It is one-sided. I listened to several podcasts and read several articles in the last few days, and frankly I've been hearing the same rap on this issue that I've heard since I started following politics about 25 years ago. I've always heard and still hear the term "dialogue" used a lot, but the dialogue is only acceptable if a few ground rules and assumptions are accepted beforehand.
First, white people are ignorant, self-centered, and weak-minded. They live very sheltered lives, are in denial about anybody other than themselves, and are too racked with fear and emotional timidity to face the race issue or accept any responsibility for injustice. This
article is indicative of this assumption. Your average commentator on the issue isn't as inflammatory as Eve Ensler is. After all, she's a colossal crackpot. However, if you really listen to most liberal commentators (white or black) discuss racial issues of any kind, they largely echo her mentality, albeit with more diplomatic rhetoric.
On the flip side, blacks are presumed to have a very broad and accurate picture not only of their circumstances but of whites' circumstances as well. They're also presumed to be very rational, morally strong, and courageous.
Second, all whites are the same, and it's politically correct to generalize about them. There is no reason to respect their individuality or the uniqueness of their circumstances. Obviously, if you suggest that blacks are anything other than very distinct individuals, you're a horrible person.
Third, privilege breaks down along race, which overwhelmingly trumps any other factor. Some broke-*** poor white kid in East Texas isn't much less privileged than Donald Trump's son. The son of a black Major League baseball player is almost as oppressed as a broke-*** poor black kid growing up on the streets of Memphis. That's why a poor or middle class white person who complains about affirmative action discriminating against him can be told to shut up, check his privilege, and have his concerns dismissed.
Fourth, because of the first and third factors, whites aren't worthy to take issue with the self-ordained black leadership in a meaningful way, and if they do, they're just showing their ignorance and privilege, which needs to be checked. Furthermore, if they don't relent, they're to be demonized. If you get combative with BLM, you're not a much better than a guy in a white hood stringing a black guy up from a tree.
So accept those rules and assumptions, and we can dialogue. In other words, it's not a real dialogue. If you're white, you need to shut up and get lectured by enlightened black activists, while they get fawned over self-loathing and self-flagellating white liberals like Eve Ensler.
I know this topic is generally about law enforcement, but at least on the Left, all racial issues seem to be viewed through this lens and are expected to be debated under these terms.
To sort of (but not really) shift gears, Michael Eric Dyson made an interesting statement on a Meet the Press panel on Sunday. He said:
"It is an unconscious, if you will, inclination [for police] to see that black person differently, through a different prism, to have greater fear. The police, the cop on the front line feels a kind of intensity that he does not feel."
Michael Gerson (who's sort of a wimpy, non-assertive Republican) called for the need for empathy mainly by whites - basically agreed with Dyson. Eugene Robinson (who's a very partisan black liberal) agreed. Mary Matalin (a conservative but a non-intellectual) basically beat around the bush and made no meaningful point on the matter.
I'll be honest. I think Dyson is correct. I'm sure your average cop's fear and instincts elevate when he confronts a black guy. But I heard nobody ask or entertain and explanation for why that would be true or why it might be justified. It's just assumed that the cop who has that heightened fear is irrational, hateful, or both. I don't think he's either. I think he relies on his experiences and the experiences of others he knows, and he relies on the fact that his assumptions based on those experiences are supported by statistics.
I think the cop knows that anybody can attack him at any time, but he also knows that if he confronts a black male, he's more likely to get attacked or face resistance than if he confronts a white male and especially a white female. Because he knows that to be true, it's going to make him more on edge. Does that make the cop wrong? Should he try to suppress that intensity when he knows that he's in greater danger? I think that's asking too much, and if we're being honest, nobody would do that, because it's irrational and frankly, dangerous.
But nobody on Meet the Press would even touch that issue. Why not? It's because it's outside the acceptable parameters of the "dialogue" we're supposed to be having.
By the way, before I'm dismissed as a crazy racist, I'll readily admit that there are real racial disparities in the criminal justice system that can't be justified by even a rational personal fear. Drug enforcement heavily discriminates against minorities (especially blacks). There is a wild disparity in the availability of competent legal counsel that discriminates against the poor (who are more likely to be minorities). Juries are tougher on black defendants. Petty crimes (more likely to be committed by minorities) are much easier to prove than white collar crimes (more likely to be committed by whites). There are real areas in which black complaints are justifiable.