If you didn’t hear about the “beer summit” and the events that led to it, then clearly you were not paying attention to the mainstream media during the latter part of the month of July. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a very famous and well known professor to any regular viewer of PBS television, was arrested on his front porch by a police officer near (or actually on) the Harvard campus. CLICK FOR: summary of events.
We’re not particularly interested in debating who was “right” and “wrong” in this mess, nor whether the arrest was fueled by racial profiling or racism. What is interesting is the follow-up and it’s impact on race relations. So is this it? We give two aggrieved parties a beer and, as Laurie Mulvey says in the video, they agree to disagree and we call it “dialogue”?
Tell us what you think about what she’s saying. Is the event (and the spillover) indicative of our need for racial dialogue and racial healing…or is it merely another case of a small incident getting blown out of proportion by mass media outlets in search of sales?
These things tends to happen quiet often in the black community, but since the arrested man held such a high place in the community and it happened on one of America Best Colleges, it was brought to light. If they could get over it, why cant we?
[Reply]
I’m not sure why Barack Obama got involved in this issue in the first place. I understand that he was trying to touch on black profiling but it was probably ended up being addressed more towards individuals who were involved or heard of similar cases. I’m not sure if I really understand the negativity coming from Mrs. Mulvey and how she thinks Barak Obama let her down. Again, Barak Obama should have known that this was probably going to turn into a main stream media story but I don’t see that the way he went about it was wrong. Yes, in certain cases we can give two aggravated parties a beer and they can peacefully agree to disagree. This to me is called healthy dialog even though we didn’t get to hear or see it. It’s true that we either see people locking heads and not getting any where or shaking hands and walking away (agreeing to disagree) but isn’t that better. If I tried to really “get down to the real stuff” with every cop that arrested me I would probably end up with more charges then I began with. Everyone white and colored was taught to be polite and never talk back to a police officer because there will be consequences. It obviously isn’t that different for Harvard Professors because the police officer wasn’t getting what he wanted and he arrested the man. Mrs. Mulvey said she thought Barak Obama was going to show us the correct path of how to come to reconciliation but she didn’t give us any examples of what she thought was acceptable or what Barak should have done. If it were me I would have done the same thing as Barak Obama, sit down the two fighting parties and talk about it over a beer. Mrs. Mulvey was surprised that they seemed to come out of the whole thing “jolly wit each other” because they put the past behind them. In my experience I solve things by talking them over with who ever it is, stating my point and in return hearing out theirs, then putting the past behind us. If you’re able to civilly sit down with the person, then you are able to talk and come up with a solution. If the situation was that bad you would never even try to talk, this is how fights start then leading into wars. Mrs. Mulvey was right, in their sit down “light bulbs probably went on, wow I thought this about you but now I’m hearing that and I never realized that before, and oh you were thinking that and that’s why you did that, I get it I would have done that if I were you”. I immediately assumed all that, why would they both all of a sudden appear to be ok with each other if that didn’t take place. Yes we were not able to see and hear what was said in the sit down while having a beer so I guess in the end the racial dialogue and healing that was supposed to be portrayed wasn’t. That was what created such uproar, but in the end the media blew it out of proportion in search of sales. For the future I totally agree with Sam and the hookah summit with the special tobacco and the feast afterward. We did the same thing back in my town between friends, we called them peace blunts.
[Reply]
In the case of Professor Gates in July, a minor situation escalated into a major issue in national media. One could blame many different groups for escalating the situation beyond what it was, a minor misunderstanding that the police looked into and dismissed. First, one could blame the police for arresting the professor for disorderly conduct. The officers even stated that they realized he was the resident of the home. However, Mr. Gates’ actions could be deemed as disorderly and the police did their jobs correctly in my opinion. The police are required to quickly check up on a scene when they receive a call. Once they realized that he was not breaking in, Gates’ following actions were enough to warrant police action. Second, one could blame the national media. On both sides of the news spectrum, there were many storylines to play with in this case. A reporter could play up the black guy getting into trouble and then “pulling his race card,” or they could headline the black guy who has association with the oft-criticized new president gets arrested. Again, there were many different ways to spin this. However, media outlets are ultimately responsible for one thing, profit. A story that is talked about, read about and watched on television, is a story that is successful, whether it is morally right or wrong. Thus, I feel that the news outlets, from Fox News to MSNBC and everything in between, fulfilled their duty, to report news that people want to hear about. Lastly, one could blame the situation on Professor Gates. If the police knock on your door, you should greet them politely and treat them cordially, especially if you have nothing to hide. To open the door and release a tirade about how he was only scrutinized because of his skin color was the wrong reaction on his part. That being said, Gates did just return from a trip overseas, and I’m sure he was tired, hungry and frustrated by being locked out of his home. For that reason, I think he probably would have acted differently if the situation had been forty-eight hours later. When I heard about President Obama having a beer with the two men, I feel that it was a good message to send to the country, as it showed that these grown men could act mature and not discuss racial issues over nothing. It showed a mutual respect that the situation had been laid to rest and people wanted to move on. I’m sure everyone involved looks back today and can see a different path they could have taken to avoid the backlash that ensued. At the Beer Summit, there was no need to delve deeper into racial issues, and all men involved realized that they needed to move on. Now, not even two months later, each of the men involved has resumed their normal lifestyle.
[Reply]
i think this situation is mostly a miss communication. Mr. Gates was having his guard up for the cop and the policemen was also out his guard up in a policemen view of point incase things goes wrong. Both were over reacting and situations doesnt go the right way. I dont think it necessary for the president to step in and try to resolve the problem. When the president gets involve it only make the media goes even more crazy about the story and only make the problem bigger. Media is the one that make lines and divided people. so when they gets involve, some people might take the situation to the next level and blow it up even more worst.
[Reply]
I think that it was a mix of both our need for racial dialogue and the media blowing the incident a bit out of proportion. When the two parties met at the White House for a few beers, agreeing to put the past behind them will temporarily put the obvious lack of racial dialogue “under the rug” for a few years. However, when something like this occurs again in five, ten, fifteen years, US society will be back at the starting point. I also think that it was a case of the media blowing it out of proportion because if it was not for the fact that this professor knew President Obama, we would have never heard about this incident. How often do you think that this kind of thing occurs in the US? It’s a lot more common than the media depicts it to be. So, if that’s the case, why are we hearing about this individual case for weeks? If it wasn’t for whom he was this would have been swept under the rug, along with all of the other similar events that occur.
There is no question that “putting the past behind you,” especially after having many days to think about the incident on your own time before meeting at the White House again, is the easier and safer route to take in this situation. However, what is safer is not always better. If President Obama would have elected to allow the two parties to talk further about the arrest, they may have ruffled a few feathers but would have advanced race relations in the US further. Keeping silent about misconduct will only get you so far.
I do not think that Barak Obama did enough to help race relations in the future, at all. I’m sure that Mr. Gates still hold a slight grudge, or displeasure, toward the officer (or maybe he doesn’t, but most people would).
In response to Rodney, why/how would you make the officer face consequences? What did he do that is out of the realm of penal authority and control? It greatly depends on whose story you choose to believe, and I very highly doubt wither one is 100% accurate – it’s likely somewhere in between.
Laurie Mulvey was correct when she expressed what usually occurs when two people meet after a conflict, through my experience. They either butt heads and clash, or remain silent about the issue, “put the past behind them,” and move on (as if they truly do just move on). By just skimming the surface, a problem cannot really be solved. This was more of the same – more of just skimming the surface as the White House under the guise of having a beer. By simply putting the past behind them and never having true dialogue about the issue, nothing was resolved.
[Reply]
This event is very intrinsic to the way that we think about reconciliation. The idea that the matter of race plays into it only adds another dimension. If it was a white professor who had been arrested on his front porch, would President Barack Obama still have invited the man to enjoy some beers to dilute the controversy? But another thought could be, would the man have had a police report for him breaking and entering if he had been of another race. It seems stereotypically natural that black men do not get the benefit of the doubt when it comes to situations like this.
What if all situations where the American justice system were handled in the same manner? If the accused were to be given the honor of sharing a beer with some political figure, would this ease the mind of the falsely accused. It seems that when people are falsely accused then just get a sorry after everything has blown over, there will always be some hard feelings. If an apology was granted to the accused over a few beers, maybe it would show a bit more sincerity. It would show that people could show fault for their mistakes. If you think about it, when people are accused of a crime, they will either be charged with a fine or spending some time in jail. If they are found not guilty it will give them nothing except some suspicions of the crime they did not commit. This in turn sometimes leads to counter lawsuits. So, when found not guilty would they find some gratitude or solace being given a proper apology?
This event showed that people can forgive and forget. The idea of having both the officer and the accused share a beer seems effective, because it leaves both parties able to share their recount of the story. Not only is this good for the two parties, but it also seems to be a good media outlet. It helps ease the publics mind towards authority figures, knowing that they can admit when they’re wrong. In the end it seems to have helped both parties gain some sort of respect for one another.
Another prospective on this issue would be to show that different cultures can find their differences and explain their methodology. Let’s say for instance a black man from a lower class neighborhood is given this same opportunity, would it have had the same affect on the media and would it have given the same amount of ease to the accused? Or would the tension between the two till be present? Could this possibly break the barrier of stereotypes and preconceptions of things that we do not understand? I am very curious to see where it leads this country.
[Reply]
There has always been race issues in this nation with other presidents. I think that just because Barrack has such big plans to change our nation and he being our first president of color makes the people put greater judgment upon him. Just because the issues were not solved does not mean he did not try. Our nation has always been faced with race issues. One meeting wasn't going to solve everything. Yet people are acting as though he lost our only shot.
[Reply]
The Great Beer Summit was another one of those stories that the media repeatedly blows out of proportion. In response to Sam’s post, I believe that it didn’t fail at all. The police officer just made a silly mistake, was unlucky and had to deal with the press. He was undoubtedly ignorant. He obviously hasn’t been exposed to much interaction with people of a different race.
Obama did have good intentions in inviting both of them to the White House. However, it was very unprofessional. At the summit, by drinking beer the two (the African American and the officer) were able to get ‘loose’ and have a great time together. After the summit I think that the white police officer came out realizing that he was able to socialize with black people. The president being there may not have been the best thing though. He is a public icon. The two may have just been getting along because they were in the presence of someone of great power in our country and knew that if they didn’t show some sort of effort, punishment could potentially occur.
The talk most likely helped them out more than the press stated that it did. For example, I attended an American high school overseas with people of every ethnic background from all over the world. We had this thing called Challenge Day where we would pair up with random people who we had never talked to before (or someone from a totally different background.) Everyone was with someone of a different color. Our job was to have a 20-minute conversation with that person and get to know them for who they are instead of what they look like on the outside. I know it is stereotypical, but for a lot of people, if they have one conversation with an Asian and it decent, they are going to look at Asians differently. After Challenge Day everyone had to write a paper about what they learned from it. Most said that it was very beneficial and that having a conversation with someone is a lot better than ‘hearing what is right’ to become closer with a different background.
This applies to Obama’s situation because I feel like he subconsciously was trying to get the white police officer to realize that black people aren’t all that different from him. In the White House, they all shared a beer, which was one thing they had in common. By conversing with one another rather than being told that he shouldn’t discriminate only causes more anger. He needs to experience a situation first hand and by being under the supervision of the president only pressures him to do so. In the end, the Great Beer Summit makes sense!
[Reply]
None of this matters because race relations was solved along time ago anyway http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnOyMSEWNTs
[Reply]
Is it just me who is quickly realizing that the definition of racism or racist if being stretched and shaped in a such a way that anyone or any situation in our nation whether political, economical or social is being tied to RACISM! I mean, it is so bad that TV political analysts like Glen Beck, radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and many more like them especially on the political right wing are blasting and trash talking about our president of being a racist! What’s becoming more worrisome is that these extremists’ voices are so loud that they almost drown other voices on news cycles on both TV and Radio channels, consequently intoxicating important debates and constructive opinions that would be critical in solving immense problems that our nation is facing.
One easy example that comes on my mind is actually pretty recent, a month ago, where the congress was in recession and there was a heated debate about health care reform. I am sure everyone who is worried about the state of our economy and the burden that health care cost is putting on it was looking forward to a more civil and healthy debate on how health care should be comprehensively reformed. What did the right wingers do? They saw an opportunity of starting a smear campaign saying that Obama’s health care reform plan is nothing but a way increasing tax on the wealthiest Americans who happens to be mostly Caucasians. So, by deduction, that is so Racist of President Obama. This makes me wonder whether the right winger and extreme conservatives actually believe in what they are saying in their smearing campaign or it’s just their way of making political scores! I really hope it is the latter because if that’s not the case, our country still has long way to go to unroot racism.
Individuals like Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck call President Obama a deep seeded racist because he attended a community church on the South side of Chicago where he lived and worked as a community organizer. Yes, Rev Wright would be considered as an extremist just as Rush limbaugh or Glen Beck except that he would be located on the opposite side of the political spectrum. However, how many times President Obama will denounce Rev Wright views on American social issues? Will they actually focus on what President Obama message is on Race rather that going off on a tangent and account him on what someone else has preached or has said? After all, we all have and/or know crazy or extremists people in our own lives, it would be absolutely unfair if we were to be blamed on every none sense that come out of their mouths. Let’s grow up America, let’s start peeling off our racism lenses that we use often to read racism in everything we see around us.
[Reply]
localtarget graceland emperor prollenium tiles siddhasramam logged massive inquiry hague djkj affirm
[Reply]
bayer zensar alajuela failed refers onobjectives fraud september throws summers delhi complies
[Reply]
familiar thread affecting touch necessitates liedel pressed skeath fostered trustworthy avison
[Reply]
disc reputed navy ashmore splices delete universities contrasts michigan intoxicated satan
[Reply]
cliches hobbies malen cesspools pujiang ruleml bust robotized footing facie diverting
[Reply]
procurement referrer weakness averil assisted quill tempted informing permitting trillions vetproject
[Reply]
modeling iosh usethe tumour websters unrest lagoon arthritis compensation indistries ponds
[Reply]
eventslist margnew regime sherya quality censored dense mepco assessments adlit relax
[Reply]
rolta enthusiasm tapes acquisition walter affiliates officials locates postingsall policies logician
[Reply]
sinhaen pledge druker lifestyle shortcomings clement michigan hatred egan pane continuing
[Reply]
adapter local centripetal watson encroaching confers verkhovna gaap zgptpielwp evaluable pronouns
[Reply]
dgeneric lone habits fooj spend concerted cida bertha mount arguments ncirduser
[Reply]
Hello!
[Reply]
excess needlman bsdsnkjksa alison impossibile remer universe dissipation fofhkuu mellon irns
[Reply]
fauna claris reaffirming webquests nouns beautify vertebrates absorb conservative florida version
[Reply]
catching medicines cascading plannd palestine designing prediction nedp prestigious takeover audiences
[Reply]
competitor packages delay tuning claudius letting republish othersnew discrepancy solidarity drill
[Reply]
euro users artworks behala startedafter weis brings exploited franchising voting powerful
[Reply]
palin bandra sighci caseloads offset created nonetheless dhamtari directional parenthesis portland
[Reply]
lamotrigine falsity practicein woman exposed refrigerator bonaventura suites transmitting goodreasons duly
[Reply]