"Sovereign Citizens" think the definition of "citizen" is not the definition of "citizen" and the definition of "Constitution" is not the definition of "Constitution" and the definition of "all Americans" is limited" so there is that

Yeah, this is a really bad thing. These people have forgotten the basic principles of democracy. First, that governance is delegated from the consent of the governed. Second, that the will of the majority takes precedence. Both of those imply that the existence of the police & police powers is valid. And that the courtroom is the valid venue for challenge.

Aaron747 wrote:

So in the midst of the so-called 'national discussion' on police reform, there is also a fringe element who have spent the last few years opposing LE not because of racism or social justice, but from opposition to the very notion that police powers exist. These groups apparently believe almost all LE requests are Constitutional violations, and there is a YouTube channel where these guys basically go around challenging and provoking cops in various situations.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/E2rSy7Ly3jg

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3w301M13Rug

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Prljxd8eKaQ

Granted, there are officers who don't belong on the force, and there are probably incidents every day where someone's rights are violated somewhere. Does that justify this level of provocation? I just don't see this being helpful in any way.

Starting to happen in Australia too. Even going as far as making their own number plates for cars

https://www.news.com.au/technology/moto ... 20594e0e9c

We've got a few of these loons in Canada as well - a few very notable ones ended up hijacking last years Covid "Freedom Convoy" and turned it into a complete mental freak show.

These people are lunatics and can be dangerous. IIRC they have killed police officers on traffic stops in the past.

"Sovereign citizens" says it all. You're one or the other.

Aaron747 wrote:

So in the midst of the so-called 'national discussion' on police reform, there is also a fringe element who have spent the last few years opposing LE not because of racism or social justice, but from opposition to the very notion that police powers exist. These groups apparently believe almost all LE requests are Constitutional violations, and there is a YouTube channel where these guys basically go around challenging and provoking cops in various situations.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/E2rSy7Ly3jg

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3w301M13Rug

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Prljxd8eKaQ

Granted, there are officers who don't belong on the force, and there are probably incidents every day where someone's rights are violated somewhere. Does that justify this level of provocation? I just don't see this being helpful in any way.

The Christian Nationalist/Dominion Theology puts local police power over state and federal powers, but then puts 'sovereign citizens' over local police power. In practice it is an anarchism. The result will be the destruction of democratic society. It doesn't take that many to destroy civil society.

Aaron747 wrote:

there is also a fringe element who have spent the last few years opposing LE not because of racism or social justice, but from opposition to the very notion that police powers exist. These groups apparently believe almost all LE requests are Constitutional violations, and there is a YouTube channel where these guys basically go around challenging and provoking cops in various situations.

Speaking from experience going back to the late 1970's the "Sovereign Citizens" are truly a pain to deal with. About 10 years ago one of our officers was shot and killed by one of these guys over a fake license plate..
Here is more information on this group. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... s-movement

To me these 'sovereign citizens' and related far right extremists are a far greater threat to this country than many other radical and protest groups. Remember Timothy McVeigh ? He was one and got caught for bombing the Federal Building in Oklahoma City as he deliberately didn't have a license plate on his car in his 'getaway' and seen by a passing police officer. They are often severely anti-tax, anti-regulation, anti-science, anti-education, racists, sexist, are onto a strange form of evangelical Christianity,
I am surprised You Tube doesn't ban such severe anti-police videos. They should have included it in a recent update of their TOS to limit the use of 'adult words', too much skin showing on women, or requiring verification for some sites to those 18 or over.

910A wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

there is also a fringe element who have spent the last few years opposing LE not because of racism or social justice, but from opposition to the very notion that police powers exist. These groups apparently believe almost all LE requests are Constitutional violations, and there is a YouTube channel where these guys basically go around challenging and provoking cops in various situations.

Speaking from experience going back to the late 1970's the "Sovereign Citizens" are truly a pain to deal with. About 10 years ago one of our officers was shot and killed by one of these guys over a fake license plate..
Here is more information on this group. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... s-movement

I wasn't aware about the link with the John Birch Society.

bennett123 wrote:

910A wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

there is also a fringe element who have spent the last few years opposing LE not because of racism or social justice, but from opposition to the very notion that police powers exist. These groups apparently believe almost all LE requests are Constitutional violations, and there is a YouTube channel where these guys basically go around challenging and provoking cops in various situations.

Speaking from experience going back to the late 1970's the "Sovereign Citizens" are truly a pain to deal with. About 10 years ago one of our officers was shot and killed by one of these guys over a fake license plate..
Here is more information on this group. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... s-movement

I wasn't aware about the link with the John Birch Society.

Ah them, at the end of the 1950's they had in their words 'proof' that President Eisenhower was a Soviet agent, or merely secret Communist, evidence of which they would provide.
Still waiting....

Aaron747 wrote:

So in the midst of the so-called 'national discussion' on police reform, there is also a fringe element who have spent the last few years opposing LE not because of racism or social justice, but from opposition to the very notion that police powers exist. These groups apparently believe almost all LE requests are Constitutional violations, and there is a YouTube channel where these guys basically go around challenging and provoking cops in various situations.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/E2rSy7Ly3jg

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3w301M13Rug

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Prljxd8eKaQ

Granted, there are officers who don't belong on the force, and there are probably incidents every day where someone's rights are violated somewhere. Does that justify this level of provocation? I just don't see this being helpful in any way.

Wow, so much misinformation in this post. In fact, I'd call it one of the most slanderous posts I've ever seen on this website. I'm actually shocked, because while I disagree with you on a lot, you seem to research stuff and have a good understanding of the points you make, but not this time.

There's a huge difference between First Amendment Auditors - the videos you're talking about - and sovereign citizens. First Amendment Auditors will do constitutionally protected and legal activities, such as filming in public spaces or buildings, to see if the police respect their right to do so. Sovereign citizens believe the law doesn't apply to them.

Good First Amendment Auditors, such as Long Island Audit (here's his channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe1IA5kmY578O_Qo7Skr-TQ) may use tactics that some don't agree with, but they have won countless lawsuits when the police/government employees violated their right to film in public and have even had laws and policies changed that were deemed to be unconstitutional. One recent one was the overturning of a sign ordinance in Punta Gorda, Florida which was found to infringe on the 1st Amendment.

Now the guy in the first clip seems a little over the top, never heard of him, but I would certainly watch a few full videos from Long Island Audits channel (the guy in the 2nd two clips) and learn the difference between a first amendment auditor and a sovereign citizen before making blatantly false accusations about someone and also learn about what he's actually doing. He is never the person to make first contact and it's always government employees who make a big deal out of nothing.

Like I said, if they were in the wrong and were actually "sovereign citizens" as you state, they would be going to jail and staying there, not winning court cases and having laws/policies changed.

SoCalPilot wrote:

Good First Amendment Auditors

(emphasis mine)

Lets be honest here, the vast majority of them are after Youtube clicks, not upholding the First Amendment.

My stepfather was LE officer for 30 something years and towards the end of his tenure, he had a few run-ins with these so-called "sovereign citizens". Never ended well for either party. He's a pretty laid back guy, more of a watchmen style cop than a vigilante but these people were out for a fight and they got one every time.

While I have my reservations about jumping on the pro-cop bandwagon, I gotta root for the cops with these people. "Sovereign citizen", what a joke of a title.

Aaron747 wrote:

Well we have it wrong, apparently. The ones who want to be taken seriously are ‘1st amendment auditors’. They make a show of suing local governments. Way back when in SF, I used to encounter a nutcase retired attorney who would sue every major development and occupy public comment time in planning commission meetings to discuss ‘shadows’. Totally legal to file lawsuits and offer comment on that topic, but the intent and manner were still harassment.

And unfortunately the line between lawfully exercising your rights and being a straight-up d-bag about it is pretty blurry. But at the same time, I understand the point people like that are trying to make, as well as these first amendment auditors. Its hard to have a solid opinion because so many factors come into play, making the whole situation highly fluid. Its when the "being a d-bag" circle of the venn diagram starts moving in on the "right to do x" ciricle that I can't help but disagree with them.

So, there is more to come on this. Many people are saying that police powers and immunities should be curtailed. This would mean that more citizens could reasonably disregard police “commands.” I don’t favor this, but a lot of people on the extreme left and right most certainly do. They don’t want cops. They want to “quell” and / or disarm cops. If a cop can order you to drop the gun, maybe concerned citizens can also order police to get on the ground and drop their guns.

I don’t believe this, but it seems plenty of people do.

910A wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

there is also a fringe element who have spent the last few years opposing LE not because of racism or social justice, but from opposition to the very notion that police powers exist. These groups apparently believe almost all LE requests are Constitutional violations, and there is a YouTube channel where these guys basically go around challenging and provoking cops in various situations.

Speaking from experience going back to the late 1970's the "Sovereign Citizens" are truly a pain to deal with. About 10 years ago one of our officers was shot and killed by one of these guys over a fake license plate..
Here is more information on this group. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... s-movement

I just fried some serious brain cells reading that article. Reminds me of when growing up dealing with the people who would argue black isn’t black, right from wrong. Totally absent of logic. True nutters…..

SoCalPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

So in the midst of the so-called 'national discussion' on police reform, there is also a fringe element who have spent the last few years opposing LE not because of racism or social justice, but from opposition to the very notion that police powers exist. These groups apparently believe almost all LE requests are Constitutional violations, and there is a YouTube channel where these guys basically go around challenging and provoking cops in various situations.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/E2rSy7Ly3jg

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3w301M13Rug

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Prljxd8eKaQ

Granted, there are officers who don't belong on the force, and there are probably incidents every day where someone's rights are violated somewhere. Does that justify this level of provocation? I just don't see this being helpful in any way.

Wow, so much misinformation in this post. In fact, I'd call it one of the most slanderous posts I've ever seen on this website. I'm actually shocked, because while I disagree with you on a lot, you seem to research stuff and have a good understanding of the points you make, but not this time.

There's a huge difference between First Amendment Auditors - the videos you're talking about - and sovereign citizens. First Amendment Auditors will do constitutionally protected and legal activities, such as filming in public spaces or buildings, to see if the police respect their right to do so. Sovereign citizens believe the law doesn't apply to them.

Good First Amendment Auditors, such as Long Island Audit (here's his channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe1IA5kmY578O_Qo7Skr-TQ) may use tactics that some don't agree with, but they have won countless lawsuits when the police/government employees violated their right to film in public and have even had laws and policies changed that were deemed to be unconstitutional. One recent one was the overturning of a sign ordinance in Punta Gorda, Florida which was found to infringe on the 1st Amendment.

Now the guy in the first clip seems a little over the top, never heard of him, but I would certainly watch a few full videos from Long Island Audits channel (the guy in the 2nd two clips) and learn the difference between a first amendment auditor and a sovereign citizen before making blatantly false accusations about someone and also learn about what he's actually doing. He is never the person to make first contact and it's always government employees who make a big deal out of nothing.

Like I said, if they were in the wrong and were actually "sovereign citizens" as you state, they would be going to jail and staying there, not winning court cases and having laws/policies changed.

Yes because in 1791 protecting the rights of d-heads to film other people on their digital cameras was exactly what they had in mind when the amendment was made

Avatar2go wrote:

Yeah, this is a really bad thing. These people have forgotten the basic principles of democracy. First, that governance is delegated from the consent of the governed. Second, that the will of the majority takes precedence. Both of those imply that the existence of the police & police powers is valid. And that the courtroom is the valid venue for challenge.

Do these people even believe in or trust democracy? Isn't it because they do not trust any form of government that they oppose any form of government power against individuals?

c933103 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Yeah, this is a really bad thing. These people have forgotten the basic principles of democracy. First, that governance is delegated from the consent of the governed. Second, that the will of the majority takes precedence. Both of those imply that the existence of the police & police powers is valid. And that the courtroom is the valid venue for challenge.

Do these people even believe in or trust democracy? Isn't it because they do not trust any form of government that they oppose any form of government power against individuals?

Operating theory is that the form of government, agreed by the founding fathers of the United States, as they were framing the US Constitution, was very specifically NOT a democracy.

The idea was that there is a very fine line between rule of kings and rule of mob. They rebelled against the rule of king (it's a comfortable fable, of course. In reality, they rebelled against the Parliament, that had to fund the fallout of French and Indian Wars -- and expected the instigators to bear a share of expenses. Of course, same Parliament, through Quebec Act, made an unthinkable crime, of agreeing that French-speaking Catholics are a part of the human race). And they detested the mob. To give you an example of their thinking, an approximate quote (don't remember which one of them, and not precise): "the democracy doesn't work, because it stops working the moment the voters can find out, they can vote themselves money from public treasure".

They envisaged a very limited form of government -- a constitutional republic, with federal government in a straitjacket, with powers severely curtailed. Rest of the powers were reserved to the states and the people. Because states already were many, if a state went bonkers with power grabs, the people either overthrew the local government (US Declaration of Independence section on the need to break bonds with government that's no longer reasonable), or just move to a more reasonable state, taking their goodies, labour and brains along -- thus making bonkers state poorer, and reasonable state richer.

Of course, both local powers (like police) in the meantime grabbed a lot of power, and federal overreach, compared to what US Constitution actually says, is undeniable. Especially if you read correspondence of the framers -- what they intended, and on what they compromised.

Now imagine someone, who believes SOMETHING is wrong with the system, and starts to study civics and read the US Constitution, and the idea how it was all designed -- vs. how it actually works now. And you MIGHT start believing EVERYTHING is wrong with the system. And then starts going picking apart the legal (in their view, illegal because unconstitutional) framework around them in the way they see fit (because "powers are reserved to the people", remember?).

Phosphorus wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Yeah, this is a really bad thing. These people have forgotten the basic principles of democracy. First, that governance is delegated from the consent of the governed. Second, that the will of the majority takes precedence. Both of those imply that the existence of the police & police powers is valid. And that the courtroom is the valid venue for challenge.

Do these people even believe in or trust democracy? Isn't it because they do not trust any form of government that they oppose any form of government power against individuals?

Operating theory is that the form of government, agreed by the founding fathers of the United States, as they were framing the US Constitution, was very specifically NOT a democracy.

The idea was that there is a very fine line between rule of kings and rule of mob. They rebelled against the rule of king (it's a comfortable fable, of course. In reality, they rebelled against the Parliament, that had to fund the fallout of French and Indian Wars -- and expected the instigators to bear a share of expenses. Of course, same Parliament, through Quebec Act, made an unthinkable crime, of agreeing that French-speaking Catholics are a part of the human race). And they detested the mob. To give you an example of their thinking, an approximate quote (don't remember which one of them, and not precise): "the democracy doesn't work, because it stops working the moment the voters can find out, they can vote themselves money from public treasure".

They envisaged a very limited form of government -- a constitutional republic, with federal government in a straitjacket, with powers severely curtailed. Rest of the powers were reserved to the states and the people. Because states already were many, if a state went bonkers with power grabs, the people either overthrew the local government (US Declaration of Independence section on the need to break bonds with government that's no longer reasonable), or just move to a more reasonable state, taking their goodies, labour and brains along -- thus making bonkers state poorer, and reasonable state richer.

Of course, both local powers (like police) in the meantime grabbed a lot of power, and federal overreach, compared to what US Constitution actually says, is undeniable. Especially if you read correspondence of the framers -- what they intended, and on what they compromised.

Now imagine someone, who believes SOMETHING is wrong with the system, and starts to study civics and read the US Constitution, and the idea how it was all designed -- vs. how it actually works now. And you MIGHT start believing EVERYTHING is wrong with the system. And then starts going picking apart the legal (in their view, illegal because unconstitutional) framework around them in the way they see fit (because "powers are reserved to the people", remember?).

I guess this make sense, it's not always desirable to let people vote on whether it should be legal to have homosexual marriage or right for everyone to not be enslaved because people could and would vote against it, hence a definitive article guaranteeing it is better?

I guess "antagonistic, chest-puffing, a*shat" isn't very PC so the term 'sovereign citizen' is decent enough substitute as a label.

c933103 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Do these people even believe in or trust democracy? Isn't it because they do not trust any form of government that they oppose any form of government power against individuals?

Operating theory is that the form of government, agreed by the founding fathers of the United States, as they were framing the US Constitution, was very specifically NOT a democracy.

The idea was that there is a very fine line between rule of kings and rule of mob. They rebelled against the rule of king (it's a comfortable fable, of course. In reality, they rebelled against the Parliament, that had to fund the fallout of French and Indian Wars -- and expected the instigators to bear a share of expenses. Of course, same Parliament, through Quebec Act, made an unthinkable crime, of agreeing that French-speaking Catholics are a part of the human race). And they detested the mob. To give you an example of their thinking, an approximate quote (don't remember which one of them, and not precise): "the democracy doesn't work, because it stops working the moment the voters can find out, they can vote themselves money from public treasure".

They envisaged a very limited form of government -- a constitutional republic, with federal government in a straitjacket, with powers severely curtailed. Rest of the powers were reserved to the states and the people. Because states already were many, if a state went bonkers with power grabs, the people either overthrew the local government (US Declaration of Independence section on the need to break bonds with government that's no longer reasonable), or just move to a more reasonable state, taking their goodies, labour and brains along -- thus making bonkers state poorer, and reasonable state richer.

Of course, both local powers (like police) in the meantime grabbed a lot of power, and federal overreach, compared to what US Constitution actually says, is undeniable. Especially if you read correspondence of the framers -- what they intended, and on what they compromised.

Now imagine someone, who believes SOMETHING is wrong with the system, and starts to study civics and read the US Constitution, and the idea how it was all designed -- vs. how it actually works now. And you MIGHT start believing EVERYTHING is wrong with the system. And then starts going picking apart the legal (in their view, illegal because unconstitutional) framework around them in the way they see fit (because "powers are reserved to the people", remember?).

I guess this make sense, it's not always desirable to let people vote on whether it should be legal to have homosexual marriage or right for everyone to not be enslaved because people could and would vote against it, hence a definitive article guaranteeing it is better?

Well, I don't know all the things you might put to vote, and the possible outcomes.
In Ante-Bellum US South, I have a suspicion that a right to own slaves, would be decisively supported by the voting public, indeed.
In Old West, and generally through the history of US westward expansion, the right to shoot an Indian on sight, would carry the day with the voters, as well.

That's why rights are generally very sensitive, and democracy and rights might have a difficult time mixing.
For example, look at French national slogan; one could argue it's self-contradictory. If you go big on Fraternite and Egalite, you have basically have already done away with plenty of opportunities of Liberte.

Aaron747 wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

c933103 wrote:

Do these people even believe in or trust democracy? Isn't it because they do not trust any form of government that they oppose any form of government power against individuals?

Operating theory is that the form of government, agreed by the founding fathers of the United States, as they were framing the US Constitution, was very specifically NOT a democracy.

The idea was that there is a very fine line between rule of kings and rule of mob. They rebelled against the rule of king (it's a comfortable fable, of course. In reality, they rebelled against the Parliament, that had to fund the fallout of French and Indian Wars -- and expected the instigators to bear a share of expenses. Of course, same Parliament, through Quebec Act, made an unthinkable crime, of agreeing that French-speaking Catholics are a part of the human race). And they detested the mob. To give you an example of their thinking, an approximate quote (don't remember which one of them, and not precise): "the democracy doesn't work, because it stops working the moment the voters can find out, they can vote themselves money from public treasure".

They envisaged a very limited form of government -- a constitutional republic, with federal government in a straitjacket, with powers severely curtailed. Rest of the powers were reserved to the states and the people. Because states already were many, if a state went bonkers with power grabs, the people either overthrew the local government (US Declaration of Independence section on the need to break bonds with government that's no longer reasonable), or just move to a more reasonable state, taking their goodies, labour and brains along -- thus making bonkers state poorer, and reasonable state richer.

Of course, both local powers (like police) in the meantime grabbed a lot of power, and federal overreach, compared to what US Constitution actually says, is undeniable. Especially if you read correspondence of the framers -- what they intended, and on what they compromised.

Now imagine someone, who believes SOMETHING is wrong with the system, and starts to study civics and read the US Constitution, and the idea how it was all designed -- vs. how it actually works now. And you MIGHT start believing EVERYTHING is wrong with the system. And then starts going picking apart the legal (in their view, illegal because unconstitutional) framework around them in the way they see fit (because "powers are reserved to the people", remember?).

Understand all that pattern of thinking - but if they are so endeared to preserving the original system, surely they understand that same system says proper redress of issues is through lawsuits, not getting in the face of LE saying 'I'm coming for your job!'...

If you believe the job shouldn't exist anyway*, and police are in cahoots with courts (you turn on the TV, and see something like "Law and Order" -- where LE and justice ARE basically in cahoots, and a defense lawyer is portrayed as a villain by definition, because of the job description -- and you realize you need to throw both of those bums out)... Yeah, you go read US history, and see that when system was seen as corrupt and not representative of the people -- the system was shown the door (American Revolution). And you believe that a repeat is in order, or rather "return to the proper path" (whatever that might mean).

* come think of it -- the police in modern sense, as in "patrol, serve, protect" is a relatively new phenomenon. Remember Sherlock Holmes and his boxing skills? Because that's how gentleman was expected to defend himself, if he came across riff-raff. That, and a revolver, if riff-raff got really rowdy, and started to think too much of itself.
Police force in Britain, for example, as means to enforce public good and quiet was basically a product of pressure, by the middle-classes. They had no time nor money to gun up or build martial skills (or be accompanied by a train of servants, with both), to deal with riff-raff, but they had votes and were paying enough in taxes, to demand their voices to be heard.

Interestingly enough, to this day, British police are perceived as fairly pleasant folk, often with a sense of humor and helpful attitude. Even a sumbachine-gun toting cop in London gives tourists directions. For some reason, US police force, is perceived as a rather obnoxious bunch. If you believe that these folks have their jobs illegally, at your expense, and are actually a very unpleasant bunch, with bad manners -- that can result in getting people shot for no good reason -- you'd sure want their job disappearing, no?

SoCalPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

So in the midst of the so-called 'national discussion' on police reform, there is also a fringe element who have spent the last few years opposing LE not because of racism or social justice, but from opposition to the very notion that police powers exist. These groups apparently believe almost all LE requests are Constitutional violations, and there is a YouTube channel where these guys basically go around challenging and provoking cops in various situations.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/E2rSy7Ly3jg

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3w301M13Rug

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Prljxd8eKaQ

Granted, there are officers who don't belong on the force, and there are probably incidents every day where someone's rights are violated somewhere. Does that justify this level of provocation? I just don't see this being helpful in any way.

Wow, so much misinformation in this post. In fact, I'd call it one of the most slanderous posts I've ever seen on this website. I'm actually shocked, because while I disagree with you on a lot, you seem to research stuff and have a good understanding of the points you make, but not this time.

There's a huge difference between First Amendment Auditors - the videos you're talking about - and sovereign citizens. First Amendment Auditors will do constitutionally protected and legal activities, such as filming in public spaces or buildings, to see if the police respect their right to do so. Sovereign citizens believe the law doesn't apply to them.

Good First Amendment Auditors, such as Long Island Audit (here's his channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe1IA5kmY578O_Qo7Skr-TQ) may use tactics that some don't agree with, but they have won countless lawsuits when the police/government employees violated their right to film in public and have even had laws and policies changed that were deemed to be unconstitutional. One recent one was the overturning of a sign ordinance in Punta Gorda, Florida which was found to infringe on the 1st Amendment.

Now the guy in the first clip seems a little over the top, never heard of him, but I would certainly watch a few full videos from Long Island Audits channel (the guy in the 2nd two clips) and learn the difference between a first amendment auditor and a sovereign citizen before making blatantly false accusations about someone and also learn about what he's actually doing. He is never the person to make first contact and it's always government employees who make a big deal out of nothing.

Like I said, if they were in the wrong and were actually "sovereign citizens" as you state, they would be going to jail and staying there, not winning court cases and having laws/policies changed.

Siri, show me things only white people can do