Bill Cosby sexually assaulted her. But she didn't tell because of some perceived similarity between the two individuals involved. See how absurd this is? Would you also not tell to let "women down" if you were assaulted by another woman? If a man was assaulted by another man, would he not tell to let 'men down' or even 'Fans of X series down'? It seems the only people who get hung up on gender/sexuality/racial/appearance issues are those that focus on it. I don't see why people group by appearances. Or why the actions of one person reflect a group as a whole. If you think that way, perhaps you are the problem? If I do something I don't do it for 'white males'. I don't even see myself as a 'white male'. I see myself as me. I don't consider people of a different ethnicity to be 'different'. Nor if they are a different gender/sexuality. Those are just various traits that make up the person. Not a key identifier. If I like programming, that doesn't mean "it shows that thin people like programming". FFS. If I had a problem with someone of my same gender/ethnicity/fandom/sexuality/whatever, I'd immediately point it out. An individual is not the group. And if it's a problem with the group itself? Then there's no point in trying to cover it up anyway. But I don't see how 'sexual assault' is correlated with pigments in the skin. Bill Cosby's a fucktard. That says nothing about men in general, or even african americans (or even people with darker skin in general). How is that a problem? IMO it looks poorly on you to want to defend these types of people. It's not honorable. It's not "for the good of the group". If there's a malicious person, it's best to cut them from the group ASAP. Not let them associate and cause more problems. Either way, I still don't see what's gained by associating by skin color. My skin color doesn't affect the way I treat people or behave in the slightest. And it doesn't effect which types of people I defend or speak out against.
I'm not in the US, but the black vs white thing seems to be absolutely crippling there. I get that it's the legacy of slavery, but even with a "half-black" president there still doesn't seem to be any progress. One thing I draw a line against is the term "African American". They're not African, they're American. They're more American than many (European/white heritage) Americans. Drop that fucking term for a start, and it might help. All it does is isolate a section of the population and presumably increase divisions and paranoia. You never hear the term "Caribbean British" or "African British" for example. You hear "black British" or you hear "British" and that's it. "Afro-Carribean" may get used to describe heritage in certain contexts, but never as "Afro-Carribean British" as though they're a separate or lesser component of Britain.
That's pretty much how it goes. White people pretty much need to act color blind in order to civilly interact with people of other ethnicities. There's lots of the 'blame game' going on. Though there's plenty of people who are absolutely chill about it. It's a habit. They reject african, and they reject american. And they reject 'black' (though I personally don't see a description as offensive). 'African American' is the widely accepted 'safe' term to use. I agree. Though, there's a distinct difference between dark-skinned americans, and actual people with recent/direct family from Africa. I've met both kinds. Personally I do. Unless directly talking about different ethnicities, in which case it's their preferred term. Presumably to keep the link to the african americans who were slaves. Seeing as there's a sort of social 'respect' that's expected due to history reasons. Which is absurd, IMO. And "black american" would get you killed/attacked. Just how it is. Though it's definitely a YMMV situation. Some people don't care at all, and some people are uptight about it. Most of the time non-white people use it as a way of distinguishing that they have culture. And that they are important and need to be distinguished for some reason or another. It's why it's popular to say how you are indian (native american), even though most people really aren't. 'Asian American', 'African American', and so on have certain connotations that an individual may or may not want to use/accept. And yes, this happens from people who's family came from europe as well. It's absolutely ridiculous. if you are here, you're a god damn american. Doesn't matter where you're from. Unless you have dual citizenship. At which point you can be two nationalities. Generally though, the 'african american' card is played to try and get various benefits. And for that they get a lot of hate via other ethnicities (and even other minorities). It pretty much boils down to: every single group of ethnicities/gender get various benefits for being minorities, except for white males. And if white males try to point this out, the racism/sexism card gets played. For every scholarship that white males can enter (which other ethnicities/genders can enter as well), there's maybe 10-12 'minority' scholarships that explicitly exclude white males. I pretty much gave up on scholarships when I found that out. When job hunting, preference is always given to minorities and women. Since those are actively checked against a quota to ensure your company is 'culturally dynamic' or w/e. It's all ridiculous and awful. By continually pointing out how a minority is a minority, you just cause more problems. Just treat everyone the god damn same.I'm not in the US, but the black vs white thing seems to be absolutely crippling there. I get that it's the legacy of slavery, but even with a "half-black" president there still doesn't seem to be any progress.
One thing I draw a line against is the term "African American".
They're not African, they're American. They're more American than many (European/white heritage) Americans.
Drop that fucking term for a start, and it might help. All it does is isolate a section of the population and presumably increase divisions and paranoia.
You hear "black British"
but never as "Afro-Carribean British" as though they're a separate or lesser component of Britain.
After a quick search, I wasn't able to find much on exactly when statute of limitation laws were written and enacted but I venture to guess they are decades old. Seems to me, the quality of forensics today should make limitation time frames either much longer or wipe them out all together. I live in Canada where there is no limitation for 'indictable' offences. I guess the thinking is that if you have a good case, no matter how old the crime is, you should at least have the right to present it to a jury.
One has to wonder that out of 25 women or so, someone else must have seen something - if it did indeed happen. As difficult it is for these women to come out, I think a statute of limitations law could be the very thing holding other potential witnesses from even stepping forward. I can imagine someone saying 'Why expose myself to potential national scrutiny when I know a prosecution is not even possible.'
The problem is that memories change over time. You can't trust people to accurately remember or recall things years after they happened. Stories, retelling, etc, change your view of the history until it is wildly different from the past. Eyewitness evidence isn't even trustworthy a few weeks after an event.
That's a good point. I think that accidentally witnessing Cliff Huxtable's penis might stick in the old noggin though. Either way, it still doesn't dissuade me from thinking that the statue of limitations is too constrictive. Material evidence can last a lot longer than one's memory can. I don't know how that would work in this particular case, but in general it seems plausible for evidence to stay relevant for decades.