronicity of the event.  What happened suddenly?  Was it the car that was sudden in appearance?  This is often the language of story telling, as an interruption of something happened. 

Did it happen when he was "driving" by?  Or, did it happen when he "sped off"?

2.  "Driving by" and "sped off" is a change of language (if this is one event as reported, and not two).  Language does not change on its own.  "I drove my car and the engine died. I left the vehicle on the side of the road" shows the example of how a "car" turned into a "vehicle" when it no longer drove.  The change of language is justified in context.  When there is a change of language without contextual change, the analyst should consider that deception may be present.  


(The family consisted of a black mom, white dad, and from what I can tell a 12-year-old daughter and a 20-year-old son.)

When a parenthesis is used, it indicates a "private conversation" or "side bar" explanation for the subject.  Note the order again:

mom is listed first, and is "black"
dad is second and is listed as "white"
12 year old daughter
20 year old son
Neither have the color of their skin listed. 
Please also note the qualification, "from what I can tell" indicates a limitation on what she "can" or is able to tell. 
The subject knows that the female child is not only "12" but knows that she is the "daughter" of the "black mom" and the "white dad."
The subject "can" also tell that the young man with them was not 19, nor 21, but 20, and she also "can" tell that he is their "son."  
The reader/analyst in presuppositional thinking must ask himself or herself:

If you saw a white woman and a black man with a young male, would you know he is their son, and would you know his age?  This is the same that can be asked about the other child present.  
Since this is within a parenthesis, does it indicate that the subject does, indeed, know the family? 
Does this explain why the author may have been watching this family in particular, among the other families in the Old Port? 

The son quickly said something to his mom, dropped his bags, and sped off after the car. 

We note the use of "sped off" as something associated with a vehicle of some form.  Did he get into his car?  Did he get on a bike?  Is this an incident of road rage?  We note that they were walking, and not "driving" when the incident is alleged to have happened.  
Note the communicative language of "said" is often softer than "told" with "said" lacking urgency.  This was done "quickly", which is another mention of time.  Does "quickly" and something "said" show consistency? 


This all frightened the little girl tremendously

The word "this" indicates closeness, which is appropriate.  
Next we see the subject had the ability to know that not only was the 12 year old girl "the little girl" with emphasis upon her age, but the subject was able to tell that the "little girl" was not only "frightened" but "tremendously" frightened, making "frightened" sensitive to the subject. 
How did the subject know this?

The "all" refers to more than one event.  Was this the "tremendous fright" from the driver?  The 20 year old son's reaction?  Or, is it related to what he "said" to his "mom" (which is "mom" and not "mother", which is more casual.) 

We continue to view the chronological order of the story: 

What happened next is what made me the most sad. 

Note the word "next" indicates chronological order.  When we recall something truthfully from experiential memory, it is like, as Mark McClish says, "a parade going past our eyes" as the events are recalled in order. 
When someone is no longer in chronological order, we must question if deception is present, and the subject has "edited" the story. 

Note the inclusion of the word "me", introduces the subject, herself, to the audience. 

Now, note that the subject's own emotions are included in the story. 

In Statement Analysis, the principles we follow make psychological sense.  
In statistically true accounts we find emotions in an account, with the location quite specifically found in the third part of the break down.  

When reporting something that "happened", we look for truthful people to:

1.  Use past tense verbs to make connection 
2. to report the event of "what happened" in three parts:

a.  introduction
b.  the actual event
c.  the post event, or what happened afterwards. 

The location of the emotions of truthful statements is in the "after" portion of the account. 

"I was out walking my dog. 
I came upon a man pointing a gun at another man.  My dog lunged at the man with the gun and the man ran away. 
I got home and called 911.  I was terrified."

Because it takes humans time to process our emotions, the location of emotions in a statement are likely to be found in the "after" portion of the statement.  When emotions are found in the "logical" or "perfect" location of the story, it is often a signal that the emotions were placed there artificially.  For example:

"I was walking my dog one night when I came upon two men, with one having a gun.  I could feel the hair on the back of my neck stand up.  When my dog lunged at the man with the gun, he ran off.  I got home and called 911..."

Pilo-erection is a tangible reaction to fear.  Having placed it in the "logical" place indicates one of two things:
The story is very old, years, in fact, and the subject has had lots of time to process the fear, or...
if it is a recent event, it is indicative of artificial placement of the emotions for the effect of story telling.  

Here, we have the subject's emotions at the critical portion of the story. 

As the dad crossed the street to see if he could see how far his son was running, 

a.  "As" indicates passage of time. 
b.  Please note that the subject appears to know the reason why the father crossed the street.  
Note that he "crossed the street" and there is no "running", nor any urgency of language.  She perceives his "intention" for his son. 

She is able to "know" that he crossed the street to see "how far" his son "was running" (and not "ran"), indicating she knew that the man was the "dad" (casual) and he was not running to:

Confront, or assault the racist;
Or stop his son from confronting or assaulting  the racist
She knows his intention was only to know "how far" his "son" was running.  


the little girl started getting visibly upset with what was going on. 

Please take note that the "little girl", here, chronologically, has now indicated a "visible" appearance. 
Note "started" does not say "was", but is to describe what has begun, but without conclusion.  
Note "visibly upset" comes after she was "tremendously frightened" above. 

This is also out of chronological order.  


But the mom remained calm and stern. She told the girl her brother is a grown man who can stand up for what he believes in. 

Note the description of the "mom" is;
a. calm
b. stern

It would be interesting to learn what she "witnessed" that she is able to describe as "stern"

Note the communicative language of "told" is more consistent than the above "said", in context. 
Note that she is able to communicate to her audience what the "mom" "told" her daughter.  Was she this close to the "mom"?  She went on to give a complete quote:  

“People are going to use that word and you need to know how to stand up for yourself.”


My heart broke for that little girl as she harshly learned how our society has such a long way to go when it comes to racism.

Note the "broken heart" is associated with distancing language of "that little girl" creating a disconnect of her emotion and what the "little girl" experienced.  

It’s happening everywhere, every day. Yes, even in Maine. Do something about it and don’t add to this evil.”

"Yes" is to answer a question of "does this happen in Maine?" which is not asked.  The admonition to "do something about it" is given: 
Does this include a 20 year old running after a vehicle?
Is the subject advocating confrontation?
Following the posting of this account, the mom in question blogged about the incident, and questioned why the reporter did not do anything during the alleged incident.  


Analysis conclusion:  

There are most always elements of truth found within deceptive accounts.  In any "need to persuade", we find hyperbole, and even simply emotionally laden words to promote emotion over fact.  

Also, Statement Analysis recognizes "Scripting language", that is, language that is intended to persuade or that is rehearsed.  We see this when a child, for example, enters the language of an adult in accusing one parent of abuse, falsely.  

There are indicators that this story did not entirely come from experiential memory.

If the subject, Jackie Ward, claims that this is a "first hand" account of what she saw and heard, deception is indicated.  

If it is thus claimed that the story was lifted from the other blogger, it was 'lifted' incorrectly.  

In either case:  

This appears to be a "scripted" account, specifically designed for an intended outcome.  Though it is difficult to not question the "coincidental nature" of the story, it is within the wording itself, that deception is discerned, specifically:

Chronology
Change of Language
Artificial location of emotions
Verb usage 
Incongruity of communicative language
Edited knowledge of those involved 

19 comments:

Anonymous said...


The whole statement is preposterous on the face of it.
What adult person (young man), 20 years old, assuming he is in his right mind; would run off on foot chasing a car that "sped off" down the street and think he could get very far? ON FOOT? Chasing a speeding car? How far could he get before the car sped off into the dust; half a block?

Further assuming the adult 'kid' is in his right mind; wouldn't he stop to think first that the evil drivers' car he is 'chasing on foot' just might have a gun at his disposal and just might shoot at him as he chases behind his car in hot pursuit? With road rage being what it is and strangers shooting strangers, this 'adult' would run off down the street chasing after someones' car that he does not know, and he would risk his very life for something so ridiculous as a one word insult?

I am calling the entire story bullshyt. Bullshyt and more bullshyt. It never happened.

brosnanfan said...

I think the story MAY have happened...but I also think that the writer embellished what she saw. A mixed-race family MAY have been walking on the street near her and her dog. A man MAY have driven by and yelled a racial slur. IF so, then the little girl MAY have felt upset and the young man MAY have taken off running after having made a comment to the woman and the little girl MAY have been visibly upset.

However, instead of reporting on the factual events and then hypothesizing on their feelings ("It appeared that the little girl may have been upset," for example), the writer seems to have reported hypothesis as fact. Did she speak to the family afterwards and get their thoughts on the matter? Is that how she knows? If one doesn't know, one shouldn't report something as fact.

I think the reporter wanted to capitalize on the recent racial tensions in this country and used this article (and the removed photo of the policeman) as clickbait.

brosnanfan said...

"Yesterday in the Old Port, an adorable family of four was walking down Fore Street enjoying the day, popping in and out of stores along with everyone else in downtown Portland."

My radar went up with the first sentence. How did she know that they were "enjoying" the day, "popping in and out of stores"? When I go into a store, even just to casually browse for a moment, I usually spend more than a few seconds in the store. When I have my husband and/or kids with me, it takes longer than that. Let's say they were walking and spent five minutes in each store. Walking from store to store might take anywhere from thirty seconds to two minutes (or more). If they "pop" into four stores, for example, they could easily spend around twenty-five minutes doing all these things. Now...go to a street or a mall and watch one family for twenty-five minutes. Or just keep an eye on one family while noticing other people for twenty-five minutes.

Boring, huh? Even the cutest family gets boring to watch.

That's one reason why I think some of this story might be true, but the thoughts and feelings of the family have been embellished by the writer for her own reasons.

Plus...personally, if I were this family, I'd be less worried about some weirdo in a car and more worried about the stalker lady and her dog...

Anonymous said...

This is ambiguous in what is written here but the photo of the police was not posted by Jackie Ward; it was posted by the reporter covering it. Yet, the title: "Statement Analysis of Jackie Ward: Racist Portland Police" implies what Ward said had something to do with the police; it did not. While the implication was initially the fault of the unnamed male newspaper writer, it's now misinformation here. It seems if one could take the time to compare a man to Joseph Goebells, he could name the person who posted the photo rather than title the piece in a way that makes it seem Ward invoked the police "connection."

Further, Ward's words are analyzed to cast doubt that hers is a "first hand" account. While the words do bring up a question, she wrote "for the mother's first hand account," but what's reported here is: a "first hand account". Why change a possessive noun "mother's" to an article "a"? Why not..."She linked to the blogger for her first hand account"? Yes, "a 'first hand account'" sounds like she's confessing hers wasn't, but "her first hand account" doesn't preclude that it was first hand for both of them, but without proper language, we can't decide that for ourselves.

Anonymous said...

I'm sticking by my story. Bullshyt. It never happened.

Peter Hyatt said...

If you read the woman's blog, she wanted a weekend without labels or titles.

She focuses upon herself, deliberately, with a label.

Her blog title also refers to her label.

Yet it is her use of such phrases of time that suggest that her son and the one who yelled at him are not only known, but likely had exchanged words before hand. When one emphasizes "suddenly" and then "without warning" enough times, you might wonder if this need to emphasize time is part of a need to persuade, as it is not true.

The attention wanes and the one craving may create a situation to cause attention, even at the expense of truth.

It is racist and the fake hate is not helpful for race relations.

As to the story happening:

sometimes people deceive in a way that transports them over time. If something happened years ago, they 'transport' it to now. This is why "time" in the statement is so sensitive.

The writer (news reporter) embellished in no small degree.

She, too, sought attention.

The focus is away from racism and upon liars.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

I think brosnafan said it best:

Plus...personally, if I were this family, I'd be less worried about some weirdo in a car and more worried about the stalker lady and her dog...


Peter

Anonymous said...

[i]I was waiting outside of a store with my dog when they were walking on Fore Street.[/i]

She was waiting.

She was waiting and watching the family.

She was waiting and watching the family for a while as they popped in and out of shops.

I wonder what she was waiting for?

-Akula

Anonymous said...

And just because it make me smile to think about it:

She was waiting with her dog. She told us that "she" was waiting but used "with my dog." "With" indicating separation and a possible lack of unity in the action of waiting. I would want to ask the dog what it was doing while she was waiting.

Kind of in the same way we evaluate, "I was watching TV with my wife." :)

-Akula

john said...

Mixed-race family's racist abuse shocks Maine after local news anchor witnesses man shout 'Hey n*****s!' at them and shares her horror on Facebook


A family of four was enjoying a day out together in Portland, Maine when a white man yelled a racial slur at them before speeding off.
The family consisted of a black mother and a white father who were with their nine-year-old daughter and 23-year-old son.
The man was in a car filled with a group of young white men when he screamed 'Hey n*****s!' at them on Friday and drove away.
Several bystanders witnessed the incident, including a local news reporter for WCSH 6 and WLBZ 2, Jackie Ward.
She shared her account of the story on Facebook, as a 'reminder for us to be kinder to each other.'
The story has since caused a stir in Maine - shocking some residents of the state.


The mother, Shay Stewart-Bouley who runs a blog called Black Girl In Maine and writes about race, has told her story of how the incident unfolded that day.
She wrote in her blog: 'As a mixed-raced family in a white space, the reality is that anytime we leave our house as a family, we risk incurring the wrath of the ignorant and hateful.
'To partake in the joys of the first treats of spring can turn ugly without notice and, sadly, a visit to Maine’s most populous city yesterday was the day when the ugly became personal and my nine-year-old daughter learned that there are people who will never know her essence but instead will reduce her to nothing more than a n*****.'
Ward who was with in the Old Port when she watched the incident, and said in the moment she had become frozen and was unable to comprehend what was happening.
She wrote on Facebook: 'Yesterday in the Old Port, an adorable family of four was walking down Fore Street enjoying the day, popping in and out of stores along with everyone else in downtown Portland.

'I was waiting outside of a store with my dog when they were walking on Fore Street. Suddenly, a man driving by screamed the n-word at them as he sped off.
As the girl's brother chased after the car, Ward said she saw the child become visibly upset.
She wrote: 'What happened next is what made me the most sad. As the dad crossed the street to see if he could see how far his son was running, the little girl started getting visibly upset with what was going on.
'But the mom remained calm and stern. She told the girl her brother is a grown man who can stand up for what he believes in. "People are going to use that word and you need to know how to stand up for yourself."

'My heart broke for that little girl as she harshly learned how our society has such a long way to go when it comes to racism.'
After sharing her post, several readers asked if anyone traced the car or got the license plate number, while others asked Ward if she took action in the moment.
Stewart-Bouley wrote on Ward's post that she was upset following the incident but that was not the time and place to be emotional.
'I have lived in Maine 13 years now, I write about race and I head up an anti racism organization Community Change Inc in Boston.
'In that moment, my only concern was the safety of my children specifically my son who after spending his childhood in Maine and enduring such language with regularity as a grown man is no longer willing to have his humanity denied.'

john said...

Cont..

She added in her blog post that while she was grateful for Ward's observations she was saddened that she was not comfortable enough following the exchange to come over to the family and ask if they were okay.
'Racism is a system, and that silence upholds that system even when we don’t believe we are actively creating harm,' wrote Stewart-Bouley.
In a follow-up post on Sunday, Ward hit back at critics clarifying that her intentions with sharing the story was to remind people to respect one another, while addressing the questions surrounding what she did during the incident.
She wrote: 'First, I'm glad so many people are talking about a real issue in Maine, but I also want to clarify a few things.
'For those people questioning my motives, I didn't share the story for personal attention or to try to stir up controversy.

'I was trying to make a positive out of a terrible incident by opening people's eyes to the fact that these incidents do still happen and reminding people to respect one another.'
She added: 'I understand now that my inaction was hurtful to the family and for that I'm very sorry. It was not due to a lack of outrage or sympathy but simply that I didn't know whether the family would appreciate someone interjecting themselves into the situation.
'I thought that the way I could help would be by bringing awareness to it by writing about it.'
As for Stewart-Bouley and her family, she said on Friday during the car ride home the mood of the day had been destroyed.
She said her family was reminded that the world can be an utterly ugly place.
As her daughter asked if they could move away, she told her 'ugly can live anywhere'.
'If I felt there was a place that was safe and where we could be assured that we would never hear that word again, I would move heaven and earth to get us there,' she wrote.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3027079/Maine-news-anchor-witnessed-family-called-racial-slur-shares-horror-Facebook.html

tania cadogan said...

The word n***** is often claimed to be a racist term and in the story it is pointed out by the writer as a racist term and how the little girl had now learned how far society has a long way to go when dealing with racism.

This made me snort.

Has the writer never heard a rap song or seen a rap video?
Has the writer not listened to street language amongst teens or heck even families?
Has the writer never seen a reality show?
Has the writer never seen comments in fb or other social media?

I would assume she has and is refusing to admit the truth because i doesn't suit her agenda.

Blacks call blacks the n***** word as an insult, as a greeting, as a term of endearment.

Apparantly it seems it is ok for blacks to use the N word but not anyone else otherwise it is racist.

Either the word is acceptable to all or it is unacceptable to all.
The same goes for any word in any language, it is either acceptable or it isn't.
A whole heap of trouble starts of it is ok for some to use a word and not others.
Where do you draw the line?

Is it ok if you are white and have adopted a black child?

Is it ok if you are white and you are wih you black friends who are tossing the word about?

Does it depend on the shade of brown you are?

Is it ok for a parent to tefer to their child as n*****?

What about other family members?

What about whites calling other whites n*****

What about the rest of the world, the asians, the indians?

The complaint is the prson was racist, how can someone be racist and use a racist word when the offended people use the exact same word to refer to themselves in music and film?
People who use the exact same word to refer to a family member of any age or gender or who use it as a term of endearment or a compliment

Anything can be perceived as racist if you put your mind to it and you have an agenda

jhawkgirl said...

Oh there is plenty of racism in Portland, Maine, but it's not necessarily the kind people might think of. At a public high school in Portland my daughter was called a "white Christian b****" by a group of African immigrant girls who were also students at the school. No one batted an eye. My daughter's comment to me: "Mom, can you even imagine what would have happened if I called one of them a "black Muslim b****?"

Anonymous said...

In a blog post of her own about the incident, Stewart-Bouley explained why her son ran after the racists.

“He ran because having his baby sister hear those vile words was simply not acceptable to him,” she continued. “He ran because a pack of white men calling his mama a n****r was not okay. He knew the risk inherent in running but he also knew that at 23, he is tired of stuffing down the weight of racism and being asked to be the ‘better person’ by silently taking the abuse and waiting for society to change when it clearly has little impetus to do so. He realized that sometimes, a man has to be willing to risk everything, including an ass kicking or a jail cell, to right some of the wrongs in this world. It may seem … or maybe even be … foolish, but there comes a time when one is simply tired of dealing with injustice.”

Snipped:
http://yourblackworld.net/2015/04/06/hey-n-local-anchor-hears-mixed-race-family-get-called-racial-slur/


Anonymous said...

Stewart-Bouley explained in a series of Twitter posts how the incident — and Ward’s apparently well-meaning attempt to publicize it — demonstrated the difficulties black Americans faced in telling their own stories.

“Blacks and other (people of color) don’t need white folks to tell our stories because somehow we become cutesy in these pieces, less than … not cool,” she tweeted. “You tell a story about us, make us sound like some cute Keebler elves … special, exotic and othered. Control of narrative matters.”


She said her family’s story had been framed through the experience of a white bystander, and Stewart-Bouley said she had been slammed with criticism for questioning Ward’s actions.

“Whiteness was literally created as a norm in our culture and we hold everyone and everything up to the standard of whiteness,” she tweeted. “Right now the story of what happened to my family is being centered in whiteness which dictates how non white people are to be.”

“Whiteness say it is okay to be silent and thus complicit if our intentions were ‘right,’” she added. “When whiteness is de-centered as the norm, we start to see the inherent worth of all without qualifiers.”

Stewart-Bouley said awareness of racism is no longer enough, and that individual action is needed to confront white supremacy.

Snipped:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/black-activist-explains-what-white-people-dont-get-about-race-after-reporter-shares-racial-slur-horror-story/

Anonymous said...

The complaint is the prson [sic] was racist, how can someone be racist and use a racist word when the offended people use the exact same word to refer to themselves in music and film?

When you say "offended people use the exact same word" are you referring to the "offended" individuals written about here (you know they use the word in the way you describe) or are you saying because some black people say "nigger" that no black person should be offended by the word?

Anonymous said...

Or if you, a white person, marry a black and move into an all black neighborhood and say you don't want titles, and then start a blog and twitter account with "white girl" and "white girl lives in Harlem" and then start protesting racism and then suddenly someone yells "hey whitey!" out the window and it just happens that a news woman was stalking you watching all of this.

yeah, that works.

Anonymous said...

Or if there there are women in the world who jokingly call their bffs "b**ch," then no woman in the world should be upset if a passing stranger calls them a b**ch.

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous said...
This is ambiguous in what is written here but the photo of the police was not posted by Jackie Ward; it was posted by the reporter covering it. Yet, the title: "Statement Analysis of Jackie Ward: Racist Portland Police" implies what Ward said had something to do with the police; it did not. While the implication was initially the fault of the unnamed male newspaper writer, it's now misinformation here. It seems if one could take the time to compare a man to Joseph Goebells, he could name the person who posted the photo rather than title the piece in a way that makes it seem Ward invoked the police "connection."

Further, Ward's words are analyzed to cast doubt that hers is a "first hand" account. While the words do bring up a question, she wrote "for the mother's first hand account," but what's reported here is: a "first hand account". Why change a possessive noun "mother's" to an article "a"? Why not..."She linked to the blogger for her first hand account"? Yes, "a 'first hand account'" sounds like she's confessing hers wasn't, but "her first hand account" doesn't preclude that it was first hand for both of them, but without proper language, we can't decide that for ourselves.>>


I had to follow the chain of copy/paste/photo. You are correct that the original title should have been changed and will be.

The male who put it there and took it down should be the one compared to Herr Goebells. Agreed.

As to your final criticism, the analysis shows that the claim of having had this incredible encounter is just that...

lacking credibility.

Peter