At the risk of suffering...

[Yonivore]

...the wrath of all the politically-correct race baiters in the forum, I'm going to ask the obvious.

Is there a race, other than blacks, that routinely does this?

Texas Crowd Kills Man After Car Hits Kid (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PSKSDO0&show_article=1)

Police Release More Detail About Juneteenth Violence (http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/8092297.html)

Fights mar Juneteenth celebration in Syracuse (http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1182070664184630.xml&coll=1)

Then, in just thinking back...two other prominent cases pop up.

Reginald Denny after the L.A. verdicts and Al Sharpton's Crown Heights nonsense.

Anybody see a trend here?

[ChumpDumper]

Anybody see a trend here?Yeah.

You're a racist.

[Extra Stout]

White teen mob attacks Latino men in Mulino park (http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/05/white_teen_mob_attacks_hispani.html)

A mob of 20 to 30 white teenagers beat and threw stones at two Latino men in an unprovoked attack at a park south of Oregon City late Thursday, police said.

"This is one of the most hate-filled crimes I can remember in Oregon," Det. Jim Strovink, spokesman for the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office, said Saturday. "The mob was shouting things like, 'Go back to Mexico.' "

An 18-year-old Oregon City man was taken to the Clackamas County Jail on charges that include assault and rioting, but police said Saturday they are searching for other known suspects.

At 10:46 p.m. Thursday, a Clackamas County sheriff's deputy responded to a disturbance at Wagon Wheel Park in Mulino, where Molalla Police officers were already on scene trying to restore order.

Two bruised and battered Hispanic men — Edwin Alfonzo Gonzales, 27, and Alex Bivian Guzman, 26 — told officers they had been confronted by a group of 20 to 30 white males at the park. Both men are employees of a Molalla lumber mill.

Gonzales told police that the instigator of the confrontation — later identified as Austin Wright Greenwood, 18, of Oregon City — hit him on the back with a large rock and encouraged others to do the same.

The white men, described by the victims as a "mob," then began to surround Gonzales and Guzman. The men told police they were pushed to the ground, kicked, beaten and pummeled with large rocks.

"These poor souls were terrified," Strovink said. "They were minding their own business, and they were attacked with absolutely no provocation by strangers."

Gonzales told police that he and Guzman got back in Gonzales' car and tried to flee as the crowd continued to throw large rocks at them, smashing out the car's windows and causing more than $1,000 in damage.

After questioning Austin Wright Greenwood at the scene, a Clackamas County Sheriff's Deputy placed him under arrest. The deputy reported that Greenwood said, "The only thing I did was wrestle with some fat Mexican."

The deputy also reported that Greenwood spat on the patrol car window and urinated in the rear seat while he sat in custody. The officer said Greenwood also repeatedly hurled profanities at the deputy as he drove Greenwood to jail, where he is now lodged.

Edwin Gonzales, complaining of severe back pain, was treated at Salem Hospital and released.

Greenwood was charged with second-degree assault, riot, first-degree criminal mischief and being a minor in possession of alcohol.

Any witnesses with information are urged to call the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office confidential tip line at 503-723-4949.

[Yonivore]

Touche'

I should have excluded teenager of any race. They're all stupid.

But, seriously, look at the riots started over the past 40 years, any not started by blacks?

[DarkReign]

Touche'

I should have excluded teenager of any race. They're all stupid.

But, seriously, look at the riots started over the past 40 years, any not started by blacks?

Dont go that far back in history. Because they might have had some good damn reasons...

[Yonivore]

Dont go that far back in history. Because they might have had some good damn reasons...
No reason to destroy your own community.

[Jamtas#2]

Well Yoni, social inequality will help contribute to this sort of thing, and it also helps when the perspective in how the media portrays it is slanted. I haven't heard of a lot of African Americans dragging gays behind their pickup trucks and killing them, but I don't think homophobia is limited to whites.
You seem to write it off as a racial issue when it is more of a combination of social inequalities based on race and income.
And to say that you are risking baiting PC folk with an honest question really justs masks an embedded racism in yourself. Much akin to saying "I don't mean to be insulting"...and then insult someone.

[Extra Stout]

Touche'

I should have excluded teenager of any race. They're all stupid.

But, seriously, look at the riots started over the past 40 years, any not started by blacks?
Of course. Mount Pleasant. Kent State. White Night. WTO. That's just a few obvious ones.

[gtownspur]

Blacks as individuals are like you and me. Urban blacks once they get together get pretty stupid.

[UV Ray]

I have seen no historical evidence showing that all races are not equally susceptible to mob mentality.

[gtownspur]

Is UV on ignore? i don't see his post...

[smeagol]

Good one Yoni :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

Good one Yoni :rolleyes
Yeah, you're right; I threw this thread up half-baked and in response to my anger over the senseless mob killing of this guy in Austin.

[Mr. Peabody]

...the wrath of all the politically-correct race baiters in the forum, I'm going to ask the obvious.

Is there a race, other than blacks, that routinely does this?

Texas Crowd Kills Man After Car Hits Kid (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PSKSDO0&show_article=1)

Police Release More Detail About Juneteenth Violence (http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/8092297.html)

Fights mar Juneteenth celebration in Syracuse (http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1182070664184630.xml&coll=1)

Then, in just thinking back...two other prominent cases pop up.

Reginald Denny after the L.A. verdicts and Al Sharpton's Crown Heights nonsense.

Anybody see a trend here?

So are you saying that Black people are inherently evil and violent, or do you think it's just the rap music that makes them that way?

[Mr. Peabody]

Blacks as individuals are like you and me.

Wow, thanks for explaining that. I guess I've missed all of the latest studies which would have provided me with such information.

[Yonivore]

So are you saying that Black people are inherently evil and violent, or do you think it's just the rap music that makes them that way?
I certainly believe they are more prone to the mob mentality exhibited in the murder here in Austin this week.

I also believe it is a cultural manifestation and not a racial one.

[Mr. Peabody]

I also believe it is a cultural manifestation and not a racial one.

Really, because the question,


Is there a race, other than blacks, that routinely does this?

makes it sound as if you are alleging that this phenomenon is somehow unique to the Black race.

[Yonivore]

Really, because the question,


Is there a race, other than blacks, that routinely does this?
makes it sound as if you are alleging that this phenomenon is somehow unique to the Black race.
I think it's fast becoming a trait of the immigrant hispanic communities as well.

What's the common thread?

Victimization and advocates that like to whip up a frenzy. Blacks, because of their victimhood, somehow feel entitled to riot, destroying their own communities in the process, at the drop of a hat.

We're seeing signs of the same developing in parts of California in relation to the immigration debate. I don't doubt there'll be riots over that before it is all over with.

But, to point to another culture guilty of the same...look at the North African immigrants in the suburbs of Paris, France.

I was ineloquent in my original post. You're correct, I did make it sound more racial than cultural. But, if you look back over the last 40 years...the vast majority of civil unrest in America has been instigated by blacks -- over the flimsiest of excuses.

[Jamtas#2]

I doubt that is a sense of entitlement as much as frustration and a feeling of being trapped in injustice.
Whites in the past have risen up and rebeled in the same circumstances, but the times were much different and rebelling was not as difficult a task. (American Revolution, French Revolution) But since it was whites rebelling against other whites the racial aspects seem to disappear. Whites have never been the minority against a racial majority to have gone through the same things. (slavery, discrimination, social inequlities)

[Mr. Peabody]

I doubt that is a sense of entitlement as much as frustration and a feeling of being trapped in injustice.
Whites in the past have risen up and rebeled in the same circumstances, but the times were much different and rebelling was not as difficult a task. (American Revolution, French Revolution) But since it was whites rebelling against other whites the racial aspects seem to disappear. Whites have never been the minority against a racial majority to have gone through the same things. (slavery, discrimination, social inequlities)

You're wrong. Whites have never been so weak-willed as to fall prey to the mob mentality (well, except for all of the lynching.....)

http://agitprop.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/lynching.jpg

A mob of 10,000 whites took sledgehammers to the county jailhouse doors to get at these two young blacks accused of raping a white girl; the girl’s uncle saved the life of a third by proclaiming the man’s innocence. Although this was Marion, Ind., most of the nearly 5,000 lynchings documented between Reconstruction and the late 1960s were perpetrated in the South. (Hangings, beatings and mutilations were called the sentence of “Judge Lynch.”) Some lynching photos were made into postcards designed to boost white supremacy, but the tortured bodies and grotesquely happy crowds ended up revolting as many as they scared. Today the images remind us that we have not come as far from barbarity as we’d like to think.

[Jamtas#2]

But, if you look back over the last 40 years...the vast majority of civil unrest in America has been instigated by blacks -- over the flimsiest of excuses.


Using this logic:
Looking back over the last 40 years , there has been a clear majority of attacks against homosexuals by hetrosexual males than the other way around. What is it about us hetrosexuals that makes us so violent?

[Mr. Peabody]

Using this logic:
Looking back over the last 40 years , there has been a clear majority of attacks against homosexuals by hetrosexual males than the other way around. What is it about us hetrosexuals that makes us so violent?

Heterosexual males must have a victim's mentality and a sense of entitlement.

[Yonivore]

I doubt that is a sense of entitlement as much as frustration and a feeling of being trapped in injustice.
I see, so what injustice was that poor man perpetrating on those several hundred black people when they beat him to death on Tuesday night?

What injustice was Reginald Denny perpetrating when they dragged his ass out of his truck and started to playing on his head with a cinder block, a toilet, and a fire extinguisher?


Whites in the past have risen up and rebeled in the same circumstances, but the times were much different and rebelling was not as difficult a task. (American Revolution, French Revolution) But since it was whites rebelling against other whites the racial aspects seem to disappear. Whites have never been the minority against a racial majority to have gone through the same things. (slavery, discrimination, social inequlities)
Are you saying black become civilized at a slower pace than do other races?

There's not a black alive today that was a slave and I dare say, they don't even know what discrimination is, in the face of their Jim Crow suffering ancestors. They have preferential treatment in employment, in lending, in education, etc...

It's against the fucking law to discriminate against a black person...and has been for a number of decades now. We have black CEO's, black Congressmen, Black mayors, Black Senators, Black Governors, you name it and there's a black doing it. Look at Oprah for God's sake! Queen of the fucking universe!

There's no discrimination against blacks. There is, however, discrimination against thugs.

What social inequities do they suffer today?

That's bullshit. They're dragging out the race card for as long as they can because they believe it justifies their atrocious actions.

[Yonivore]

You're wrong. Whites have never been so weak-willed as to fall prey to the mob mentality (well, except for all of the lynching.....)

http://agitprop.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/lynching.jpg

A mob of 10,000 whites took sledgehammers to the county jailhouse doors to get at these two young blacks accused of raping a white girl; the girl’s uncle saved the life of a third by proclaiming the man’s innocence. Although this was Marion, Ind., most of the nearly 5,000 lynchings documented between Reconstruction and the late 1960s were perpetrated in the South. (Hangings, beatings and mutilations were called the sentence of “Judge Lynch.”) Some lynching photos were made into postcards designed to boost white supremacy, but the tortured bodies and grotesquely happy crowds ended up revolting as many as they scared. Today the images remind us that we have not come as far from barbarity as we’d like to think.
Like I said, are you suggesting blacks are becoming civilized at a slower pace?

[Jamtas#2]

Ok, I could go ahead and quote several of your above points and have an arguement that would lead nowhere, but instead let's take this a step at a time.

Would you agree that there are more lower income folks incarcerated than high income, and this could be directly attributed to their standard of living?

[Yonivore]

Ok, I could go ahead and quote several of your above points and have an arguement that would lead nowhere, but instead let's take this a step at a time.

Would you agree that there are more lower income folks incarcerated than high income, and this could be directly attributed to their standard of living?
No, I wouldn't agree.

Incarceration is a direct consequence to a decision to violate the law. There are many more poor people not in jail than are...just as there are many more wealthy people not in jail than are.

I think the two criteria you set out are unrelated.

Next step?

[Jamtas#2]

No, I wouldn't agree.

Incarceration is a direct consequence to a decision to violate the law. There are many more poor people not in jail than are...just as there are many more wealthy people not in jail than are.

I think the two criteria you set out are unrelated.

Next step?

I think you are side stepping my question, there can never be more people of any group incarcerated than there are who are free. I believe there are more terrorists free than in captivity, does that mean that being a terrorist doesn't mean you should be locked up?

Next step, so you believe that your living conditions and income have no bearing on the increased possibility to commit crimes?

Wolrd Bank study on Crime and Poverty Correlation (http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/poverty/inequal/abstracts/violence.htm)

[Yonivore]

I think you are side stepping my question, there can never be more people of any group incarcerated than there are who are free. I believe there are more terrorists free than in captivity, does that mean that being a terrorist doesn't mean you should be locked up?
Are you suggesting that because you're poor you should be locked up? I didn't miss the allusion, I simply don't believe your assets determine whether or not you should be in jail, your personal character does.

For every person that is in jail, there are thousands similarly situated that chose not to commit a crime.


Next step, so you believe that your living conditions and income have no bearing on the increased possibility to commit crimes?
Correct.


Wolrd Bank study on Crime and Poverty Correlation (http://www1.worldbank.org/prem/poverty/inequal/abstracts/violence.htm)
That's not to say it isn't one of the most popular excuse for criminals.

Committing a crime is a personal choice made based on your character and values. To say that being poor causes crime then all poor people should be criminals and their not...not even a large percentage of them are.

[Mr. Peabody]

To say that being poor causes crime then all poor people should be criminals and their not...not even a large percentage of them are.

To say that smoking causes cancer then all smokers should have cancer and they do not...not even a large percentage of them do.

[Jamtas#2]

So then you believe that your enviornment does not help shape the person you become?

And I am not saying that all poor people commit crimes and should be locked up. I just think that it is hard to beleive that there is a higher percentage of lower income than wealthy in prision, but it is all just a coincidence because they just all happened to be bad individuals. Their situations and environments contributed nothing to how they turned out.

[smeagol]

This thread has potential

[Yonivore]

To say that smoking causes cancer then all smokers should have cancer and they do not...not even a large percentage of them do.
So, where does personal responsibility play into your analogy?

First of all, smoking is a legal practice that, if you engage in it, could result in a negative consequence...cancer. If I don't smoke, I won't get a cancer related to my smoking.

Crime is an illegal practice that, if you engage in it, could result in a negative consequence...incarceration. If I don't commit a crime, I won't be incarcerated for my criminal behavior.

Seems to me the negative consequences of both still rely on a choice based on character and values.

[Yonivore]

So then you believe that your enviornment does not help shape the person you become?
No, environment has a lot to do with the development of your character and values. But, the fundamental value of knowing the difference between right and wrong are -- in spite of our environment and absent a defect -- resident from birth.

Otherwise, those that beat the man to death would have stood around not thinking what they did would get them into trouble. No, instead, they fled after the crime.


And I am not saying that all poor people commit crimes and should be locked up. I just think that it is hard to beleive that there is a higher percentage of lower income than wealthy in prision, but it is all just a coincidence because they just all happened to be bad individuals. Their situations and environments contributed nothing to how they turned out.
First you're going to have to define poor vs. not poor before you can definitively state there is a higher percentage of poor people in prison than a percentage of wealthy. Because, we start out with a lot more poor people than rich, there is the high probability those ratios will be experienced in prison.

And, as far as their situations and environment contributing...no, I reject that. Now, if you want to argue that their response to their situation and environment contribute, you may have a point.

But, I'm back to the obvious. There are thousands more that are similarly situated with similar situations and environments that choose NOT to commit crimes. So, once again, it boils down to personal choice. No?

[Jamtas#2]

Ok, I'll try and find a report later on regarding the poor vs. not poor percentages...until then I will not cite that as an arguement.

I agree with you that it does come down to a personal choice, but I where we differ is that I think that a moral compass is formed as a direct result of the environment you grow up in. You are completely right that there is no 100% factor in that moral compass. No example I can give will be 100% correct. If that is what it will take to convice you of my point, we may as well end it here. I can't do that, it is not possible.

I think we are also debating from two different mindsets. You seem to be using the attack on the car as your point of reference, where I was using your comments
"Is there a race, other than blacks, that routinely does this?"
"But, seriously, look at the riots started over the past 40 years, any not started by blacks?"
"No reason to destroy your own community"
In regards to the attack, it is inexcusible and the attackers should be punished.

In regards to race, you previously stated "There's no discrimination against blacks. There is, however, discrimination against thugs." is mistaken. Try being African American and walk by someone's car and hear them click all the doors locked. Or try catching a cab late at night. Try walking into a store and have the clerks watch you because they think you are going to steal. Or meeting a white person that thinks the proper greeting is not to shake your hand but give you a fist pound.

In regards to the comment "Like I said, are you suggesting blacks are becoming civilized at a slower pace?"
I was stating at how it is harder for them to be on equal footing nowadays as a result of their past. To think that the 40 years since the civil rights movement is enough time to "catch up" Imagine you are running a race against someone where you are being held by several other people and the other person ends up way in front of you. Now lets say all those people let go and you are free to run at the same pace as the other person. Have you caught up now that the restrictions against you are gone, or are you far behind still. Are you becoming civilized slower, or are you at a disadvantage due to being held back for so long?

[Yonivore]

Ok, I'll try and find a report later on regarding the poor vs. not poor percentages...until then I will not cite that as an arguement.

I agree with you that it does come down to a personal choice, but I where we differ is that I think that a moral compass is formed as a direct result of the environment you grow up in. You are completely right that there is no 100% factor in that moral compass. No example I can give will be 100% correct. If that is what it will take to convice you of my point, we may as well end it here. I can't do that, it is not possible.
Then, if you agree with me, and if you also agree the vast majority of those who grow up in poverty, oppression, or injustice do not commit crimes then, you have to find some other factor -- other than their environment or situation -- to account for criminal behavior.


I think we are also debating from two different mindsets. You seem to be using the attack on the car as your point of reference, where I was using your comments
"Is there a race, other than blacks, that routinely does this?"
"But, seriously, look at the riots started over the past 40 years, any not started by blacks?"
"No reason to destroy your own community"
In regards to the attack, it is inexcusible and the attackers should be punished.
You're right and I've already copped to the ill-formed argument in those questions. However, I don't back down from the fact that the vast majority of these incidents are instigated by blacks.


In regards to race, you previously stated "There's no discrimination against blacks. There is, however, discrimination against thugs." is mistaken. Try being African American and walk by someone's car and hear them click all the doors locked. Or try catching a cab late at night. Try walking into a store and have the clerks watch you because they think you are going to steal. Or meeting a white person that thinks the proper greeting is not to shake your hand but give you a fist pound.
Who's to blame for that perception?

Who was it I quoted in here the other day? Either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, I don't recall. But even they lamented the fact they they, themselves, sigh in relief when -- upon hearing footsteps -- they turn and find it is not a black person following them down the street.

Frankly, if you look and dress like the thugs we see on the videotapes of these riots, you can expect to be treated like one.

How many music genres routinely have murders in their studios and amongst their "artists?"

C'mon, if you look like a hood, you can expect to be treated like one. I doubt I'd lock my doors if someone dressed like Tiger Woods or Bill Cosby or Oprah Winfrey approached my vehicle and, frankly, I never notice unless they look like a fucing gangster to begin with.


In regards to the comment "Like I said, are you suggesting blacks are becoming civilized at a slower pace?"

I was stating at how it is harder for them to be on equal footing nowadays as a result of their past. To think that the 40 years since the civil rights movement is enough time to "catch up" Imagine you are running a race against someone where you are being held by several other people and the other person ends up way in front of you. Now lets say all those people let go and you are free to run at the same pace as the other person. Have you caught up now that the restrictions against you are gone, or are you far behind still. Are you becoming civilized slower, or are you at a disadvantage due to being held back for so long?
There are people in Appalachia that have been poor for generations upon generations and you don't seem them rioting in the streets.

I don't understand this "catch up" theory. The playing field is level...join the game. I don't believe your "race" analogy applies. There's no one to "catch up" to...you're now free to pursue whatever American Dream you've been kept from pursuing. It's not a race.

[Jamtas#2]

The analogy was that yes you are free to join the race, but you are starting from way behind. To say that it is a completely level playing field is just something I do not believe in.

And the poor in Appalachia have not had the discrimination nor civil righs violations that have occurred in the African American community.

And I agree that Al and Jesse do hold up the race card, it is their livelihood to do so unfortunately.

[Yonivore]

The analogy was that yes you are free to join the race, but you are starting from way behind. To say that it is a completely level playing field is just something I do not believe in.
I think the whole race analogy is bogus.

There is no start or finish line. You're free to swim in the pool with the rest of us.

[Jamtas#2]

I think the whole race analogy is bogus.

There is no start or finish line. You're free to swim in the pool with the rest of us.


You are free to hold your opinon. I disagree.

[Yonivore]

You are free to hold your opinon. I disagree.
Obviously. I'd like for you to articulate why.

Why do black rappers glorify cop killing and abuse of women? And why do so many emulate these thugs and their thuggish behavior?

Why are blacks that try to achieve in education ridiculed as trying to be too white; and, sometimes the victims of black on black crime?

You want to know why blacks are stuck in the "race," it's because they won't allow some to excel. They want to wallow in their victimhood and still reap the benefits of achievement.

First the Civil Rights Act of 1964 created the equal playing field. Then Affirmative Action gave blacks preference. Tell me, in what areas of business or society are black under-represented?

Hell, there was a black Police Chief in charge of the Austin Police Department when the Tuesday murder occurred.

The only thing keeping blacks back is their own culture. It's not the law and it's not the "man," anymore.

[Jamtas#2]

I don't codone the actions of black rappers. Not being one I would guess that their anger towards police stems from the long history of abuse from police. The behavior is being gloriifed on MTV and that is why you also see white youth glorifying it as well.
There are those who wallow in their victimhood just as their are whites who still profess a denail that discrimintation still exists. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 set to create an equal playing field, it doesn't mean the field was actually created then.
Do you honestly believe that since 1964, blacks and whites have been on a level playing field. You see no disadvantage that exists there? Would you say that if your father or mother went to college, that you are more likely to go as well? And if they didn't you are less likely to go?
If so imagine that on a grand scale. That is what I mean as far as being held back in the race and struggling to catch up.

[Yonivore]

I don't codone the actions of black rappers. Not being one I would guess that their anger towards police stems from the long history of abuse from police. The behavior is being gloriifed on MTV and that is why you also see white youth glorifying it as well.
Yeah, I avoid the white thugs too.


There are those who wallow in their victimhood just as their are whites who still profess a denail that discrimintation still exists.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 set to create an equal playing field, it doesn't mean the field was actually created then.

Do you honestly believe that since 1964, blacks and whites have been on a level playing field.
No, Blacks have been given an advantage.


You see no disadvantage that exists there?
Name one caused by prejudice and discrimination.


Would you say that if your father or mother went to college, that you are more likely to go as well? And if they didn't you are less likely to go?
That's true of all races. But, there are countless organizations and federal programs designed to get blacks into college. Not so for any other race -- except maybe for hispanics.


If so imagine that on a grand scale. That is what I mean as far as being held back in the race and struggling to catch up.
Believe it or not, not that many white people went to college a few generations back.

There's no excuse for anyone now...except a cultural resistance.

[Jamtas#2]

One example of discrimination, all the golf courses that still held to discrimantion up into the 1990's (~ 30 years after the 1964 act) until the PGA threatend to not allow them to hold tournaments. (just refers to golf I know, but it still shows discrimination.)

As far as the colleges go, the percentage of African Americans going to college is rising in the past few generations as well, but what you are missing is that while there were many whites who did not go to college a few generations ago, the opportunity to go was there, and the white race had a head start on higher education and passing that vaule down to their children as well. As far as the scholarships go, minorities have on average a lower per capita income thatn whites. That is why they were created. And to say that no other race can say that except hispanics is false. Actually, it really is only the white race who can claim there is no specific race qualified scholarship. (except for a couple of ones created in the past few years to stir up debate link (http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2006/11/21/News/Bu.Group.Offers.White.Scholarship-2505837.shtml) )

[Yonivore]

One example of discrimination, all the golf courses that still held to discrimantion up into the 1990's (~ 30 years after the 1964 act) until the PGA threatend to not allow them to hold tournaments. (just refers to golf I know, but it still shows discrimination.)
Free market fixed it, eh?

So, why shouldn't private individuals, companies, and clubs be allowed to discriminate?


As far as the colleges go, the percentage of African Americans going to college is rising in the past few generations as well, but what you are missing is that while there were many whites who did not go to college a few generations ago, the opportunity to go was there, and the white race had a head start on higher education and passing that vaule down to their children as well.
And now the opportunity is here. You talk like all the blacks now going to school were around to be denied that opportunity two generations ago.


As far as the scholarships go, minorities have on average a lower per capita income thatn whites. That is why they were created. And to say that no other race can say that except hispanics is false. Actually, it really is only the white race who can claim there is no specific race qualified scholarship. (except for a couple of ones created in the past few years to stir up debate link (http://media.www.dailyfreepress.com/media/storage/paper87/news/2006/11/21/News/Bu.Group.Offers.White.Scholarship-2505837.shtml) )
Try to name anything similar to the United Negro College Fund today. Scholarships and organizations aiming to increase black enrollment in college far, far outnumber any other race.

[Jamtas#2]

Try to name anything similar to the United Negro College Fund today. Scholarships and organizations aiming to increase black enrollment in college far, far outnumber any other race.


Well, that is probably because at the moment African Americans are the largest minority with the Hispanics close behind them. I would guess that the reason the other ethnicities haven't formed the large organized groups that the blacks have is due to the fact that they didn't face the same discrimination and persecution that the blacks faced for so long, (This is not to say they endured no discrimination) and did not form the groups in response to it.

I can recall that there were "White" and "Negro" seperated drinking fountains etc. Don't remember hearing about any other fountains made.

[Phenomanul]

Social problems are rooted in vile human traits...

lust for power
greed
selfishness
lack of compassion
laziness
hatred
envy
addictions

All humans have these traits and are fully capable of taking them to extremes... some can control them better, others can't, and others still simply don't want to. These attributes are independent of race, culture, social class or age. If you want to play the blame game... let each take responsibility for their own actions.

[Jamtas#2]

"If you want to play the blame game... let each take responsibility for their own actions."

Ok, so let's own up to the actions of the past and how they put an entire race at a disadvantage.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

god damn yoni, you really are a racist bastard.

no seriously, you are a racist bastard. Even if you want to go back 40 years, most violent mob like activity came from white southerners, the clan, etc.

To say that there is some genetic predisposition to be violent in individuals that have black skin pigmentation is inherently racist, and comes from a long line of white supremest thinking which ultimately concludes that blacks are less evolved etc. etc.

but to answer your question, no dumb ass there is no biological impulse in african americans that leads them to spontaneously errupt in violent activity, what you see is a product of poverty and oppressive social institutions (i.e. the LA police force in response to your quip about the watts riots).

[sabar]

It is retarded to think that being poor doesn't make you more predispositioned towards crime. Why does crime occur?

-Rational Choice
-Impulse

The latter is most often known as a crime of passion. The first is the one that applies. Lets take an example. You have a job a money. You can easily afford food. Make a rational choice. You can steal some bread at the chance of going to jail or pay at a tiny hit to your pocketbook. You weigh the choice, and buy the bread. Now you're poor and jobless. You eat gruel every day. Weight the costs. A chance to go to jail (which is arguably better than living on the street) will net you tasty bread. The other option is keep living in misery. Of course then, more poor people than rich people will make that dive to steal the bread.

That dive is the moral barrier. This is a combonation of several things: personal faith, beliefs, guts, and rational thinking. Why do more poor people not steal than steal says Yoni? Why, because people will more often than not choose to stay moral. They will not steal because it just feels wrong. Some people don't have the guts, some still will not take the risk of jail. Some will abide by their god given laws until they die and others will rationally say that stealing the bread isn't fair to the people buying it.

So, duh, being poor lowers this moral barrier. So do instances of heroics and desperation. If I ran into Yoni's house and tied him to the wall and killed everyone he loved in front of them before defiling their corpses and then uncut him and said "you're free", I seriously doubt he would stand there and say "hmm, I have a personal choice right now about what I could do to this man". He would most likely attack me at the instant, despite everything he believes in and everything he knows is wrong.

Of course your environment shapes you, and of course we are not born knowing right from wrong. How in the heck would I know that killing is wrong if I was raised by wolves somewhere? I probably wouldn't even understand the concept of life and death -- just as a child has to be taught.

Anyways I have some actual relevant stats to back this up when I find my text book, especially with correlations between income and crime and the crime factor when you equalize income (i.e. percent of race that commits crime at below $15,000 or ablove $100,000), you get near-equal statistics, which tends to hover at 12% poor vs 3% wealthy, regardless of race. (i.e.12.2% of all poor blacks will commit a crime in their life, 12.6% of all poor whites will commit a crime in their life).

I'll find the book and stats, even though this entire thread is a joke and Yoni is a hater.

[Nesterofish]

Yoinvoer iws not a racist. evrbody calls somebpdy a racist when they tell the triuth about balck peeple wich they dont want too heer.

[smeagol]

Yeah, you're right; I threw this thread up half-baked and in response to my anger over the senseless mob killing of this guy in Austin.
I thought after this post you were going to think harder about this thread.

Guess you did not do it.

[Yonivore]

god damn yoni, you really are a racist bastard.
I'm about as racist as Bill Cosby or Al Sharpton. Well, Bill Cosby...Al Sharpton is one of the most racist, bigoted motherfuckers on the planet, right behind David Duke.


no seriously, you are a racist bastard. Even if you want to go back 40 years, most violent mob like activity came from white southerners, the clan, etc.
Forty years ago was 1967. most violent mob-like activity came from the Black Fucking Panthers. Yes, there was Vietnam protests too but, they generally confined themselves to love fests at the Washington Mall or to yelling at Lyndon from Lafayette Park or various liberal cities around the country.

Blacks, on the other hand, can be fingered for damn near every major violent protest since 1964.

Philedelphia race riot of 1964; Harlem 1964; Rochester 1964; Watts 1965; Cleveland 1966; Omaha 1966; Detroit 1967; Newark 1967; Pretty much the whole country after MLK's assassination in 1968; York 1969; Jackson State 1970; Camden 1971; Miami 1980; Los Angeles 1992; Cincinnati (again) 2001.

These aren't the only ones...just the most well-known. Come up with your list of non-black instigated riots. Let's compare.


To say that there is some genetic predisposition to be violent in individuals that have black skin pigmentation is inherently racist, and comes from a long line of white supremest thinking which ultimately concludes that blacks are less evolved etc. etc.
You're correct. That's why I never said it was genetic or that blacks were less evolved. I said the culture fostered by blacks, in their own communities, has predisposed them to acts of mob violence.


but to answer your question, no dumb ass there is no biological impulse in african americans that leads them to spontaneously errupt in violent activity, what you see is a product of poverty and oppressive social institutions (i.e. the LA police force in response to your quip about the watts riots).
I don't recall asking that question.

What I see is a product of personal choice and irresponsibility. There are poor white communities that don't rise up and burn their own houses down at the least provocation.


It is retarded to think that being poor doesn't make you more predispositioned towards crime. Why does crime occur?

-Rational Choice
-Impulse

The latter is most often known as a crime of passion. The first is the one that applies. Lets take an example. You have a job a money. You can easily afford food. Make a rational choice. You can steal some bread at the chance of going to jail or pay at a tiny hit to your pocketbook. You weigh the choice, and buy the bread. Now you're poor and jobless. You eat gruel every day. Weight the costs. A chance to go to jail (which is arguably better than living on the street) will net you tasty bread. The other option is keep living in misery. Of course then, more poor people than rich people will make that dive to steal the bread.

That dive is the moral barrier. This is a combonation of several things: personal faith, beliefs, guts, and rational thinking. Why do more poor people not steal than steal says Yoni? Why, because people will more often than not choose to stay moral. They will not steal because it just feels wrong. Some people don't have the guts, some still will not take the risk of jail. Some will abide by their god given laws until they die and others will rationally say that stealing the bread isn't fair to the people buying it.
At least you recognize it is a choice.

Crimes occur because criminals choose to commit them.


So, duh, being poor lowers this moral barrier. So do instances of heroics and desperation. If I ran into Yoni's house and tied him to the wall and killed everyone he loved in front of them before defiling their corpses and then uncut him and said "you're free", I seriously doubt he would stand there and say "hmm, I have a personal choice right now about what I could do to this man". He would most likely attack me at the instant, despite everything he believes in and everything he knows is wrong.
Why would it be wrong to attack you? Could I not reasonably assume your violent acts would not be confined to my family and, thus, kill your ass to prevent you from doing it again?

Your scenario is ludicrous.


Of course your environment shapes you, and of course we are not born knowing right from wrong. How in the heck would I know that killing is wrong if I was raised by wolves somewhere? I probably wouldn't even understand the concept of life and death -- just as a child has to be taught.

Anyways I have some actual relevant stats to back this up when I find my text book, especially with correlations between income and crime and the crime factor when you equalize income (i.e. percent of race that commits crime at below $15,000 or ablove $100,000), you get near-equal statistics, which tends to hover at 12% poor vs 3% wealthy, regardless of race. (i.e.12.2% of all poor blacks will commit a crime in their life, 12.6% of all poor whites will commit a crime in their life).

I'll find the book and stats, even though this entire thread is a joke and Yoni is a hater.
Cool. Look forward to it.


I thought after this post you were going to think harder about this thread.

Guess you did not do it.
I have and, in spite of my ineloquent attempts, I still believe there is something in the current black culture that makes them more likely to engage in mob violence than any other culture in America today.

Why is that?

I think it's a combination of that culture glorifying violence, degrading women, destroying families, isolating themselves from the rest of society, and suppressing achievement among their own.

What you see as racism is disgust at what blacks have managed to do with all the support they've received since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If there were true racism today...Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson -- the biggest race pimps in history -- wouldn't be reduced to running all over the country to find "victims" such as the stripper in Durham or the thugs that started that near riot at the high school football game in Chicago (I think). They'd be attacking real racism somewhere.

Blacks need to get control of their own culture because they're out of control...and that's not just me saying it. Watch Oprah today. Listen to Bill Cosby sometime.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I've been reading that the Austin killing may have been commited by only 3 or 4 people and not 20 as was first being reported.

[Yonivore]

I've been reading that the Austin killing may have been commited by only 3 or 4 people and not 20 as was first being reported.
You're right. The other 16 or 17 just stood around and watched and innocent man get beat to death.

I wonder when they'll supply the identities of the perps to police.

[Oh, Gee!!]

...the wrath of all the politically-correct race baiters in the forum, I'm going to ask the obvious.

Is there a race, other than blacks, that routinely does this?

Texas Crowd Kills Man After Car Hits Kid (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PSKSDO0&show_article=1)

Police Release More Detail About Juneteenth Violence (http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/8092297.html)

Fights mar Juneteenth celebration in Syracuse (http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1182070664184630.xml&coll=1)

Then, in just thinking back...two other prominent cases pop up.

Reginald Denny after the L.A. verdicts and Al Sharpton's Crown Heights nonsense.

Anybody see a trend here?

I think there will be a tendency towards violence by any culture or race when put into large groups (especially outside in the summer).

[2centsworth]

This thread has potential
agreed! these are my favorite types of threads. what makes it good is that Yoni and Jamtas are trying to have a civil back and forth instead of name calling.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're right. The other 16 or 17 just stood around and watched and innocent man get beat to death.

I wonder when they'll supply the identities of the perps to police.

It's sad when people don't get involved and help others in peril. It sounds like that's exactly what the victim was attempting to do for the driver of the vehicle that struck the child. Unfortunately, nobody helped him.

[2centsworth]

"If you want to play the blame game... let each take responsibility for their own actions."

Ok, so let's own up to the actions of the past and how they put an entire race at a disadvantage.so what are you saying? violence can be blamed on the actions of the past? poverty can be blamed on the actions of the past?

When does personal responsiblity and not blaming people of the past kick in?

btw, are you violent and poor? if not, are you smarter or better than poor people, or are not black?

[Extra Stout]

so what are you saying? violence can be blamed on the actions of the past? poverty can be blamed on the actions of the past?

When does personal responsiblity and not blaming people of the past kick in?

btw, are you violent and poor? if not, are you smarter or better than poor people, or are not black?
Individual people can and will be held accountable.

The point of the discussion is to determine whether the perceived difference in group behavior among certain subsets of the population is perceived or real, and if it in fact does exist, why. It is not meant to be an excuse for the conduct of individuals.

It is highly unlikely that, if any difference exists, that it is because one group is innately morally inferior to another, or more violent, etc. Those kinds of innate differences simply do not exist. Maintaining that they do is the heart of racism.

But there can be cultural dysfunction in one community relative to another. It can persist or it can dissipate. Why, for example, is Argentina dysfunctional, while Spain, Italy, and Germany, nations whose ethnicites comprise the former nation, are less so?

Why do nations with vast human and natural resources struggle to get ahead, i.e. Russia, while others like the U.S., succeed?

Why did China wake up all of a sudden?

It seems obvious, though perhaps not acceptable to say, that the black community in the U.S. has a great deal of cultural dysfunction, much of which can be attributed to a long legacy of oppression and poverty. Eventually, racism gets internalized and becomes self-loathing. Frustration boils over.

Riots often occur as a boiling-over of frustration among a heavy concentration of the disenfranchised and hopeless when an event occurs that ignites and inflames them. Blacks tend to be concentrated in inner cities where this sort of thing is ripe to happen. You don't tend to see the very poor whites all bunched up in one place since they primarily are rural these days. When there were large concentrations of poor, disenfranchised whites, they tended to riot more, although in the South usually they targeted poor, disenfranchised blacks with their anger and frustration (thus, the lynchings).

In northern cities, there were numerous riots involving poor immigrant groups. The Irish rioted when the Union tried to draft them into the Civil War. During the Gilded Age, workers rioted all the time! They even started executing wealthy people, and once, a President! The union movement came together when all of the frustration and anger came together constructively into a common cause.

Black folks have not succeeded in organizing similarly. The troubling thing to observe is that the dysfunction seems to be getting worse over time, rather than better. The black family has all but disappeared in the past 40 years. Misogyny is endemic. Basic ground rules for success in any society are derided as "acting white." Education, even among well-to-do black families, is taken less seriously than in other families. Economies have collapsed to the point where the cocaine trade is often the biggest "black-owned business" in a neighborhood.

And, it's difficult to get more than a small modicum of people to care about all that, so nothing gets done to address it.

How did we get to this point? Well, all we have are hypotheses. Few have taken a hard look at it. Part of that is because so many people couldn't care less, and part of that it because some of the people who do care about it are beset by a certain cultural pathology that afllicts a lot of oppressed peoples, i.e. the urge to attribute everything to victimization.

The most interesting idea I've heard when discussing these things is akin to what William Rhoden asserted in "Forty Million Dollar Slaves." That is, when we did integration in this country, we simply let blacks begin to participate in white society. The existing parallel black institutions and economy, which existed because of segregation, but were prevented from being equal because of racism manifesting itself in terms of things like access to capital, were simply allowed to wither and die, causing widespread social and economic destruction for blacks outside the "Talented Tenth."

The best analogy comes from baseball. We pat ourselves on the back because Jackie Robinson was allowed to join the Brooklyn Dodgers. He would represent the "Talented Tenth." But, nobody ever considered expanding the Major Leagues to admit entire Negro League franchises. That probably would not have been possible for a long time, if ever. But when the best black players joined Major League teams, the Negro League franchises collapsed. The owners were wiped out. All the blacks who had jobs because of the Negro Leagues lost them.

Had the Negro Leagues been able to compete equally with the Major Leagues, they could have held their own. The teams were as good, if not better, than Major League teams. But they never got the chance. Major League teams got the elite black labor, and patted themselves on the back for their progressive thinking.

This same thing happened in society writ large, both in terms of labor and consumers. Black economies were wiped out. While nothing sinister was afoot, and probably America thought it was doing the right thing by black people, the damage was done.

I hardly think that explains today's problems in full, but maybe it is an insight that is not usually considered when pondering how we got where we are today.

[FromWayDowntown]

Crime is an illegal practice that, if you engage in it, could result in a negative consequence...incarceration. If I don't commit a crime, I won't be incarcerated for my criminal behavior.

I think one structural problem with this argument is the fact that there are circumstances in which one could be incarcerated without having committed a crime. It's not as if innocents have never been incarcerated after being railroaded through the criminal justice system. And while there are more checks and balances available today, I suspect that there are still a significant number (at least 1%) of all incarcerated persons who never committed the crime for which they are now incarcerated. That's significant because, empirically, poverty does have an influence on the likelihood that such innocents will be able to avoid incarceration. The incarceration of a few known innocents in one community is sufficient to create significant distrust of authority figures (who can be seen as the force behind the incarceration of innocents) and those who are closely associated with such authority figures.

I also think drawing a line at 40 years ago (and excluding random acts of violence by white teenagers acting in mobs) is rather arbitrary.

[Oh, Gee!!]

so what are you saying? violence can be blamed on the actions of the past? poverty can be blamed on the actions of the past?

When does personal responsiblity and not blaming people of the past kick in?

btw, are you violent and poor? if not, are you smarter or better than poor people, or are not black?

the past shapes the present. you know? the sins of the father and all that?

[Yonivore]

Individual people can and will be held accountable.

The point of the discussion is to determine whether the perceived difference in group behavior among certain subsets of the population is perceived or real, and if it in fact does exist, why. It is not meant to be an excuse for the conduct of individuals.

It is highly unlikely that, if any difference exists, that it is because one group is innately morally inferior to another, or more violent, etc. Those kinds of innate differences simply do not exist. Maintaining that they do is the heart of racism.

But there can be cultural dysfunction in one community relative to another. It can persist or it can dissipate. Why, for example, is Argentina dysfunctional, while Spain, Italy, and Germany, nations whose ethnicites comprise the former nation, are less so?

Why do nations with vast human and natural resources struggle to get ahead, i.e. Russia, while others like the U.S., succeed?

Why did China wake up all of a sudden?

It seems obvious, though perhaps not acceptable to say, that the black community in the U.S. has a great deal of cultural dysfunction, much of which can be attributed to a long legacy of oppression and poverty.You had me right up until this point...

I don't believe the current dysfunction in the black community is due to oppression or poverty. I believe it has it roots in the culture being insulated from criticism by the race-baiters completely villifying any person, as a bigot and racist, that dare say anything negative about black culture.

All of a sudden, any criticism is racism and all negative acts are born of racism. The current generation has been raised to believe this and it's reinforced by every "reverend" in every major city that jumps on the race card whenever something untoward befalls a black person.


Eventually, racism gets internalized and becomes self-loathing. Frustration boils over.

Riots often occur as a boiling-over of frustration among a heavy concentration of the disenfranchised and hopeless when an event occurs that ignites and inflames them. Blacks tend to be concentrated in inner cities where this sort of thing is ripe to happen. You don't tend to see the very poor whites all bunched up in one place since they primarily are rural these days. When there were large concentrations of poor, disenfranchised whites, they tended to riot more, although in the South usually they targeted poor, disenfranchised blacks with their anger and frustration (thus, the lynchings).

In northern cities, there were numerous riots involving poor immigrant groups. The Irish rioted when the Union tried to draft them into the Civil War. During the Gilded Age, workers rioted all the time! They even started executing wealthy people, and once, a President! The union movement came together when all of the frustration and anger came together constructively into a common cause.

Black folks have not succeeded in organizing similarly. The troubling thing to observe is that the dysfunction seems to be getting worse over time, rather than better. The black family has all but disappeared in the past 40 years. Misogyny is endemic. Basic ground rules for success in any society are derided as "acting white." Education, even among well-to-do black families, is taken less seriously than in other families. Economies have collapsed to the point where the cocaine trade is often the biggest "black-owned business" in a neighborhood.
I think this, more than any external forces, is the root cause of black cultural dysfunction.

The black community has been the recipient of unprecedented government intervention and benevolence, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent preference programs. And yet, as you say, the cultural problem has gotten worse.

I believe there is much to be said of the theory regarding the "soft bigotry of low expectations." If the black community were expected (now that they have full equality and access) to achieve instead of government continually making excuses and accommodations, they'd be much better off by now.


And, it's difficult to get more than a small modicum of people to care about all that, so nothing gets done to address it.
People care. But, try to be a caring white person in the heart of East Austin.

Hell, there are many places in American cities white people can't go -- regardless of how altruistic their purposes. Yes, many are hispanic gang territories but, most are black neighborhoods.

It's silly in this day and age that people have to have some kind of State Department advisory to drive around some American cities. In an incident reminiscent of Reginald Denny's unfortunate route through Inglewood, California the day the L.A. blacks decided to burn down the town; I was in Los Angeles about a year after the riots.

Driving from my hotel to the aiport, I stopped at a gas station to fill up the rental before returning it. I had no idea that I'd stopped in Inglewood for gas...not until I got halfway to the store door and was told by a black person to, "get the fuck out of here, asshole."

That's racism.


How did we get to this point? Well, all we have are hypotheses. Few have taken a hard look at it. Part of that is because so many people couldn't care less, and part of that it because some of the people who do care about it are beset by a certain cultural pathology that afllicts a lot of oppressed peoples, i.e. the urge to attribute everything to victimization.

The most interesting idea I've heard when discussing these things is akin to what William Rhoden asserted in "Forty Million Dollar Slaves." That is, when we did integration in this country, we simply let blacks begin to participate in white society. The existing parallel black institutions and economy, which existed because of segregation, but were prevented from being equal because of racism manifesting itself in terms of things like access to capital, were simply allowed to wither and die, causing widespread social and economic destruction for blacks outside the "Talented Tenth."

The best analogy comes from baseball. We pat ourselves on the back because Jackie Robinson was allowed to join the Brooklyn Dodgers. He would represent the "Talented Tenth." But, nobody ever considered expanding the Major Leagues to admit entire Negro League franchises. That probably would not have been possible for a long time, if ever. But when the best black players joined Major League teams, the Negro League franchises collapsed. The owners were wiped out. All the blacks who had jobs because of the Negro Leagues lost them.

Had the Negro Leagues been able to compete equally with the Major Leagues, they could have held their own. The teams were as good, if not better, than Major League teams. But they never got the chance. Major League teams got the elite black labor, and patted themselves on the back for their progressive thinking.
Interesting theory and, quite possibly, there's some merit to it. But, the fix for this -- alluded to in your post -- is anathema to the free market. Why, once they were free to do so, did blacks abandon black institutions?

Why not recognize, themselves, that if their pre-integration enterprises were to succeed they were going to have to continue supporting them in some manner.

Why not lure white people to their businesses? There are many black-owned businesses, now in Austin, that welcome white people and are thriving.

Integration may not have killed black commerce, abandonment may have though.


This same thing happened in society writ large, both in terms of labor and consumers. Black economies were wiped out. While nothing sinister was afoot, and probably America thought it was doing the right thing by black people, the damage was done.

I hardly think that explains today's problems in full, but maybe it is an insight that is not usually considered when pondering how we got where we are today.
Though I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a noble and right-minded idea, it was a mistake that has wrought many unintended consequences.

Through it and a tortured intepretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress and the Courts forced people to not be bigots and racists and further polarized the landscape. This led to racial tension - worse than was already being experienced and - further caused the federal goverment to fumble around for initiatives that would make the Archie Bunkers of the world like black people. Thus was born the Affirmative Action. Those who believed their freedom to associate was being violated, and it was, became more embittered and that has resulted in a cultural divide that is not likely to be spanned any time soon.

In a free society, indeed, in this society, we're guaranteed the right to associate with whomever we want. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 originally only applied to goverment treatment of individuals but, through a series of court rulings -- that completely bastardized the Interstate Commerce Clause -- that has been expanded to include Joe's Bar and Grill.

That begs a few questions. Why, if Joe is a bigot and a racist, would a black person want to associate with him, much less buy his product? I know I wouldn't patronize his establishment if I knew he didn't allow blacks in.

Another question, Why, if Joe has spent his own money to buy the land, build the building, purchase the capital, and set up business; why can the government tell him to whom he has to provide his product?

That, is the root (I believe) of white animus towards black people. It is the belief that somehow the rules of equal protection and freedom of association don't apply to anyone but blacks.

I'd be hard pressed to claim discrimination if I applied for a job at Ebony, B.E.T., Gangsta Records, or JET magazine and got denied employment. But, due to the wonder of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Affirmative Action, it is the first excuse used whever a black person isn't offered the job.

You don't equal the playing field by giving preferences to a certain race -- even if they've been historically oppressed. It's unconstitutional.

I further believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary because society was already moving away from bigotry and racism and, in an attempt, to accelerate the process, Congress enflamed and already tense situation.

[Yonivore]

I think one structural problem with this argument is the fact that there are circumstances in which one could be incarcerated without having committed a crime. It's not as if innocents have never been incarcerated after being railroaded through the criminal justice system. And while there are more checks and balances available today, I suspect that there are still a significant number (at least 1%) of all incarcerated persons who never committed the crime for which they are now incarcerated. That's significant because, empirically, poverty does have an influence on the likelihood that such innocents will be able to avoid incarceration. The incarceration of a few known innocents in one community is sufficient to create significant distrust of authority figures (who can be seen as the force behind the incarceration of innocents) and those who are closely associated with such authority figures.
I don't think arresting the innocent is any longer a manifestion of racial bigotry against blacks. Ask the Duke la crosse players.


I also think drawing a line at 40 years ago (and excluding random acts of violence by white teenagers acting in mobs) is rather arbitrary.
It's not arbitrary. The Civil Right Act of 1964 was passed a little over 40 years ago and I think the rise in black violence has had more to do with their disappointment in this legislation not fixing all their ills than it does with any resistance, on the part of whites, not to treat blacks equally.

So, go back 43 years, if you like.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I had no idea that I'd stopped in Inglewood for gas...not until I got halfway to the store door and was told by a black person to, "get the fuck out of here, asshole."

That's racism.

or maybe he read your posts

[Yonivore]

or maybe he read your posts
Nah, I wasn't posting then.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't think arresting the innocent is any longer a manifestion of racial bigotry against blacks. Ask the Duke la crosse players.

A huge difference, of course, is that the parents of the Duke lacrosse (one word; it's not a town in Wisconsin) players were able to come up with the million dollars or so that it took to demonstrate that their kids shouldn't have been indicted. I have my doubts about whether the same scenario would occur if the indictments were against three young black men from impoverished families; I suspect in that situation, the accused would have either been pleaded into jail or would have faced a jury and the very high possibility of conviction.

I also don't think that one example is conclusive proof that "arresting the innocent is [no] longer a manifestation of racial bigotry against blacks." I realize that you hope it to be true, but I'm certain that you're being more hopeful than real.

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, I wasn't posting then.Well, you are an asshole.

[Extra Stout]

Interesting theory and, quite possibly, there's some merit to it. But, the fix for this -- alluded to in your post -- is anathema to the free market. Why, once they were free to do so, did blacks abandon black institutions?

Why not recognize, themselves, that if their pre-integration enterprises were to succeed they were going to have to continue supporting them in some manner.

Why not lure white people to their businesses? There are many black-owned businesses, now in Austin, that welcome white people and are thriving.

Integration may not have killed black commerce, abandonment may have though.
Black businesses were not competitive with white businesses on account of unequal access to capital. White businesses were able to offer better products and services at lower prices, and offer better pay and better working conditions to employees at the same time.

The inequitable allocation of resources over a long period of time invalidates the notion that what happened was a free-market result.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Nah, I wasn't posting then.

maybe he was just extremely perceptive

[Oh, Gee!!]

I don't think arresting the innocent is any longer a manifestion of racial bigotry against blacks. Ask the Duke la crosse players.

I don't think you can compare being arrested, posting bond, and never having to face trial with being convicted and sent to prison. And technically everyone who is arrested is innocent.

[Jamtas#2]

so what are you saying? violence can be blamed on the actions of the past? poverty can be blamed on the actions of the past?

When does personal responsiblity and not blaming people of the past kick in?

btw, are you violent and poor? if not, are you smarter or better than poor people, or are not black?


Phenomanul had made the statement about each of the vile human traits that all of us have the capacity to display (which I agree with). He also said that let everyone take personal responsibility for their actions (again, I agree). What my statement meant was that if he truly beleives that personal responsibility must be taken, the actions and vile traits that were committed in the past must be taken in to account. This does not mean that I excuse the actions of those who roit or attack the innocent. I am only trying to show that it is not an inherent trait among a specific race that causes these actions, but more a product of the environment and inequality that fosters these types of things.

To answer your other question, no I am not a violent person and I am lucky enough to have had the opportunities and assistance to be financially secure in my life. Yes, I did work hard to earn my status in life, but I also was blessed to have a very comfortable upbringing and environment that fostered that kind of work ethic and morals.

[Jamtas#2]

A huge difference, of course, is that the parents of the Duke lacrosse (one word; it's not a town in Wisconsin) players were able to come up with the million dollars or so that it took to demonstrate that their kids shouldn't have been indicted. I have my doubts about whether the same scenario would occur if the indictments were against three young black men from impoverished families; I suspect in that situation, the accused would have either been pleaded into jail or would have faced a jury and the very high possibility of conviction.

I also don't think that one example is conclusive proof that "arresting the innocent is [no] longer a manifestation of racial bigotry against blacks." I realize that you hope it to be true, but I'm certain that you're being more hopeful than real.

You don't even have to make this a black/white issue. If those players had been poor white students they wouldn't have had the resources to fight the case. I'm truly happy that justice was served in this case, but it also shows how money can buy justice (and the same for OJ) which further shows a divide between the rich and the poor.

[Yonivore]

A huge difference, of course, is that the parents of the Duke lacrosse (one word; it's not a town in Wisconsin) [edit: get over yourself already - y.] players were able to come up with the million dollars or so that it took to demonstrate that their kids shouldn't have been indicted. I have my doubts about whether the same scenario would occur if the indictments were against three young black men from impoverished families; I suspect in that situation, the accused would have either been pleaded into jail or would have faced a jury and the very high possibility of conviction.
You doubt that had three black lacrosse players been falsely accused of raping a white stripper, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson wouldn't have been on the scene offering assistance before the jail door slammed?

Please. If anything, it is precisely because of Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's race-pimping the Durham black community that this debacle drug out so long in the first place. I would imagine three innocent black lacrosse players would have been exonerated as the exculpatory evidence emerged.

Frankly, I can't say that I'd fault Jackson or Sharpton for doing so either. But, the fact remains, three black suspects probably would have faired much better had they been similarly situated in the Duke case.

Hell, Sharpton and Jackson ran to defend those three thugs that started a near riot at that high school football game. Why would that have done less for someone who was actually innocent of a crime?


longer a manifestation of racial bigotry against blacks." I realize that you hope it to be true, but I'm certain that you're being more hopeful than real.
I think it is a prime example of how the black community -- led by the likes of Jackson and Sharpton -- is trying to "even the score" by haranguing prosecutors into pursuing flimsy cases when white on black crime is alleged while at the same time, villifying and demonizing innocent people due to some perceived race or class disparity.

Yeah, I believe it's more widespread than you think. Say what you want, Rodney King wasn't beat up because he was black. He was beat up because he was a stupid thug that had just led police on a wild chase that endangered the lives of many innocent people, including themselves and their fellow officers.

If it had been a racial attack, they'd of drug his black passenger from the car and wailed on him as well...just like the crowd in Austin did this week. But, they didn't.

And, just look at the racial violence that erupted from that fiasco.

I think it is the black community that is being blind to the cause of racial division. They need only look in the mirror.

[2centsworth]

Phenomanul had made the statement about each of the vile human traits that all of us have the capacity to display (which I agree with). He also said that let everyone take personal responsibility for their actions (again, I agree). What my statement meant was that if he truly beleives that personal responsibility must be taken, the actions and vile traits that were committed in the past must be taken in to account. This does not mean that I excuse the actions of those who roit or attack the innocent. I am only trying to show that it is not an inherent trait among a specific race that causes these actions, but more a product of the environment and inequality that fosters these types of things.

To answer your other question, no I am not a violent person and I am lucky enough to have had the opportunities and assistance to be financially secure in my life. Yes, I did work hard to earn my status in life, but I also was blessed to have a very comfortable upbringing and environment that fostered that kind of work ethic and morals.

[Yonivore]

You don't even have to make this a black/white issue. If those players had been poor white students they wouldn't have had the resources to fight the case. I'm truly happy that justice was served in this case, but it also shows how money can buy justice (and the same for OJ) which further shows a divide between the rich and the poor.
That, I tend to agree with.

However, I stand by my assertion that had they been black and obviously innocent (as the white players were), Jesse and Al would have been there pronto. Not so for a poor white kid.

[Oh, Gee!!]

If it had been a racial attack, they'd of drug his black passenger from the car and wailed on him as well...just like the crowd in Austin did this week.

Most of the articles I've read don't indicate that the passenger in the Austin incident was dragged from the car, but rather the passenger left the vehicle of his volition to either help the child who was struck or the driver.

[Jamtas#2]

That, I tend to agree with.

However, I stand by my assertion that had they been black and obviously innocent (as the white players were), Jesse and Al would have been there pronto. Not so for a poor white kid.

I'd agree with that. They're careers are now based in showing racism and they will stop at nothing to do so. This isn't the first time Al jumped on the wrong side of a legal battle and it probably won't be the last.

But I'd also say that had this been young poor blacks and not a high profile case, they wouldn't have been there either.

[FromWayDowntown]

\But I'd also say that had this been young poor blacks and not a high profile case, they wouldn't have been there either.

And that's my point.

[Yonivore]

I'd agree with that. They're careers are now based in showing racism and they will stop at nothing to do so. This isn't the first time Al jumped on the wrong side of a legal battle and it probably won't be the last.

But I'd also say that had this been young poor blacks and not a high profile case, they wouldn't have been there either.
No so for whites though. It's a wash.

And, doesn't it say something about the prevalence of racism that Al and Jesse, who are in the business of racism, have trouble finding it anymore but, instead, run around the country trying to foment a racial incident out of thin air?

[Oh, Gee!!]

That, I tend to agree with.

However, I stand by my assertion that had they been black and obviously innocent (as the white players were), Jesse and Al would have been there pronto. Not so for a poor white kid.

Then they'd have to be a million places at once, because I imagine young blacks probably get arrested and accused everyday in every major city in the country.

[Yonivore]

And that's my point.
Really, I'd say the same for three innocent white kids similarly situated. This case only became high profile because the "victim" was black and Jesse and Al needed a gig.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Really, I'd say the same for three innocent white kids similarly situated. This case only became high profile because the "victim" was black and Jesse and Al needed a gig.

This case became high profile when FoxNews aired the story non-stop around the clock

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Some black dude called Yoni an asshole so he bacame a neocon who says racism doesn't exist except when he is called an asshole.

[Phenomanul]

If you want to play the blame game... let each take responsibility for their own actions.

Ok, so let's own up to the actions of the past and how they put an entire race at a disadvantage.

That's partially why programs such as affirmative action were instated... to help level the playing field again.

But yes... if you could do that you would. Unfortunately it is not a pratical, feasible, or beneficial venture.

Look, I lived amongst the poorest of the poor, amongst theives, violence and drugs... my dad's salary was no more than $10,000 per year (during the late 80's and through the 90's) and he supported a family of five. You know what though?? Our family persevered without government assistance and managed to get a decent crack at life. Both of my siblings, like myself managed to graduate from college (all on scholarships) and attain 'higher' paying jobs. We now own our own homes... and are financially in a much better position now than we were when we grew up.... If my family managed to escape the grips of poverty, by the Grace of GOD; I'm sure others could too.

So many factors enter the fray though... we didn't have top of the line clothing, or Air Jordans, or the lastest Nintendo game (for that matter we never owned a game console), we didn't own new bikes (we built our own)... We didn't eat at restaurants every week or buy eccentricities for our vehicles or 'bling-bling', no one in our family had a vice that would hamper our budget, we always had a used car, and even had enough for an annual vaction to the Mexican Caribbean Riviera.... We worked hard at school and had fun at home... most importantly we didn't care what others said because we found support and confort in our family. That's all that mattered.

Bad parenting, and pitiful financial decisions greatly contribute to the reasons why the poor stay poor in today's society. Then again, those who are already 'well-off' don't even have to worry about that burden to begin with. So I rarely expect them to understand.

[Yonivore]

Then they'd have to be a million places at once, because I imagine young blacks probably get arrested and accused everyday in every major city in the country.
Don't you mean "young innocent blacks?"

I mean, if they're committing crimes, they should be arrested -- regardless of whether or not they're black and regardless of whether or not it screws up the ratio of black arrests vs. white arrests.

I imagine young whites probably get arrested and accused everyday in every major city in the country too.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Don't you mean "young innocent blacks?"

I mean, if they're committing crimes, they should be arrested -- regardless of whether or not they're black and regardless of whether or not it screws up the ratio of black arrests vs. white arrests.

I imagine young whites probably get arrested and accused everyday in every major city in the country too.

They're all innocent according to our legal system

[Yonivore]

They're all innocent according to our legal system
No they're not. The presumption of innocence only applies to the court and jurors.

I can think a person is guilty all day long, if I want...even after he's acquitted. I think O.J. killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson.

There, see, people are not protected by the constitution from being perceived as guilty. They're only entitled to the presumption of innocence from the court when being tried. Otherwise, why would anyone be indicted?

[Extra Stout]

You had me right up until this point...

I don't believe the current dysfunction in the black community is due to oppression or poverty. I believe it has it roots in the culture being insulated from criticism by the race-baiters completely villifying any person, as a bigot and racist, that dare say anything negative about black culture.

All of a sudden, any criticism is racism and all negative acts are born of racism. The current generation has been raised to believe this and it's reinforced by every "reverend" in every major city that jumps on the race card whenever something untoward befalls a black person.

I think this, more than any external forces, is the root cause of black cultural dysfunction.
I think the tendency of the black community to attribute all problems to white racism, and the inability to make an honest introspection, is common to several downtrodden societies. I think it is a symptom of the problem, rather than the cause. You see it in the Arab world as well, though maybe for different reasons.

I don't think so much that contemporary racism is behind the dysfunction as much as historical racism is. I detect a great deal of self-loathing among blacks. This I see as an internalization of racism. When a group of people get really screwed up, they aren't necessarily resilient enough to bounce back when the more overt forms of oppression stop.

I do think the government contributed to the deterioration of the lower reaches of black culture. After integration wiped out the black economy that had sprung up in response to segregation, the government stepped in with welfare, but it took another 30 years before anybody to start focusing on things like job creation, so that blacks outside of the "Talented Tenth" could be more than just a dependent class.

I have a question: where did all the black leaders go? Why didn't the baby boomer generation produce new MLK's and John Lewises? Did all those folks end up as doctors and lawyers assimilating into white America? Did they just turn their back on everyone else, or does the state of black culture make mainstream-successful blacks "too white" to be leaders? How did we go from the great visionaries of the 1960's to jokers like Jackson and Sharpton?

[FromWayDowntown]

Don't you mean "young innocent blacks?"

I mean, if they're committing crimes, they should be arrested -- regardless of whether or not they're black and regardless of whether or not it screws up the ratio of black arrests vs. white arrests.

I imagine young whites probably get arrested and accused everyday in every major city in the country too.

But I'm fairly certain that more young blacks are arrested and ultimately convicted for crimes that they didn't commit than there are young whites who suffer the same fate.

[FromWayDowntown]

No they're not. The presumption of innocence only applies to the court and jurors.

I can think a person is guilty all day long, if I want...even after he's acquitted. I think O.J. killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson.

There, see, people are not protected by the constitution from being perceived as guilty. They're only entitled to the presumption of innocence from the court when being tried. Otherwise, why would anyone be indicted?

Unless, of course, you're in the Group of 88. Then, you were compelled to play by the innocent until proven guilty routine and your failure to do so should result in the termination of your employment, right?

[Yonivore]

I think the tendency of the black community to attribute all problems to white racism, and the inability to make an honest introspection, is common to several downtrodden societies. I think it is a symptom of the problem, rather than the cause. You see it in the Arab world as well, though maybe for different reasons.

I don't think so much that contemporary racism is behind the dysfunction as much as historical racism is. I detect a great deal of self-loathing among blacks. This I see as an internalization of racism. When a group of people get really screwed up, they aren't necessarily resilient enough to bounce back when the more overt forms of oppression stop.
So, is there anything "White America" can do to fix that? Everything this country is doing, or has done to this point, only seems to feed that self-image.


I do think the government contributed to the deterioration of the lower reaches of black culture. After integration wiped out the black economy that had sprung up in response to segregation, the government stepped in with welfare, but it took another 30 years before anybody to start focusing on things like job creation, so that blacks outside of the "Talented Tenth" could be more than just a dependent class.
I won't argue with that.


I have a question: where did all the black leaders go? Why didn't the baby boomer generation produce new MLK's and John Lewises? Did all those folks end up as doctors and lawyers assimilating into white America? Did they just turn their back on everyone else, or does the state of black culture make mainstream-successful blacks "too white" to be leaders? How did we go from the great visionaries of the 1960's to jokers like Jackson and Sharpton?
Good question.

[Oh, Gee!!]

No they're not. The presumption of innocence only applies to the court and jurors.

sounds like our legal system to me.


I can think a person is guilty all day long, if I want...even after he's acquitted. I think O.J. killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson. There, see, people are not protected by the constitution from being perceived as guilty. They're only entitled to the presumption of innocence from the court when being tried.

Again, sounds like our legal system.


Otherwise, why would anyone be indicted?

Indicted does not equal convicted, nor does it equal guilty. The presumption of innocence applies post-indictment.

[Yonivore]

Unless, of course, you're in the Group of 88. Then, you were compelled to play by the innocent until proven guilty routine and your failure to do so should result in the termination of your employment, right?
They crossed the line from believing the players were guilty to advocating their conviction -- in spite of all the exculpatory evidence.

They should be fired not because of what they believed but because of how they used their university positions to pursue an objective that damaged the image of the institution.

I think it's fine to believe the players were guilty. My first assumption, based on the news reports, were that they were guilty as well. But, the group of 88, Nifong, Sharpton, Jackson, et. al. continued the ruse long after it was obvious there was no crime.

[ChumpDumper]

Unless, of course, you're in the Group of 88. Then, you were compelled to play by the innocent until proven guilty routine and your failure to do so should result in the termination of your employment, right?:lmao

[Yonivore]

But I'm fairly certain that more young blacks are arrested and ultimately convicted for crimes that they didn't commit than there are young whites who suffer the same fate.
Be certain all you want. That doesn't necessarily mean it's either true or that it's due to racism.

[DarkReign]

This thread delivers, btw.

Its interesting to see people's opinions on the matter and even better to see an actual discussion on a subject that doesnt devolve into elementary name-calling.

Really, it all sort of boils down to the most basic truth in life.

Life isnt fair. No race, creed, color or gender will ever be able to undermine that unassailable truth.

I personally believe Black Culture is primarily responsible for the "disadvantage" the Black Community feels exists. But I am also not naive enough to think that the very real nation-wide discrimination and segregation perpetuated upon them as a whole does bear some responsibility for the current state of Black Culture.

I also feel that this...."area of concern" will never be resolved or entirely go away forever.

No amount of government intervention will resolve these issues. These issues must be dealt with by the Black Community for the Black Community.

I live in the suburbs of Detroit. Its almost Chicago-type segregated here (they had to make a new word to describe Chicago's segregation, they call it Super-Segregation....Northside vs Southside...Sox vs Cubs). I have worked with, been neighbors to, partied with, befriended and otherwise know my share of black people.

I am not speaking for people I have observed, I speak for the people I have had relationships with. My personal conclusions from these interactions havent changed my original opinions in any way.

Some are good. Some arent. Some are hateful and feel they are owed something. Others wouldnt take a handout from anybody for anything, ever.

One thing is constant though, in all the black people I have had extensive experience with. They were all from dirt-poor families. Didnt matter if they dressed in a suit for work now, or put on a military uniform everyday, or collected their monthly check from the government, they all started broke beyond any measure I grew up in.

Some overcome. IMO, most do not. And I am not so sure its a problem that the government, or white people for that matter, can do anything about. They either help themselves (like the majority of people I met) or wallow in their ignorance and continue the cycle (a minority of people I have met).

I dont know if this adds anything or not, but its my take.

[Yonivore]

The presumption of innocence applies post-indictment.
The presumption of innocence only applies in the sense that the State has the burden to prove guilt whereas the defendent is not obligated to prove innocence.

A murderer who openly plans and executes a crime in the presence of witness and then confesses, is presumed -- by the law (not a person) to be innocent pending the State's ability to prove, beyond a reasonble doubt, guilt.

Every person knows he's guilty, including himself, the judge, the jury, the prosecutor and his own counsel. He's confessed after all.

The law, on the other hand, is blind and dispassionate and will not declare him guilty until the state meets their obligation. That can be as simple as entering a plea of guilty or as difficult as proving a case through testimony and evidence.

However, whatever the case, no one person is precluded from believing anyone is guilty of the crime for which they are accused.

[Extra Stout]

So, is there anything "White America" can do to fix that? Everything this country is doing, or has done to this point, only seems to feed that self-image.
If anybody knew how to solve the problem, it would have been solved by now. I suspect to a large degree, it will be the black community that has its own Awakening, rather than government making it happen.

Perhaps there are examples of downtrodden cultures ascending into prominence, from which we could draw examples?

[Yonivore]

This thread delivers, btw.

Its interesting to see people's opinions on the matter and even better to see an actual discussion on a subject that doesnt devolve into elementary name-calling.

Really, it all sort of boils down to the most basic truth in life.

Life isnt fair. No race, creed, color or gender will ever be able to undermine that unassailable truth.

I personally believe Black Culture is primarily responsible for the "disadvantage" the Black Community feels exists. But I am also not naive enough to think that the very real nation-wide discrimination and segregation perpetuated upon them as a whole does bear some responsibility for the current state of Black Culture.

I also feel that this...."area of concern" will never be resolved or entirely go away forever.

No amount of government intervention will resolve these issues. These issues must be dealt with by the Black Community for the Black Community.

I live in the suburbs of Detroit. Its almost Chicago-type segregated here (they had to make a new word to describe Chicago's segregation, they call it Super-Segregation....Northside vs Southside...Sox vs Cubs). I have worked with, been neighbors to, partied with, befriended and otherwise know my share of black people.

I am not speaking for people I have observed, I speak for the people I have had relationships with. My personal conclusions from these interactions havent changed my original opinions in any way.

Some are good. Some arent. Some are hateful and feel they are owed something. Others wouldnt take a handout from anybody for anything, ever.

One thing is constant though, in all the black people I have had extensive experience with. They were all from dirt-poor families. Didnt matter if they dressed in a suit for work now, or put on a military uniform everyday, or collected their monthly check from the government, they all started broke beyond any measure I grew up in.

Some overcome. IMO, most do not. And I am not so sure its a problem that the government, or white people for that matter, can do anything about. They either help themselves (like the majority of people I met) or wallow in their ignorance and continue the cycle (a minority of people I have met).

I dont know if this adds anything or not, but its my take.
I think it's an excellent observation.

I would only add that not only is there nothing white people or the government can do to help -- from this point forward -- things that are being done and that are being contemplated actually hurt and make things worse.

[Oh, Gee!!]

The presumption of innocence only applies in the sense that the State has the burden to prove guilt whereas the defendent is not obligated to prove innocence.

A murderer who openly plans and executes a crime in the presence of witness and then confesses, is presumed -- by the law (not a person) to be innocent pending the State's ability to prove, beyond a reasonble doubt, guilt.

Every person knows he's guilty, including himself, the judge, the jury, the prosecutor and his own counsel. He's confessed after all.

The law, on the other hand, is blind and dispassionate and will not declare him guilty until the state meets their obligation. That can be as simple as entering a plea of guilty or as difficult as proving a case through testimony and evidence.

yeah, which is why said every person accused is innocent according to our legal system.


However, whatever the case, no one person is precluded from believing anyone is guilty of the crime for which they are accused.

does that group include Al Sharpton? Cause you're making a big stink for nothing if that's the case.

[Yonivore]

If anybody knew how to solve the problem, it would have been solved by now. I suspect to a large degree, it will be the black community that has its own Awakening, rather than government making it happen.

Perhaps there are examples of downtrodden cultures ascending into prominence, from which we could draw examples?
I think Asian immigrants -- from the Vietnamese boat people to Chinese political refugees -- are an excellent example of how a culture dropped itself into a strange land, overcame racism and bigotry, and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps.

I do believe the big difference here is that blacks somehow hold me responsible -- because I'm white -- for the oppression of their ancestors and they think I owe them something for the trouble my ancestors may or may not have caused their ancestors.

The Vietnamese, many of whom suffered through a war involving our troops in their country, came here -- dealt with the racism directed at them -- and have come much farther than blacks, in the basicallly the same amount of time.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I think Asian immigrants -- from the Vietnamese boat people to Chinese political refugees -- are an excellent example of how a culture dropped itself into a strange land, overcame racism and bigotry, and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps.

I do believe the big difference here is that blacks somehow hold me responsible -- because I'm white -- for the oppression of their ancestors and they think I owe them something for the trouble my ancestors may or may not have caused their ancestors.

The Vietnamese, many of whom suffered through a war involving our troops in their country, came here -- dealt with the racism directed at them -- and have come much farther than blacks, in the basicallly the same amount of time.

came here and brought here are two different things

[Yonivore]

yeah, which is why said every person accused is innocent according to our legal system.
You implied they should be treated as such.


does that group include Al Sharpton? Cause you're making a big stink for nothing if that's the case.
No, because he (as well as Jesse and the rest) advocated and actively engaged in a campaign to achieve something they knew was wrong. That's way beyond holding a belief in guilt and trying to squeeze guilt out of a non-crime.

[Yonivore]

came here and brought here are two different things
Name a black person alive today that was brought here.

Name a black person, alive today, that would rather live in the country of their ancestor's origin.

That argument gets less and less relevant every day. The fact of the matter is Americans -- of all races -- are better situated than almost any person in any other country in the world.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You implied they should be treated as such.

they should be treated as such by our legal system. Why does this not get through to you?


No, because he (as well as Jesse and the rest) advocated and actively engaged in a campaign to achieve something they knew was wrong. That's way beyond holding a belief in guilt and trying to squeeze guilt out of a non-crime.

They can advocate all they want so long as they are not jurors or judges hearing the case, which they weren't.

[Yonivore]

they should be treated as such by our legal system. Why does this not get through to you?
Okay, then murderers should be allowed to roam free until a verdict is rendered?

You're having a real hard time distinguishing between the law and the people, aren't you?


They can advocate all they want so long as they are not jurors or judges, which they weren't.
You'll note I'm not advocating Jesse or Al be fired because, well, their actions are what they do.

I was advocating the group of 88 and Nifong (who may well go to prison now) be fired because their actions went against what a reputable institution would want from their employees.

I don't care if they thought the lacrosse players were guilty which, at some point (unless they're stupid) that would have to know was not true, I care they used public institutions and their reputations and positions in those public institutions to try and leverage a guilty verdict against innocent people.

[Extra Stout]

I think Asian immigrants -- from the Vietnamese boat people to Chinese political refugees -- are an excellent example of how a culture dropped itself into a strange land, overcame racism and bigotry, and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps.

I do believe the big difference here is that blacks somehow hold me responsible -- because I'm white -- for the oppression of their ancestors and they think I owe them something for the trouble my ancestors may or may not have caused their ancestors.

The Vietnamese, many of whom suffered through a war involving our troops in their country, came here -- dealt with the racism directed at them -- and have come much farther than blacks, in the basicallly the same amount of time.
Immigrants are different from an existing population, because they represent the subset of a population that has the initiative and determination to emigrate.

One thing we could draw, though, is that the extended families of the Vietnamese are very strong, and create a social network that provides some resilience through adversity.

I notice in Mexican immigrants (legal ones anyway) that same determination, work ethic, commitment to education, and willingness to sacrifice so that their kids can do better. The difference is that those values don't always take with subsequent generations. They assimilate more readily than the Vietnamese do, but sometimes they assimilate into dysfunction.

[FromWayDowntown]

I care they used public institutions and their reputations and positions in those public institutions to try and leverage a guilty verdict against innocent people.

Show me any evidence that Duke University is a public institution.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Okay, then murderers should be allowed to roam free until a verdict is rendered?

if they can post bond, they sure can. That's how our legal system works.


You're having a real hard time distinguishing between the law and the people, aren't you?

not really. I think the Duke players probably did what they were accused of even though they weren't indicted. While there wasn't enough evidence to go forward with the case, I still think they are all guilty. You see, proof that I can seperate the legal from the personal.

[Yonivore]

Immigrants are different from an existing population, because they represent the subset of a population that has the initiative and determination to emigrate.

One thing we could draw, though, is that the extended families of the Vietnamese are very strong, and create a social network that provides some resilience through adversity.

I notice in Mexican immigrants (legal ones anyway) that same determination, work ethic, commitment to education, and willingness to sacrifice so that their kids can do better. The difference is that those values don't always take with subsequent generations. They assimilate more readily than the Vietnamese do, but sometimes they assimilate into dysfunction.
Point taken although, some might argue, the black community has treated itself as an immigrant population moving into "white" America while trying to maintain an unique identity in their own communities.

In fact, some might argue they're doing this and intentionally failing to assimilate as would a true immigrant population.

As for Mexican immigrants; I agree, subsequent generations seem to be less inclined to assimilate than their predecessors.

Same for Arab Muslims.

I think it all boils down to a failure to assimilate and a desire to hoist one's own culture on those who previously occupied the geography. And, I think this is possible because blacks modelled this behavior for them by violently resisting assimilation (and not being called on it), demanding preferences (and getting them), demanding entitlements (and getting them), and destroying their own culture (and blaming it on "white" America) in the process.

[Yonivore]

if they can post bond, they sure can. That's how our legal system works.
What about those denied bond?


not really. I think the Duke players probably did what they were accused of even though they weren't indicted.
Well, they were indicted.


While there wasn't enough evidence to go forward with the case, I still think they are all guilty. You see, proof that I can seperate the legal from the personal.
Also proof you're stupid. Particularly since there was irrefutable exculpatory evidence on most of the accused as well as irrefutable evidence the stripper was lying -- all of which became known early in the case...over a year ago.

[Oh, Gee!!]

What about those denied bond?

I guess they can't "roam free."



Well, they were indicted.

okay, my mistake. but the charges were dropped.

[Yonivore]

I guess they can't "roam free."
But if they're presumed innocent why aren't they allowed to "roam free?"


okay, my mistake. but the charges were dropped.
Over a year after they should have been.

[Oh, Gee!!]

But if they're presumed innocent why aren't they allowed to "roam free?"

because there are laws that provide for the denial of bond in some circumstances even though the accused is presumed innocent.

[Extra Stout]

Point taken although, some might argue, the black community has treated itself as an immigrant population moving into "white" America while trying to maintain an unique identity in their own communities.

In fact, some might argue they're doing this and intentionally failing to assimilate as would a true immigrant population.

As for Mexican immigrants; I agree, subsequent generations seem to be less inclined to assimilate than their predecessors.

Same for Arab Muslims.

I think it all boils down to a failure to assimilate and a desire to hoist one's own culture on those who previously occupied the geography. And, I think this is possible because blacks modelled this behavior for them by violently resisting assimilation (and not being called on it), demanding preferences (and getting them), demanding entitlements (and getting them), and destroying their own culture (and blaming it on "white" America) in the process.
The black community has a distinct culture from that of the white community, in part because the societies were kept separate for hundreds of years. I don't think that in and of itself is a problem; after all, there are hundreds if not thousands of distinct cultural communities even among whites in the U.S.

The problem is not that the culture is distinct in and of itself. Disdainful repudiation of any behavior seen as "white" is a problem. I do see that certain behaviors which are not unique to whites, but rather are shared by all successful cultures, and by successful people within cultures, are stigmatized as "white" by many blacks and rejected.

Historically, immigrant populations have assimilated into the general population at a glacial pace compared to what they do today. There was never a time when immigrants became proficient in English during their lifetimes -- it was always the children who picked it up. Spanish-speaking by Hispanics is next to nil by the third generation -- an extinguishment two to three generations sooner than previous immigrant groups (Germans, Italians, etc.). But, we have so many immigrants coming at once that we don't observe that.

Mexican immigrants actually assimilate more quickly than any other immigrant group ever has. The problem is that too often they are assimilating into the broken culture of the underclass, the values of which are less amenable to success than those of the third-world country from which their forbears came. That is the problem, not that they aren't assimilating quickly enough.

[Yonivore]

because there are laws that provide for the denial of bond in some circumstances even though the accused is presumed innocent.
Why are there laws that do that? I would think a presumptively innocent person should not be held against their will.

[Yonivore]

The black community has a distinct culture from that of the white community, in part because the societies were kept separate for hundreds of years. I don't think that in and of itself is a problem; after all, there are hundreds if not thousands of distinct cultural communities even among whites in the U.S.

The problem is not that the culture is distinct in and of itself. Disdainful repudiation of any behavior seen as "white" is a problem. I do see that certain behaviors which are not unique to whites, but rather are shared by all successful cultures, and by successful people within cultures, are stigmatized as "white" by many blacks and rejected.

Historically, immigrant populations have assimilated into the general population at a glacial pace compared to what they do today. There was never a time when immigrants became proficient in English during their lifetimes -- it was always the children who picked it up. Spanish-speaking by Hispanics is next to nil by the third generation -- an extinguishment two to three generations sooner than previous immigrant groups (Germans, Italians, etc.). But, we have so many immigrants coming at once that we don't observe that.

Mexican immigrants actually assimilate more quickly than any other immigrant group ever has. The problem is that too often they are assimilating into the broken culture of the underclass, the values of which are less amenable to success than those of the third-world country from which their forbears came. That is the problem, not that they aren't assimilating quickly enough.
Not much to argue with there. You're much more eloquent on the topic than I.

Good job.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why are there laws that do that? I would think a presumptively innocent person should not be held against their will.

then write to your representative in your state legislature.

[Yonivore]

then write to your representative in your state legislature.
Oh, I know why there are laws to prevent certain alleged criminals from making bail. In fact, I'm in favor of them.

It's because, even though the law obligates the State to prove them guilty before punishing them, everyone involved presumes they're guilty and a danger to society.

There's no presumption of innocence on the part of the court when denying bail. In fact, they're stating they believe the offender is guilty and poses a risk.

[Jamtas#2]

That's partially why programs such as affirmative action were instated... to help level the playing field again.

But yes... if you could do that you would. Unfortunately it is not a pratical, feasible, or beneficial venture.

Look, I lived amongst the poorest of the poor, amongst theives, violence and drugs... my dad's salary was no more than $10,000 per year (during the late 80's and through the 90's) and he supported a family of five. You know what though?? Our family persevered without government assistance and managed to get a decent crack at life. Both of my siblings, like myself managed to graduate from college (all on scholarships) and attain 'higher' paying jobs. We now own our own homes... and are financially in a much better position now than we were when we grew up.... If my family managed to escape the grips of poverty, by the Grace of GOD; I'm sure others could too.

So many factors enter the fray though... we didn't have top of the line clothing, or Air Jordans, or the lastest Nintendo game (for that matter we never owned a game console), we didn't own new bikes (we built our own)... We didn't eat at restaurants every week or buy eccentricities for our vehicles or 'bling-bling', no one in our family had a vice that would hamper our budget, we always had a used car, and even had enough for an annual vaction to the Mexican Caribbean Riviera.... We worked hard at school and had fun at home... most importantly we didn't care what others said because we found support and confort in our family. That's all that mattered.

Bad parenting, and pitiful financial decisions greatly contribute to the reasons why the poor stay poor in today's society. Then again, those who are already 'well-off' don't even have to worry about that burden to begin with. So I rarely expect them to understand.

First I will commend you for the work ethic and morals you seem to have to have acheived what you have.
That being said, again there is no 100% way to classify any group. I think you would agree that there is more temptation among the lower class to steer towards crime than those who are better off financially than they are.

Think of an average guy who is married that stays faithful to his wife. Now think of someone who is famous and has women throwing themselves at him for one night stands married and remaining faithful. They could both have the same morals and values, but one has to face more temptation than the other and has a higher likelihood of "falling".

I think the same goes for financial and racial inequalities. There is more temptation due to the situations that the majority of them are in.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Oh, I know why there are laws to prevent certain alleged criminals from making bail. In fact, I'm in favor of them.

It's because, even though the law obligates the State to prove them guilty before punishing them, everyone involved presumes they're guilty and a danger to society.

There's no presumption of innocence on the part of the court when denying bail. In fact, they're stating they believe the offender is guilty and poses a risk.

the presumption of innocence is not suspended during a hearing to deny bail, nor is denial of bail evidence of guilt. the court does not comment on the defendant's guilt, but rather on whether the defendant is a flight risk or a danger to the community as you pointed out.

[Yonivore]

the presumption of innocence is not suspended during a hearing to deny bail.
Apparently it is when they decide to deny bail. Why, if they're presumed innocent, would they be a flight risk or a danger to the community, if released on bail?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Why, if they're presumed innocent, would they be a flight risk or a danger to the community, if released on bail?

because of the severity of the accusation, possible punishment, and criminal history of the accused.

[Yonivore]

because of the severity of the accusation, possible punishment, and criminal history of the accused.
But, he's presumed innocent!

[Oh, Gee!!]

yep.

[Yonivore]

yep.
You're an idiot.

[DarkReign]

Again, this thread delivers.

What started out, IMO, to be an abject in veiled racism, is nowhere near what my initial impression lead me to believe.

I vote to move away from the Duke scenario. It was a tainted case, and I am pretty sure the outcome would have been VASTLY different if the accused where black and poor. Turns out theyre rich and white and oh yeah, were innocent.

Because we can all turn to the OJ case. It isnt so much a trial of race as it was a trial of wealth and fame. See Chris Rock's standup for a much more humorous view on it.

I have seen with my own eyes black people being...(searching for the right word here)...shunned for their advancement (appropriate?).

It wasnt even a "well to do" job either. I was 18, selling furniture at a large chain here (Art Van). Very diverse workforce. There were 2 divisions of workforce. Sales and AVASI. Sales is self explanatory. AVASI represents the people in the warehouse that receive, sort, catalogue and deliver the furniture.

The second best salesmen at the store I worked at was black. We worked at a suburban store (VERY suburban). He ranked in the top 10 in the entire company in sales. Needless to say, he was successful (once you reached $40k sold, the saleperson received 8% of the amount over and above that threshold...him and his ilk were pulling down well over $100k a year. Well over).

Well, the company held a banquet every year for its top salespeople at the main store to thank them, etc. He received his award just like everyone else.

When he came back to the store the next week, the people he used to associate with in AVASI wouldnt talk to him anymore. Him and I had a good relationship, so after a awhile I asked what was up.

He explained that they were upset because he was a "company man" and had "sold out" to get ahead. When all the guy really did was live at work, bust his fucking ass everyday and take care of the customers that the other lazy-ass salespeople gave up on.

He was a black man in a white neighborhood trying to sell people things they probably didnt even need, encountering racism along the way from customers (tip: old white women dont like black people by and large, they visibly clutch their purse even when hes wearing a suit). And his own "friends" decided to hold it against him.

He didnt give 2 shits though. I worked there 2 years. He was in that banquet both years and from what I have heard, he still is.

[Yonivore]

Again, this thread delivers.

What started out, IMO, to be an abject in veiled racism, is nowhere near what my initial impression lead me to believe.

I vote to move away from the Duke scenario. It was a tainted case, and I am pretty sure the outcome would have been VASTLY different if the accused where black and poor. Turns out theyre rich and white and oh yeah, were innocent.
In the same paragraph you "vote" to move away from the Duke case while, at the same time, getting in your last word about how you believe it would have been different had the races been reversed.

Well, not so fast. As I've already stated, I don't believe they would have been different. In fact, I believe had they been poor and black and just as innocent as the lacrosse players, they'd of been exonerated and back on the street much faster than were the Duke lacrosse players. Jesse, Al, and gang would have -- rightfully -- raised all kinds of stink until it was done.

Hell, their may have even been another "Crown Heights" type riot, just to make a point. They were all but threatening violence if the innocent lacrosse players weren't convicted. Imagine if you had innocent blacks facing the same dilemma.


Because we can all turn to the OJ case. It isnt so much a trial of race as it was a trial of wealth and fame. See Chris Rock's standup for a much more humorous view on it.
Not true. Johnny Cochran made it about race and the black people of America fell in line.

Even though O.J. was one of the whitest black people in history, the trial quickly became a mechanism for blacks to get one over on the white man. There were many black openly calling for acquittal in return for all the "innocent black men" that had been railroaded in the past.

Either you weren't around or you weren't paying attention. The O. J. case was headed for a guilty verdict until Furman got accused of saying ###### 10 years before.


I have seen with my own eyes black people being...(searching for the right word here)...shunned for their advancement (appropriate?).

It wasnt even a "well to do" job either. I was 18, selling furniture at a large chain here (Art Van). Very diverse workforce. There were 2 divisions of workforce. Sales and AVASI. Sales is self explanatory. AVASI represents the people in the warehouse that receive, sort, catalogue and deliver the furniture.

The second best salesmen at the store I worked at was black. We worked at a suburban store (VERY suburban). He ranked in the top 10 in the entire company in sales. Needless to say, he was successful (once you reached $40k sold, the saleperson received 8% of the amount over and above that threshold...him and his ilk were pulling down well over $100k a year. Well over).

Well, the company held a banquet every year for its top salespeople at the main store to thank them, etc. He received his award just like everyone else.

When he came back to the store the next week, the people he used to associate with in AVASI wouldnt talk to him anymore. Him and I had a good relationship, so after a awhile I asked what was up.

He explained that they were upset because he was a "company man" and had "sold out" to get ahead. When all the guy really did was live at work, bust his fucking ass everyday and take care of the customers that the other lazy-ass salespeople gave up on.

He was a black man in a white neighborhood trying to sell people things they probably didnt even need, encountering racism along the way from customers (tip: old white women dont like black people by and large, they visibly clutch their purse even when hes wearing a suit). And his own "friends" decided to hold it against him.

He didnt give 2 shits though. I worked there 2 years. He was in that banquet both years and from what I have heard, he still is.
I've seen that phenomenon too. It baffles me why blacks don't want other blacks to achieve.

As for the old white lady clutching her purse. My 80 year-old mother clutches her purse around any stranger but, particularly in the company of salespeople.

[Jamtas#2]

In the same paragraph you "vote" to move away from the Duke case while, at the same time, getting in your last word about how you believe it would have been different had the races been reversed.

Well, not so fast. As I've already stated, I don't believe they would have been different. In fact, I believe had they been poor and black and just as innocent as the lacrosse players, they'd of been exonerated and back on the street much faster than were the Duke lacrosse players. Jesse, Al, and gang would have -- rightfully -- raised all kinds of stink until it was done.


On the flip side of this, I doubt that the gang of 88 would have even been formed or had an opinion in this matter if that had been the case. There also seems to be a rush (maybe a pang of guilt due to history) to bring race as an issue by whites as well. The fact that it occurs does say something about race not only being brought up by people like Al and Jesse as you would claim.

[Yonivore]

On the flip side of this, I doubt that the gang of 88 would have even been formed or had an opinion in this matter if that had been the case.
I'm not so sure. They could have formed to villify the Durham prosecutor who was victimizing the innocent black men.


There also seems to be a rush (maybe a pang of guilt due to history) to bring race as an issue by whites as well. The fact that it occurs does say something about race not only being brought up by people like Al and Jesse as you would claim.
Example please.

[Phenomanul]

First I will commend you for the work ethic and morals you seem to have to have acheived what you have.
That being said, again there is no 100% way to classify any group. I think you would agree that there is more temptation among the lower class to steer towards crime than those who are better off financially than they are.

Think of an average guy who is married that stays faithful to his wife. Now think of someone who is famous and has women throwing themselves at him for one night stands married and remaining faithful. They could both have the same morals and values, but one has to face more temptation than the other and has a higher likelihood of "falling".

I think the same goes for financial and racial inequalities. There is more temptation due to the situations that the majority of them are in.

In terms of a 'temptation' frequency... I see your point and agree.... Nevertheless, my main point is still an absolute. People should be held accountable for their actions regardless of race, gender, culture or socio-economic status.

[Yonivore]

In terms of a 'temptation' frequency... I see your point and agree.... Nevertheless, my main point is still an absolute. People should be held accountable for their actions regardless of race, gender, culture or socio-economic status.
I agree.

Further, society shouldn't be mitigating their crimes by claiming they were driven to it because of race, gender, culture, or socio-economic status.

[Jamtas#2]

I'm not so sure. They could have formed to villify the Durham prosecutor who was victimizing the innocent black men.


Example please.

You are right, it could have happened to villify the prosecuter, but given the fact that he was trying to appeal to the African American community I doubt his tactics would have been the same.

"Example please"
I was actually using the gang of 88 as an example there. As for another one, how about Tookie Williams? (Many other aspects to this one as well, but race was definately an issue.)

[Jamtas#2]

In terms of a 'temptation' frequency... I see your point and agree.... Nevertheless, my main point is still an absolute. People should be held accountable for their actions regardless of race, gender, culture or socio-economic status.


And they will be held accountable. I agree. The discussion wasn't about (at least on my end) on whether they should be held accountable. My arguement was that it is more prone for these types of things to happen to those in the lower economic groups and ethnic groups because of their environment, not because of their race.

[Jamtas#2]

I agree.

Further, society shouldn't be mitigating their crimes by claiming they were driven to it because of race, gender, culture, or socio-economic status.


No, but they should understand what makes it more probable for these people to succumb to these crimes because of their environment. If we can address the causes of these problems, we can help to prevent them from occuring. If all of our focus is on the effects and dealing with them, we will never help to reduce the problems. (Idealistic, I know)

[Yonivore]

You are right, it could have happened to villify the prosecuter, but given the fact that he was trying to appeal to the African American community I doubt his tactics would have been the same.
I was referring to your hypothetical of things being reversed.

I happen to believe the group of 88 would have found some way to insinuate themselves into the matter.



"Example please"
I was actually using the gang of 88 as an example there. As for another one, how about Tookie Williams? (Many other aspects to this one as well, but race was definately an issue.)
I'm understanding you to say that whites have interjected race into some of these debates?

If that's what you were expressing, I'm still not clear to what you are referring. The group of 88 interceded as a proxy for the black community -- identifying with the blacks, you know, kind of like Clinton pretending to be the first Black President.

As for Tookie Williams. I'm not sure in what respect race played a role. I'm not that familiar with the case. Isn't he and ex gang banger that was executed for killing a cop? When was race brought up except may by those who were claiming he was only being executed because he was black.

[Yonivore]

No, but they should understand what makes it more probable for these people to succumb to these crimes because of their environment.
Who should understand?

The victims of their crimes? They want justice.

The government? They should dispense it.

Who exactly should understand?


If we can address the causes of these problems, we can help to prevent them from occuring. If all of our focus is on the effects and dealing with them, we will never help to reduce the problems. (Idealistic, I know)
I don't think anyone outside the black community would be able to address the root causes and, apparently, the black community isn't willing to do so themselves.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's simple. Let's kill the darkies.

[Jamtas#2]

Who should understand?

The victims of their crimes? They want justice.

The government? They should dispense it.

Who exactly should understand?

The people who want to blame the problem on race should understand there's a different reasoning.


I don't think anyone outside the black community would be able to address the root causes and, apparently, the black community isn't willing to do so themselves.

Well, the white population hasn't been able to get rid of white supremacists, and lynch mobs were stopped by law enforcement and government, not white leaders speaking out. I don't think it is right to expect the black community to address and solve a problem that affects everyone, and requires change across all race lines.

[Jamtas#2]

BTW,
I completly understand the mindset you are coming from. Everyone has a moral compass and has the ability to choose from right and wrong and needs to live with the consequences of their actions.

Where we disagree is I believe there is a lot of gray area which affects the choices that people make. Your mindset makes perfect sense in a perfect world, much like socialism does. The problem is, it's not a perfect world and there are many factors that affect things.

[Yonivore]

The people who want to blame the problem on race should understand there's a different reasoning.
I blame it on a lack personal responsibility and a culture that allows, indeed rewards, that irresponsibility.


Well, the white population hasn't been able to get rid of white supremacists,...
They've been sufficiently marginalized.


...and lynch mobs were stopped by law enforcement and government, not white leaders speaking out.
Were there not white leaders that passed those laws and enforced them?


I don't think it is right to expect the black community to address and solve a problem that affects everyone, and requires change across all race lines.
Okay, just what change could I, as a white person, make that would get the black culture to stop the cycle of violence in their own community; to quit glorifying that violence in their art; and to quit punishing achievement, among their own, as being "too white?"

Seriously. What could I do?


BTW,
I completly understand the mindset you are coming from. Everyone has a moral compass and has the ability to choose from right and wrong and needs to live with the consequences of their actions.
I appreciate that.


Where we disagree is I believe there is a lot of gray area which affects the choices that people make. Your mindset makes perfect sense in a perfect world, much like socialism does. The problem is, it's not a perfect world and there are many factors that affect things.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Only in the black culture is it acceptable for the entire community (draggin many liberals with them) to rise and take the cause of a person -- simply because of their race -- and regardless of whether the cause is just or not; O. J. Simpson, Tawayna Brawley, Rodney King, The Durham Stripper (sorry, her name escapes me), and the list goes on...

If you oppose them, you're a racist. Hell, if you just happen to stumble upon their displays of outrage, you're liable to suffer their wrath -- just ask Reginald Denny.

[Marcus Bryant]

Something tells me that if this happened in a trailer park on the 4th of July and Juan or whoever hit Jim Bob and Luann's kid (who the fuck lets their 2 year old wander out onto a road?) that the results could very well have been the same.

The social problems this incident highlights are how large groups can encourage individuals to feel emboldened to commit acts of violence and perhaps the weak parenting skills of the poor. Otherwise, I'm not sure why we are putting African-Americans in concentration camps or whatever it is that Yonivore is advocating.

[Yonivore]

Something tells me that if this happened in a trailer park on the 4th of July and Juan or whoever hit Jim Bob and Luann's kid (who the fuck lets their 2 year old wander out onto a road?) that the results could very well have been the same.

The social problems this incident highlights are how large groups can encourage individuals to feel emboldened to commit acts of violence and perhaps the weak parenting skills of the poor. Otherwise, I'm not sure why we are putting African-Americans in concentration camps or whatever it is that Yonivore is advocating.
You were paying attention. :rolleyes

[Jamtas#2]

Were there not white leaders that passed those laws and enforced them?


Were they not the government? Isn't that who you are saying has no place in settling racial disputes?

[Yonivore]

Were they not the government?
In America, people are the government. Were it not for white leaders -- both in government service and out, none of that would have occurred.


Isn't that who you are saying has no place in settling racial disputes?
I also said their efforts were noble and right-minded, even if they contributed to problem in the long run.

Government's role is to ensure constitutional protection and opportunities. It is not their role to make me hire you, let you in my club, or even like you.

[Jamtas#2]

Okay, just what change could I, as a white person, make that would get the black culture to stop the cycle of violence in their own community; to quit glorifying that violence in their art; and to quit punishing achievement, among their own, as being "too white?"

Seriously. What could I do?


I'm not saying you personally in this instance. You were saying this is just a job for the black community to solve. While you personally may not be able to influence change in the racial community, we (all races) can help address the economic issues that are more of a contributing factor to all of this. How many riots have you seen involving wealthy minorities (or majority)?


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.
Only in the black culture is it acceptable for the entire community (draggin many liberals with them) to rise and take the cause of a person -- simply because of their race -- and regardless of whether the cause is just or not; O. J. Simpson, Tawayna Brawley, Rodney King, The Durham Stripper (sorry, her name escapes me), and the list goes on...
If you oppose them, you're a racist. Hell, if you just happen to stumble upon their displays of outrage, you're liable to suffer their wrath -- just ask Reginald Denny.

You do have a point. There are race baiters in the African American community. But tell me, do you not understand their mistrust of our government and law enforcement? Do you remember the Tuskegee Experiment? People like Al and Jesse sure do. It's a hard thing to forget.

[Jamtas#2]

In America, people are the government. Were it not for white leaders -- both in government service and out, none of that would have occurred.

And were it not for white leaders of generations past, the slavery and discrimination would not have occurred either.



I also said their efforts were noble and right-minded, even if they contributed to problem in the long run.

Government's role is to ensure constitutional protection and opportunities. It is not their role to make me hire you, let you in my club, or even like you.

Ok, but where do we draw the line on this slippery slope. Your club is a private business and you can discriminate who you want because it is yours. So all private companies could exclude the hiring of African Americans, Hispanics, etc. Don't you think this would start to limit the job opportunities of minorities? Especially the higher paying ones?

[Yonivore]

I'm not saying you personally in this instance. You were saying this is just a job for the black community to solve. While you personally may not be able to influence change in the racial community, we (all races) can help address the economic issues that are more of a contributing factor to all of this.
How?


How many riots have you seen involving wealthy minorities (or majority)?
I believe someone mentioned the WTO nonsense in this thread. They're comprised of people of mixed means and races.

But, I understand your point. And, really, isn't that kind of the point in this thread? To turn the question around on you; how many poor minorities -- other than blacks -- (or majorities) have instigated riots in the past 40-45 years?


You do have a point. There are race baiters in the African American community. But tell me, do you not understand their mistrust of our government and law enforcement? Do you remember the Tuskegee Experiment? People like Al and Jesse sure do. It's a hard thing to forget.
Of course they do, it serves their purpose to remember such things.

But, the black community is either going to have to trust or remain isolated. I don't see anyone offering anything even close to the Tuskegee Experiment, lately. Do you?

[Yonivore]

And were it not for white leaders of generations past, the slavery and discrimination would not have occurred either.
So? Doesn't that mean whites have at least progressed?


Ok, but where do we draw the line on this slippery slope. Your club is a private business and you can discriminate who you want because it is yours.
I tell you where you draw the line. You draw the line with entities that hope to have any sort of commercial relationship with the federal government.

If you're a government contractor, supplier, or employer; you may not discriminate for any "accident of birth." Period.

That's where you draw the line.

If you sink your own time, treasure, and talent into a private business, you should have every right to share that enterprise with anyone you choose for any reason.


So all private companies could exclude the hiring of African Americans, Hispanics, etc. Don't you think this would start to limit the job opportunities of minorities? Especially the higher paying ones?
In this day and age with CEO's like Oprah Winfrey. No.

I don't believe society would allow it to occur. In fact, I believe companies that choose to discriminate, for reasons beyond the employees control, would be marginalized and eventually suffer or fail.

We won't ever know unless you stop the preferential treatment of minorities.

[Jamtas#2]

How?


Raising the minimum wage, making health care more affordable, restructuring the drug war to go after the suppliers and nations that produce the drugs rather than making the majority of our focus on catching the low level street dealers. Take away their employers, and drug dealers won't have jobs. (or the legalization process that would eliminate their positions as well, another debate for another time)


But, I understand your point. And, really, isn't that kind of the point in this thread? To turn the question around on you; how many poor minorities -- other than blacks -- (or majorities) have instigated riots in the past 40-45 years?

I really can't answer that question unfortunately. I can't speak intelligently of all the riots over the past 40 years. I don't consider the attack on the car to be a riot as much of a mob incident. But to turn that question around, can you tell me of a majority other than whites in this country who have enslaved another race and used their government to create laws to hold that group down?

[Yonivore]

Raising the minimum wage, making health care more affordable, restructuring the drug war to go after the suppliers and nations that produce the drugs rather than making the majority of our focus on catching the low level street dealers. Take away their employers, and drug dealers won't have jobs. (or the legalization process that would eliminate their positions as well, another debate for another time)
It's all been tried and the problem continues to worsen...

Mind you, I'm opposed to any of your suggestions but, that's not to say they haven't been proposed and tried before...they have.

I do, however, agree that the War on Drugs is a fiasco that should be ended with the decriminalization of drugs. But, that would help more than the black community.


I really can't answer that question unfortunately. I can't speak intelligently of all the riots over the past 40 years. I don't consider the attack on the car to be a riot as much of a mob incident.
Riot/Mob -- your quibbling. But, I understand the distinction you're making. I'm just arguing it could have easily turned into a riot but for early intervention.


But to turn that question around, can you tell me of a majority other than whites in this country who have enslaved another race and used their government to create laws to hold that group down?
Well, not a majority but; allow me to answer anyway. Yes, Africans. Many of the true African-Americans, here now, are immigrants from slave-practicing countries or are the decendants of Africans who sold other Africans into slavery during the hey day of the Slave trade.

That's why the reparations nonsense is just that, nonsense. There's no way to separate the guilty from the innocent. There are many non-blacks that absolutely nothing to do with slavery. And there are many blacks that a lot to do with slavery. And, over a centurty later, there's not way to extricate the truth or divvy up retribution.

I don't know the exact percentage but, I'm told the percentage of Aftrican Americans whose families were ever impacted by the slave trade is quite small. And, you have to figure in those that were involved as slave traders -- and not slaves.

[Jamtas#2]

So? Doesn't that mean whites have at least progressed?


It sure does, but you have to understand that the hundreds of years of oppression and discrimination does not just come screeching to a halt because the laws were changed. The mindsets of many on both sides of the racial lines remained, and were passed down to their children.



I tell you where you draw the line. You draw the line with entities that hope to have any sort of commercial relationship with the federal government.
If you're a government contractor, supplier, or employer; you may not discriminate for any "accident of birth." Period.
That's where you draw the line.
If you sink your own time, treasure, and talent into a private business, you should have every right to share that enterprise with anyone you choose for any reason.
In this day and age with CEO's like Oprah Winfrey. No.
I don't believe society would allow it to occur. In fact, I believe companies that choose to discriminate, for reasons beyond the employees control, would be marginalized and eventually suffer or fail.
We won't ever know unless you stop the preferential treatment of minorities.

Saying that you can't discriminate based on race is not preferential treatment. That is equality.

[Yonivore]

It sure does, but you have to understand that the hundreds of years of oppression and discrimination does not just come screeching to a halt because the laws were changed. The mindsets of many on both sides of the racial lines remained, and were passed down to their children.
That's hogwash. Sorry, but it is.

There's absolutely nothing preventing the black community from joining the rest of society.


Saying that you can't discriminate based on race is not preferential treatment. That is equality.
No, that's a violation of my constitutional right to free association.

Saying that government can't discriminate, based on race, is equality. In fact -- you can find it the Constitution.

[Yonivore]

It sure does, but you have to understand that the hundreds of years of oppression and discrimination does not just come screeching to a halt because the laws were changed. The mindsets of many on both sides of the racial lines remained, and were passed down to their children.
Your statement suggests we should be just as understanding of former oppressors and bigots.

See why it's hogwash?

After all, should we allow bigots to slowly emerge for their centuries of bigotry and discrimination?

New rules, everyone's expected to play by 'em.

[UV Ray]

I think it's a combination of that culture glorifying violence, degrading women, destroying families, isolating themselves from the rest of society, and suppressing achievement among their own…..

I don't believe the current dysfunction in the black community is due to oppression or poverty. I believe it has it roots in the culture being insulated from criticism by the race-baiters completely vilifying any person, as a bigot and racist, that dare say anything negative about black culture...

All of a sudden, any criticism is racism and all negative acts are born of racism. The current generation has been raised to believe this and it's reinforced by every "reverend" in every major city that jumps on the race card whenever something untoward befalls a black person...


I agree and it certainly doesn’t help when a successful member of the black community, such as Cosby, is chastised for criticism of black youth culture and parenting.


I think Asian immigrants -- from the Vietnamese boat people to Chinese political refugees -- are an excellent example of how a culture dropped itself into a strange land, overcame racism and bigotry, and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps.

For 250 years, blacks were to a large degree cultureless, except for slave culture. Any positive value of tribal culture was for the most part lost or of little value due to conditions of slavery, i.e. destruction of cultural institutions like, family, tradition, customs and values. Development of positive cultural values that lend themselves to the long-term survival and the ability to assimilate can take thousands of years. Who would argue that any people enslaved for so long could be expected to enthusiastically adopt a culture that for the most part rejected and used them.

The problem seems to stem from black rejection of a white cultural identity that is perceived as having enslaved and discriminated. How likely would you be to trust and adopt the cultural identity of the very people you perceive as having limited yours and your ancestors opportunity? The fix was in for a long time.


I do believe the big difference here is that blacks somehow hold me responsible -- because I'm white -- for the oppression of their ancestors and they think I owe them something for the trouble my ancestors may or may not have caused their ancestors.

Right or wrong, many probably do “somehow hold you responsible” as a cultural beneficiary. Time wise some whites had a 250-year head start in cultural opportunity, and that‘s not counting comparisons of cultural development before slavery or the segregation and discrimination since the Civil War.


The Vietnamese, many of whom suffered through a war involving our troops in their country, came here -- dealt with the racism directed at them -- and have come much farther than blacks, in the basically the same amount of time.

Comparing Vietnamese culture with a formerly enslaved and emerging black culture reveals little more than the long-term devastating effects of slavery on cultural development and assimilation.

[Marcus Bryant]

Those blacks like to riot and start shit. You can find it in the Constitution.

[Yonivore]

Those blacks like to riot and start shit. You can find it in the Constitution.
You're really adding to the conversation. Thanks.

[Marcus Bryant]

When it's a "conversation" like this, fuck yeah I'm adding to it. Go ahead and try to hide your hatred of blacks all you want. Your true colors are shining through.

[Yonivore]

When it's a "conversation" like this, fuck yeah I'm adding to it. Go ahead and try to hide your hatred of blacks all you want. Your true colors are shining through.
No, yours are. But, that's okay.

[Marcus Bryant]

Yeah, you're right. I'm not going to take an isolated incident and use it to condemn all members of a certain race. We get it, you hate African-Americans.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, you're right. I'm not going to take an isolated incident and use it to condemn all members of a certain race. We get it, you hate African-Americans.
No, you don't get it. And that, too, is okay. Not everyone is able to keep up.

[gtownspur]

Yeah, you're right. I'm not going to take an isolated incident and use it to condemn all members of a certain race. We get it, you hate African-Americans.


He's not condemning all members of a certain race, he's criticizing it's culture. Too very different things because skin color does not necessarily determine culture. Africans are alot different that the american version so he's not implying skin tone. So put your Rolling thunder hear my Cry novel away and spare everyone the lynching photos, because the truth of the matter is, that no one got lynched here and no one was provoked. The only victim at this rally was the hispanic man in it.

I don't get it, 80 percent of blacks thought OJ was innoccent contrary to every other ethnicity who thought he was guilty. Don't act as if Black culture is sainted and pure unlike all the others. Let's not act as if the black culture is not at fault for some of it's ailments.

And for you to try to come on this forum and try to paint Yoni and others as the extreme nuts to deflect from your own conservative history, is pretty pathetic. Now you're posting Joe Biden's weblog advertisements for shits and giggles.

It seems like the Victoria crowd blackmailed MB into being a pansy moderate. I guess the rumors of the pictures with MB covered in Sperms was true afterall.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm speaking my mind. I'll let you worry about Photoshop. It's obvious what you two are about and it's disgusting.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, you're right. I'm not going to take an isolated incident and use it to condemn all members of a certain race. We get it, you hate African-Americans.
So, when did I condemn all members of a certain race? And, no, I don't hate African-Americans.

[gtownspur]

I'm speaking my mind. I'll let you worry about Photoshop. It's obvious what you two are about and it's disgusting.


:dramaquee ,YEah, i was working on der final solution, when all of the sudden i ran out of A&W to compliment my meat lovers hand tossed pizza. Aw the stress of running a hatemongering empire needs to take a backseat to provolone and canadian bacon every now and then...

[gtownspur]

I'm speaking my mind. I'll let you worry about Photoshop. It's obvious what you two are about and it's disgusting.


Plus, you're just a self loathing douche, and you don't know what you're talking about. If latinos were doing the same i'd condemn them too. And they actually are walking down the same path.



Why don't you stick to getting owned by Mookie and Lamarcus Bryant.

[Marcus Bryant]

Oh no, the two resident bigots of the Political Forum are mad.

Of course, gtown is a latino white supremacist, which makes him all the more sad. Plus he seems to have an infatuation with men and sperm.

You guys aren't conservatives, but racists ready to condemn an entire race over the actions of a few.

[Yonivore]

Oh no, the two resident bigots of the Political Forum are mad.
You're as bad at judging emotions as you are at judging character and reading forums.


You guys aren't conservatives,
You're right.


...but racists ready to condemn an entire race over the actions of a few.
You're wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

Marcus is dead-on correct.

[gtownspur]

Oh no, the two resident bigots of the Political Forum are mad.

Of course, gtown is a latino white supremacist, which makes him all the more sad. Plus he seems to have an infatuation with men and sperm.

You guys aren't conservatives, but racists ready to condemn an entire race over the actions of a few.


I love that "latino white supremacist tag" how did you pull that out of your ass?

THis has nothing to do with skin color, but the culture and attitude of urban blacks how have a victim mentality. I think we've established that 20 post ago.

But now you're way to infuriated with the fact that Mookie and Cbf do have a picture of yourself covered in sperms. I think that picture put you away from the political forum for a while.

So while you might be a very experienced poster, one time feeling butthurt and you'll disappear like the bitch you are..

[gtownspur]

Marcus is dead-on correct.

Good, stay on the pro marcus camp. He needs your approval.

[ChumpDumper]

Not really, we usually don't get along well -- but right is right.

[gtownspur]

Not really, we usually don't get along well -- but right is right.


He's calling people names, and mischaracterizing, i guess that's what you mean by right. You both seem to have so much in common.

[ChumpDumper]

I haven't seen a mischaracterization from him in this particular thread.

[gtownspur]

I haven't seen a mischaracterization from him in this particular thread.


You would probably have to read the thread first before you just hop and pist on people, which would be to much to overcome because that's just your own pathetic nature.

[ChumpDumper]

You would probably have to read the thread firstAlready did. His characterization is accurate.

[gtownspur]

Already did. His characterization is accurate.

You probably skipped the comprehension and critical thinking. Don't even bother. Here's a dancing elephant to get those dying population of brain cells active. :elephant

[Yonivore]

Back on topic:

The desperate Jesse Jackson (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Jackson_Arrested.html)

I guess race hustlin’ is getting pretty difficult. The "Reverend" Jesse Jackson has sunk to picketing an Illinois gun shop–to protest the murder of a young black man by black gang-bangers:


The Rev. Jesse Jackson was arrested Saturday at a demonstration outside a south suburban gun shop and charged with one count of criminal trespass to property.

Jackson was arrested when he refused to move away from the entrance to Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, police said. He has protested with other community activists outside the shop in recent weeks after a 16-year-old honor student was gunned down on a city bus.

Police said the shooting was gang-related but the teen was not the intended target.

Jackson, who says the gun shop’s proximity to Chicago provides gang members and criminals easy access to firearms, has used the protests to call for stricter gun laws.
Reduced to harrassing a gun shop instead of facing down the black gangs that are terrorizing innocent, Chicago-area students and spilling their blood. Always the consummate opportunist, Jesse Jackson once again reveals what an increasingly irrelevant moral coward he has become.

MLK must be spinning in his grave about now—knowing that his civil rights legacy has been hijacked and distorted into unrecogizability by a self-promoting, race-baiting poverty pimp named Jesse Jackson.

[ChumpDumper]

He's relevant only because you bring him up all the time. I wouldn't have known about this unless you posted it.

Was Cameron Diaz there too?

[Jamtas#2]

Well, not a majority but; allow me to answer anyway. Yes, Africans. Many of the true African-Americans, here now, are immigrants from slave-practicing countries or are the decendants of Africans who sold other Africans into slavery during the hey day of the Slave trade.

That's why the reparations nonsense is just that, nonsense. There's no way to separate the guilty from the innocent. There are many non-blacks that absolutely nothing to do with slavery. And there are many blacks that a lot to do with slavery. And, over a centurty later, there's not way to extricate the truth or divvy up retribution.

I don't know the exact percentage but, I'm told the percentage of Aftrican Americans whose families were ever impacted by the slave trade is quite small. And, you have to figure in those that were involved as slave traders -- and not slaves.

Well, reparations is a whole nother topic. Bringing up the African slave traders is reaching into another country. If we are going to expand this topic globally than your earlier statement is easy to refute. You can look all around the globe and see riots of all ethnicities on a pretty equal basis (white/arab eurpoeans, arabs in the middle east, whites in Soviet Union, Hispanics in Central and South America, etc), not just the African community.


Back on topic:
The desperate Jesse Jackson
I guess race hustlin’ is getting pretty difficult. The "Reverend" Jesse Jackson has sunk to picketing an Illinois gun shop–to protest the murder of a young black man by black gang-bangers:

This is actually not back on topic. The topic of our conversation was whether or not there was something in the african community that made them prone to rioting. I agree the that race baiting does a disservice to us all.

I guess the main position on where we disagree and seem to keep going around on is that I believe that the past oppression and discrimintation play a role in how the African Community was shaped and how it is today. I am understanding you to believe that you agree that the oppression and discrimination was a bad thing, but it has no bearing on where the African American community has evolved to today.

[Yonivore]

I guess the main position on where we disagree and seem to keep going around on is that I believe that the past oppression and discrimintation play a role in how the African Community was shaped and how it is today. I am understanding you to believe that you agree that the oppression and discrimination was a bad thing, but it has no bearing on where the African American community has evolved to today.
That's a fair assessment except I would not say it has no bearing on where the African American community has evolved to today. Instead, I would say the day is long past when the black community has the luxury of blaming past evils on its current cultural failures. You can only lean on a crutch for so long.

Alluding to something said earlier in the thread:

If racists and bigots -- and maybe those who were neither but, none-the-less, adopted politically incorrect terms or concepts before they were politically incorrect, (for instance, my grandmother whose best friend was black called blacks "Nigras" 'til her dying day) -- are expected to infallibly tow the racially correct line, without exception -- with no grace; then blacks should be expected to accept that the law treats them equally and that they now have -- and have had for some time now -- the same opportunities as everyone else. They should be expected to quit leaning on their poor oppressed history as a crutch for not achieving in the here and now.

You, by claiming the oppressed history of their ancestors is an excuse for their cultural failures today is just as bad. Particularly in light of the many blacks who have emerged from that culture and excelled. I believe that view is racist in that it say, but for some unequal concession or preference in the law, black people cannot achieve. That is the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and black who have achieved should be offended by that position.

Instead, many blacks will -- at the least provocation or, sometimes, with mistaken provocation -- scream racism at the top of their lungs. Anybody here remember the poor bean counter in D.C. who almost lost his job and became a national poster boy for racism simply because he used the contextually proper term "niggardly" during a budget meeting.

Being held back by "The Man" is no longer a valid rationale for the current culture in the black community.

[Extra Stout]

That's a fair assessment except I would not say it has no bearing on where the African American community has evolved to today. Instead, I would say the day is long past when the black community has the luxury of blaming past evils on its current cultural failures. You can only lean on a crutch for so long.

In a sense, I would agree with some of this. While white racism has played a big role in the present-day cultural dysfunction of the black community, stamping out racism by itself isn't going to solve the problems. Take white people completely out of the equation, and the predominance of single-parent families, devaluement of education, black-on-black crime, misogyny, stigmatization of achievement, self-loathing, etc., still remain, even to whatever degree those cultural tendencies were brought about by past racism.

So how do we begin to change course of these kinds of cultural issues?

[Yonivore]

In a sense, I would agree with some of this. While white racism has played a big role in the present-day cultural dysfunction of the black community, stamping out racism by itself isn't going to solve the problems. Take white people completely out of the equation, and the predominance of single-parent families, devaluement of education, black-on-black crime, misogyny, stigmatization of achievement, self-loathing, etc., still remain, even to whatever degree those cultural tendencies were brought about by past racism.

So how do we begin to change course of these kinds of cultural issues?
First of all, I think you quit excusing the behaviors...then, you encourage the rational black people to work hard to discredit the race pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

It'd be nice if, every now and then, when Al Sharption stood beside the Tawana Brawley du jour, another prominent black would stand up and call him the race pimp he is.

That'd be a nice start.

[Marcus Bryant]

Since 'they' are obviously subhuman, how about extermination?

[Yonivore]

Since 'they' are obviously subhuman, how about extermination?
Once again, relevant commentary from MB.

[Marcus Bryant]

Very relevant given your "perspective".

[Yonivore]

Very relevant given your "perspective".
I'm not the one suggesting blacks are subhuman and should be exterminated. You are.

[Marcus Bryant]

You've all but said it. The mongrel race must be destroyed.

[Yonivore]

You've all but said it. The mongrel race must be destroyed.
No I haven't.

I hope you're getting tutored on your reading comprehension.

[Marcus Bryant]

No I haven't.

I hope you're getting tutored on your reading comprehension.


Yeah, I guess it's hard to comprehend:


Is there a race, other than blacks, that routinely does this?

Followed by "examples" to substantiate the "routine" claim with two of those events having occurred over 15 years ago.

You obviously have a problem getting past your own personal racial hatred. Seek counseling.

[Extra Stout]

First of all, I think you quit excusing the behaviors...then, you encourage the rational black people to work hard to discredit the race pimps like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

It'd be nice if, every now and then, when Al Sharption stood beside the Tawana Brawley du jour, another prominent black would stand up and call him the race pimp he is.

That'd be a nice start.
That's just regurgitated oversimplified right-wing boilerplate. If it were that easy to solve the problem, there wouldn't be a Third World.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, I guess it's hard to comprehend:

Is there a race, other than blacks, that routinely does this?
Followed by "examples" to substantiate the "routine" claim with two of those events having occurred over 15 years ago.
And, you extrapolate this to a call for the extermination of blacks? Yeah, I'd say you need some tutoring.

And, of course you responded with examples of when other races have routinely rioted over the same time period.

[Jamtas#2]

You, by claiming the oppressed history of their ancestors is an excuse for their cultural failures today is just as bad. Particularly in light of the many blacks who have emerged from that culture and excelled. I believe that view is racist in that it say, but for some unequal concession or preference in the law, black people cannot achieve. That is the "soft bigotry of low expectations" and black who have achieved should be offended by that position.


Ok, that is your misperception of my arguement. I am not making an "excuse" for the behaviors that you have cited. Nowhere did I say that the riots you have cited are excusable because of past racism. I am trying to provide an insight as to why those behaviors have occured (stemming from your original question), and yes it ultimately comes down to a personal choice. But understanding past actions that helped to form their economic status as a whole helps to give perspective as to present culture.

[Yonivore]

Ok, that is your misperception of my arguement. I am not making an "excuse" for the behaviors that you have cited. Nowhere did I say that the riots you have cited are excusable because of past racism. I am trying to provide an insight as to why those behaviors have occured (stemming from your original question), and yes it ultimately comes down to a personal choice. But understanding past actions that helped to form their economic status as a whole helps to give perspective as to present culture.
So, what does giving a perspective as to the present culture do for us?

[Jamtas#2]

So, what does giving a perspective as to the present culture do for us?

It means it is not an inherinet genetic quality, but rather a product of environment.

[Yonivore]

It means it is not an inherinet genetic quality, but rather a product of environment.
Again, I never claimed it was genetic.

[Extra Stout]

It'd be nice if, every now and then, when Al Sharption stood beside the Tawana Brawley du jour, another prominent black would stand up and call him the race pimp he is.

That'd be a nice start.
Like the Obama campaign did?

Sharpton is always going to appeal to uneducated blacks, who don't have a nuanced or thoughful expression of their frustration, just as the Pat Robertsons of the world will always appeal to unsophisticated white evangelicals. In that way, Sharpton is always going to have a means to make money, and because he is a demagogue who riles white people up, the mainstream press is going to follow him around.

But by no means should you think that just because their opinions haven't been spoon-fed to you to the media, that prominent blacks respected in their own community march in lockstep with people like Sharpton.

[Extra Stout]

And, of course you responded with examples of when other races have routinely rioted over the same time period.
Outside the United States, riots by all races, almost always from the underclasses, are common and well-documented.

[Marcus Bryant]

And, you extrapolate this to a call for the extermination of blacks? .

Yes. Given that you are so willing to turn one relatively minor event into the condemnation of an entire race, genocide is your destination.



Yeah, I'd say you need some tutoring

Says the redneck with a broadband connection.




And, of course you responded with examples of when other races have routinely rioted over the same time period.

Keep up the good fight in the race war.

[Jamtas#2]

So, what does giving a perspective as to the present culture do for us?



There's not a black alive today that was a slave and I dare say, they don't even know what discrimination is, in the face of their Jim Crow suffering ancestors. They have preferential treatment in employment, in lending, in education, etc...
It's against the fucking law to discriminate against a black person...and has been for a number of decades now. We have black CEO's, black Congressmen, Black mayors, Black Senators, Black Governors, you name it and there's a black doing it. Look at Oprah for God's sake! Queen of the fucking universe!
There's no discrimination against blacks. There is, however, discrimination against thugs.
What social inequities do they suffer today?
That's bullshit. They're dragging out the race card for as long as they can because they believe it justifies their atrocious actions.

You asked what social inequities do they suffer today.
The actions of the past shape the present and created the social inequities of today.

[Yonivore]

Like the Obama campaign did?
Refresh my memory.

But, one instance doesn't negate the decades of this pimping.


Sharpton is always going to appeal to uneducated blacks, who don't have a nuanced or thoughful expression of their frustration, just as the Pat Robertsons of the world will always appeal to unsophisticated white evangelicals. In that way, Sharpton is always going to have a means to make money, and because he is a demagogue who riles white people up, the mainstream press is going to follow him around.

But by no means should you think that just because their opinions haven't been spoon-fed to you to the media, that prominent blacks respected in their own community march in lockstep with people like Sharpton.
I think the basic difference in what you bring up is that media coverage of Sharpton and Jackson, when they are race pimping, tends to be biased towards lending credibility and import to what's pouring out of their mouths whereas media coverage of Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell tends to be from the perspective of look how crazy these people are and here -- we'll provide an opposing view just to show you.

Sure, they both get covered but, I think press coverage of Jackson and Sharpton tends to be of the support kind where that of evangelicals tends to be of the critical kind.

[Yonivore]

You asked what social inequities do they suffer today.
The actions of the past shape the present and created the social inequities of today.
Again, that's hogwash.

You're basically saying the social inequities are figments of their imagination borne of past wrongs.

What are the real, tangible, social inequities of today. Where, in society, will blacks experience these inequities?

[Marcus Bryant]

Again, that's hogwash.

You're basically saying the social inequities are figments of their imagination borne of past wrongs.

What are the real, tangible, social inequities of today. Where, in society, will blacks experience these inequities?

Whenever they come into contact with you, for starters.

[Yonivore]

Whenever they come into contact with you, for starters.
Nope. I've never discriminated against a black person because of their race. Sorry, care to try again?

[Marcus Bryant]

Nope. I've never discriminated against a black person because of their race.

Obviously.

[Yonivore]

Obviously.
I don't think you have a firm grasp on what is racism or discrimination.

[Marcus Bryant]

Actually, I do. Your initial post in this thread is a prime example.

[Yonivore]

Actually, I do. Your initial post in this thread is a prime example.
As I said, you don't know what is racism or discrimination.

[Jamtas#2]

Again, that's hogwash.

You're basically saying the social inequities are figments of their imagination borne of past wrongs.

What are the real, tangible, social inequities of today. Where, in society, will blacks experience these inequities?


I don't see how that is hogwash. The past shapes the present. Your childhood made you the person you are today. The history of your parents had a direct influence on how they raised you.
Saying that the actions of the past have no bearing on the present is hogwash in my opinion.

[Yonivore]

I don't see how that is hogwash. The past shapes the present. Your childhood made you the person you are today. The history of your parents had a direct influence on how they raised you.
Saying that the actions of the past have no bearing on the present is hogwash in my opinion.
I was referring to there being current social inequities.

You said the past shapes the present and "created" the social inequities of today.

I'm simply trying to identify what social inequities, of today, you claim were created by the past.

[Jamtas#2]

...and I'm not in any way saying it is a figment of their imaginations. The social inequities are a very real thing. The inequities may or may not still be created today (not the topic) but the inequities of the past very much shaped the present.

[PixelPusher]

I don't think you have a firm grasp on what is racism or discrimination.

rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective


...the wrath of all the politically-correct race baiters in the forum, I'm going to ask the obvious.

Is there a race, other than blacks, that routinely does this?

Texas Crowd Kills Man After Car Hits Kid (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PSKSDO0&show_article=1)

Police Release More Detail About Juneteenth Violence (http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/8092297.html)

Fights mar Juneteenth celebration in Syracuse (http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1182070664184630.xml&coll=1)

Then, in just thinking back...two other prominent cases pop up.

Reginald Denny after the L.A. verdicts and Al Sharpton's Crown Heights nonsense.

Anybody see a trend here?

[Marcus Bryant]

As I said, you don't know what is racism or discrimination.

Disparaging an entire race over the actions of a few across a couple of decades is a good start.

As I said, you're a blowhard redneck with a broadband connection who represents himself as a "conservative" and who unfortunately has taken up residence in this forum.

[Jamtas#2]

I was referring to there being current social inequities.

You said the past shapes the present and "created" the social inequities of today.

I'm simply trying to identify what social inequities, of today, you claim were created by the past.


Well, current economic conditions are a direct result. Generations who were denied entrance into academic institutions weren't automatically "qualified" to now compete with white America the second the civil rights act was instituted. Thus many were forced into lower paying jobs. AS you know it is not impossible for those in lower income ranges to go to college and compete, but it is far more difficult for them to do so and as in white society, less of the lower income go on to college (this is not to say there are those who don't, but not the majority) Now because of this, generation after generation goes through the same struggle, with some persevering to overcome it. The current situation is much better than it was 40 years ago, but it is by no way on the same playing field as say those who have had hundreds of years out of oppression to get to this point.

[Yonivore]

Disparaging an entire race over the actions of a few across a couple of decades is a good start.
I asked a simple question which, by the way, didn't even pretend to disparage an entire race. I can't help it if, in your inability to answer it, you can only resort to calling me a racist.

And, to be fair, I changed the nature of the conversation to one about culture and not race, explaining that my initial post was a knee-jerk response to an act of mob violence, perpetrated by blacks, here in Austin.

I still believe the instances of mob violence, perpetrated since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have, vastly, been at the instigation of blacks.

Instead of calling me a racist, prove me wrong.


As I said, you're a blowhard redneck with a broadband connection who represents himself as a "conservative" and who unfortunately has taken up residence in this forum.
Once again, demonstrating you know nothing about me.

[ChumpDumper]

I still believe the instances of mob violence, perpetrated since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have, vastly, been at the instigation of blacks.

Instead of calling me a racist, prove me wrong.How about you prove yourself right first?

[Extra Stout]

I think the basic difference in what you bring up is that media coverage of Sharpton and Jackson, when they are race pimping, tends to be biased towards lending credibility and import to what's pouring out of their mouths whereas media coverage of Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell tends to be from the perspective of look how crazy these people are and here -- we'll provide an opposing view just to show you.

Sure, they both get covered but, I think press coverage of Jackson and Sharpton tends to be of the support kind where that of evangelicals tends to be of the critical kind.
It depends on the kind of media you're referring to. Left-wing media will tend to give Sharpton a pass on his nonsense, while right-wing media will call him a race-baiting bastard. Right-wing media will ignore Robertson's less socially acceptable utterances, while left-wing media will call him a theocratic racist.

[Extra Stout]

I still believe the instances of mob violence, perpetrated since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have, vastly, been at the instigation of blacks.

Instead of calling me a racist, prove me wrong.
And as we have established previously, in the U.S. of 2007, in most of the instances where the poor are crowded together in urban areas, providing the conditions ripe for riots to occur, those urban poor are black.

There are also a fair number of Hispanic riots. Again, urban poor. In fact, the most frequent riots are in prisons between black and Hispanic inmates.

There aren't a great many white urban poor in this country. The centers of white poverty are rural areas in the South and in Appalachia.

So the instances of rioting have to do with people being poor and huddled together in cities, not with people being black.

[Yonivore]

Well, current economic conditions are a direct result. Generations who were denied entrance into academic institutions weren't automatically "qualified" to now compete with white America the second the civil rights act was instituted.
The percentage of college bound blacks has dropped since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Explain that.

You do realize blacks weren't barred from attending college, right? Just certain colleges. And, while that was wrong, it didn't prevent them from getting a good education should they have chosen to.

The United Negro College Fund was founded in 1944. Many black business leaders of today were college-educated prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Thus many were forced into lower paying jobs. AS you know it is not impossible for those in lower income ranges to go to college and compete,...
Please. Business successes -- both black and white -- abound with rags-to-riches stories of how these people overcame their poor, squalid upbringings to be successful.


but it is far more difficult for them to do so and as in white society, less of the lower income go on to college (this is not to say there are those who don't, but not the majority) Now because of this, generation after generation goes through the same struggle, with some persevering to overcome it.
I would suggest the number of blacks actually wanting to go to college has decreased and that economics has nothing to do with that.


The current situation is much better than it was 40 years ago, but it is by no way on the same playing field as say those who have had hundreds of years out of oppression to get to this point.
In some ways, the current situation is more racially charged than it was 40 years ago. Many whites -- alot of whom fought for racially equity and civil rights, right alongside of blacks -- are standing with people like Bill Cosby and wondering just when in the hell blacks are going to stop blaming whitey and start acting responsible.

[Yonivore]

It depends on the kind of media you're referring to. Left-wing media will tend to give Sharpton a pass on his nonsense, while right-wing media will call him a race-baiting bastard. Right-wing media will ignore Robertson's less socially acceptable utterances, while left-wing media will call him a theocratic racist.
Well, if there was a right-wing media, we could actually test that theory.

[UV Ray]

While white racism has played a big role in the present-day cultural dysfunction of the black community, stamping out racism by itself isn't going to solve the problems. Take white people completely out of the equation, and the predominance of single-parent families, devaluement of education, black-on-black crime, misogyny, stigmatization of achievement, self-loathing, etc., still remain, even to whatever degree those cultural tendencies were brought about by past racism.

So how do we begin to change course of these kinds of cultural issues?

Spot on. This is the direction the thread should be going.

[Yonivore]

And as we have established previously, in the U.S. of 2007, in most of the instances where the poor are crowded together in urban areas, providing the conditions ripe for riots to occur, those urban poor are black.

There are also a fair number of Hispanic riots. Again, urban poor. In fact, the most frequent riots are in prisons between black and Hispanic inmates.

There aren't a great many white urban poor in this country. The centers of white poverty are rural areas in the South and in Appalachia.

So the instances of rioting have to do with people being poor and huddled together in cities, not with people being black.
You're telling me there are no poor, urban white populations? In don't know this to be incorrect but, I'm having trouble believing it.

New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago are all pretty big cities. I'm thinking there may be pockets of poor whites within their city limits.

[PixelPusher]

Well, if there was a right-wing media, we could actually test that theory.
It's called "Talk Radio" (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/20/radio-report/)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/radiographic2.gif

[PixelPusher]

You're telling me there are no poor, urban white populations? In don't know this to be incorrect but, I'm having trouble believing it.

New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago are all pretty big cities. I'm thinking there may be pockets of poor whites within their city limits.
"White Flight" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight)

[Yonivore]

It occurs to me, while mulling over that last question, the vast majority of homeless, in Austin, are whites.

I wouldn't consider the black communities of East Austin to be any more of a Ghetto than the poor white neighborhoods of South Austin are Slums or the poor hispanic neighborhoods of Southeast Austin are Barrios.

I don't buy the poverty motivator either. Many of the thugs involved in mob violence are wearing their bling, sporting their Air Jordans, and riding on their expensive spinners...or whatever they they're into now.

I've driven all over Austin and there are poor white, black, hispanic, and mixed neighborhoods; yet only the black community ever makes noise about social injustice.

[Extra Stout]

It occurs to me, while mulling over that last question, the vast majority of homeless, in Austin, are whites.
How many homeless are there, compared to poor blacks?


I wouldn't consider the black communities of East Austin to be any more of a Ghetto than the poor white neighborhoods of South Austin are Slums or the poor hispanic neighborhoods of Southeast Austin are Barrios.
75% of urban poor blacks in America live in areas of concentrated poverty.
25% of urban poor whites in America live in areas of concentrated poverty.

Poor whites are dispersed, no matter what nebulous anecdotal arguments to the contrary you wish to make.


I don't buy the poverty motivator either. Many of the thugs involved in mob violence are wearing their bling, sporting their Air Jordans, and riding on their expensive spinners...or whatever they they're into now.
No, you've confused mob violence with gang violence. Gang violence is closely associated with the drug trade, and the open display of "bling" and so forth is both a display of power, and a recruiting tool.

Beyond the drug trade, too often the poor waste their limited resources on luxury items. Part of the reason these groups stay poor is the inability within the culture to make responsible financial decisions. There is a mistaken belief that wealth is synonymous with the possession of material things.


I've driven all over Austin and there are poor white, black, hispanic, and mixed neighborhoods; yet only the black community ever makes noise about social injustice.
You've never heard of LULAC or La Raza? And there are political groups dealing with white poverty; however, they are in rural areas.

[Jamtas#2]

The percentage of college bound blacks has dropped since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Explain that.

You do realize blacks weren't barred from attending college, right? Just certain colleges. And, while that was wrong, it didn't prevent them from getting a good education should they have chosen to.

The United Negro College Fund was founded in 1944. Many black business leaders of today were college-educated prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Drop of percentage could be explained by the further widening gap between the haves and the have nots. Unless you believe therre is no correlation between having more money and going to college.

Yes, I realize they weren't barred from attending every college. But you must agree that the less opportunity to go to college, the less people will be attending.



Please. Business successes -- both black and white -- abound with rags-to-riches stories of how these people overcame their poor, squalid upbringings to be successful.

I know and agree. That is why I said it is not impossible, but much more difficult. Unless you believe there are more rags to riches stories than there are rags staying in rags.



I would suggest the number of blacks actually wanting to go to college has decreased and that economics has nothing to do with that.

And I would suggest that economics has a lot to do with it. You are more likely to strive for college in a family where it is financially feasible and/or the parents have gone to college as well.



In some ways, the current situation is more racially charged than it was 40 years ago. Many whites -- alot of whom fought for racially equity and civil rights, right alongside of blacks -- are standing with people like Bill Cosby and wondering just when in the hell blacks are going to stop blaming whitey and start acting responsible.

And in many ways the current situation is less racially charged than 40 years ago. Hate crimes and public Klan messages are vastly less than they were then. It definately is a different situation now than it was then, I'd agree to that.

[Yonivore]

Jamtas#2, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

The race-baiters, in this thread, have become a distraction and I've lost the desire to try and keep up with the various trains of thought coming from the various responses in here.

I believe the black community is culturally more violent than any other group. And, I believe they have no acceptable reason for being so.

[By the way, during the time period in which this thread has played itself out, I had a relative (a hispanic man, distantly related by marriage) who was attacked and hospitalized by a mob of about 20 blacks as he was leaving work late last week. So far as I know, it hasn't made the news. What's funny, is the ultra-liberal in our family believes -- without any supporting evidence -- it was the same group that attacked and killed that hispanic man last Tuesday. The attack happened in the entertainment district of Austin and, so far as I know, was unrelated to the Tuesday murder. Go figure...I get support for my thesis as we move through the week...so, sue me for thinking blacks, culturally, are more violent than other races]

[Extra Stout]

Drop of percentage could be explained by the further widening gap between the haves and the have nots. Unless you believe therre is no correlation between having more money and going to college.
In 1966, the black poverty rate was 42%. In 2002, it was 24%.

A better rebuttal would have been to demonstrate that Yoni's point is false. In 1964, 4% of blacks were college graduates. Today, that number is 15%.

For whites, it is 25%.

[Jamtas#2]

In 1966, the black poverty rate was 42%. In 2002, it was 24%.

A better rebuttal would have been to demonstrate that Yoni's point is false. In 1964, 4% of blacks were college graduates. Today, that number is 15%.

For whites, it is 25%.

Thanks for providing the numbers. I agree with your post.

[Yonivore]

Thanks for providing the numbers. I agree with your post.
I think those percentages are of total population but, I'd like to see his source because, I'm finding the stats elusive.

[Jamtas#2]

Jamtas#2, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

The race-baiters, in this thread, have become a distraction and I've lost the desire to try and keep up with the various trains of thought coming from the various responses in here.

I believe the black community is culturally more violent than any other group. And, I believe they have no acceptable reason for being so.

[By the way, during the time period in which this thread has played itself out, I had a relative (a hispanic man, distantly related by marriage) who was attacked and hospitalized by a mob of about 20 blacks as he was leaving work late last week. So far as I know, it hasn't made the news. What's funny, is the ultra-liberal in our family believes -- without any supporting evidence -- it was the same group that attacked and killed that hispanic man last Tuesday. The attack happened in the entertainment district of Austin and, so far as I know, was unrelated to the Tuesday murder. Go figure...I get support for my thesis as we move through the week...so, sue me for thinking blacks, culturally, are more violent than other races]

Agree to disagree it is. But to just touch on one thing I have left alone for the duration of this thread, your thinking of attaching a stigma to an entire race is racism. That was not the point of this discussion so I left it alone. But as you said above that your knee jerk reaction was to write about the African American race, and your example above of the distant relative being attacked used to justify your sterotype again is racism. Having that belief is a racist point of view. Whites commit numerous violent acts every day as well, does race play into your mind when you hear about them, or to you attribute their violence to something other than race or culture? When the OK City bombing occurred, did you question what was wrong with the white race? Or Colombine?
The fact that you consider race a factor for African Americans does show your feelings about race. This isn't saying that you are a closet Klan member with an extreme hate on.

I'm not going to call you names, just tell you my viewpoint. And I appreciate the civility of this discussion for what it is worth.

[Extra Stout]

I think those percentages are of total population but, I'd like to see his source because, I'm finding the stats elusive.
Census Bureau.

[Extra Stout]

I believe the black community is culturally more violent than any other group. And, I believe they have no acceptable reason for being so.
"Acceptable" reason? So you think black people have some group moral defect?

Enough with the civility. You're a racist.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Please. Business successes -- both black and white -- abound with rags-to-riches stories of how these people overcame their poor, squalid upbringings to be successful.

There might be a bunch of stories about people going from rags to riches, but I'm reluctant believe that there are more poor people - of any race - that are able to escape poverty than stay. The few that do escape poverty are small minority and are lucky.


I would suggest the number of blacks actually wanting to go to college has decreased and that economics has nothing to do with that.

You suggest? How the fuck would you know? Give me facts that support that.

But lets just the assume the number of blacks who don't want a college education has increased.

In that case, there would be a plethora of environmental factors influencing that decision, such as:

How many of them have/had two parents?
If they didn't have/don't have two parents, how did/does that determine their educational level?
If they had/have two parents, were/are they adequate role models?
If they didn't have/don't have adequate role models how did/does this determine their educational level?

A child with parents making sufficient money is capable of concentrating on his studies
A child with adequate role models for parents is able to be learn about morals and function moraly

my point is, we aren't born with morals, or the will to go to school. We are taught these values from our parents and/or peers if we're lucky enough to have them.

A ghetto, is for the most part, unles you're lucky, a place where the values that need to be taught aren't. The only values that are taught are the ones that are going to help you survive the ghetto, not our world. Don't confuse the two. The values aren't interchangeable.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

double post

[Ronaldo McDonald]

double post

[Yonivore]

Agree to disagree it is. But to just touch on one thing I have left alone for the duration of this thread, your thinking of attaching a stigma to an entire race is racism. That was not the point of this discussion so I left it alone. But as you said above that your knee jerk reaction was to write about the African American race, and your example above of the distant relative being attacked used to justify your sterotype again is racism. Having that belief is a racist point of view. Whites commit numerous violent acts every day as well,
As a mob?


does race play into your mind when you hear about them, or to you attribute their violence to something other than race or culture? When the OK City bombing occurred, did you question what was wrong with the white race? Or Colombine?
Were either perpetrated by a mob?


The fact that you consider race a factor for African Americans does show your feelings about race. This isn't saying that you are a closet Klan member with an extreme hate on.
Nice of you to say. I could go into all my perfectly normal and amenable relationships with African-Americans in my private and professional life but, unless I'm willing to completely expose myself to the nuts on this forum, that's not going to happen in a verifiable way.

So, I'm satisfied I'm not a racist.


I'm not going to call you names, just tell you my viewpoint. And I appreciate the civility of this discussion for what it is worth.
As do I. Thanks for sticking with it through some of the nonsense.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

Jamtas#2, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

The race-baiters, in this thread, have become a distraction and I've lost the desire to try and keep up with the various trains of thought coming from the various responses in here.

I believe the black community is culturally more violent than any other group. And, I believe they have no acceptable reason for being so.

[By the way, during the time period in which this thread has played itself out, I had a relative (a hispanic man, distantly related by marriage) who was attacked and hospitalized by a mob of about 20 blacks as he was leaving work late last week. So far as I know, it hasn't made the news. What's funny, is the ultra-liberal in our family believes -- without any supporting evidence -- it was the same group that attacked and killed that hispanic man last Tuesday. The attack happened in the entertainment district of Austin and, so far as I know, was unrelated to the Tuesday murder. Go figure...I get support for my thesis as we move through the week...so, sue me for thinking blacks, culturally, are more violent than other races]

Again, this all goes back what you value most out of life. Most blacks aren't taught what to value most. They learn about how they are supposed to survive in the ghetto.

Because they are being taught to survive in an environment different than the one we know, they will inevitabley display these behaviors and survival traits in settings outside the ghetto. Just as a rich white person walking into ghetto is going to display behaviors associated with his own environment.

This is why the ones that are lucky enough to learn the correct values while living in the ghetto are often the ones who are able to adapt to the society without violating the law.

[Marcus Bryant]

"Acceptable" reason? So you think black people have some group moral defect?

Enough with the civility. You're a racist.


He's all but endorsed the "Final Solution" for that "community".

[cornbread]

People care. But, try to be a caring white person in the heart of East Austin.

I was a caring white person in the heart of East Austin for the last few years before moving to San Antonio. I stayed out late, went to bars/clubs, walked by myself at night, and never once found any trouble. In my 7 years in Austin, I only experienced violence when I had a run in with some drunk white frat boys on the other side of town. 3 on 1 jumping, similar to a mob type of situation.

Most people were actually more friendly on the East side than what I experienced on when I lived in West Austin.

I also mentored in a media program at East Austin's Reagan High School. This school only gets media attention when something goes wrong so the program was meant to give these kids a voice so they could tell their own stories, rather than have the media create an image for them. It's their opportunity to respond to or even preempt remarks like, "try being a caring white person in East Austin". Here's the website for the program. www.eastaustinstories.org. East Austin has so much more to offer than what you've heard, read, or been told about the Juneteenth murder. I recommend checking it out.

[Yonivore]

"Acceptable" reason? So you think black people have some group moral defect?

Enough with the civility. You're a racist.
You've been civil?

But, yeah, I think they have a cultural defect when in groups and I think their behavior is only encouraged by the sense of some entitlement to be violent in response to every perceived offense.

[Marcus Bryant]

You can't make this shit up.

[Marcus Bryant]

You've been civil?

But, yeah, I think they have a cultural defect when in groups and I think their behavior is only encouraged by the sense of some entitlement to be violent in response to every perceived offense.

Damn, even the Klan disagrees with you. (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29578)

[ChumpDumper]

I would suggest the number of blacks actually wanting to go to college has decreased and that economics has nothing to do with that.The facts would suggest you are full of shit.


The latest report may not reflect precisely what many consider the South, because the 16 states it covers also include border states Kentucky, Delaware, West Virginia and Maryland.

Still, the report reflects the reality that many more Southern blacks are enrolling in college. In those states, about 1.1 million black students were enrolled in college in the fall of 2005, 52 percent more than a decade earlier.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-blacks-colleges,0,1806802.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

It was really just a matter of time before you started making shit up again, wasn't it?

[Ronaldo McDonald]

I think the real issue dealing with African American culture flew right over Yaminoveres head. This is why he's a racist.

Instead of attempting to ask the important questions he decided to take a cheap shot at the culture by saying they are more likely to mob than any other group.

This is akin to saying that White culture in America is defective because they produce more pedophiles. Or that Mexicans are more likely to steal.

The fact of the matter is when uneducated, stupid, and morally corrupt people get together imminent stupid and violent shit is going to happen. When was the last time a bunch of uneducated, stupid, and morally corrupt white people got together?

In a baseball game. And the same thing fucking happens doesn't it?

The real question is, why is Black community producing so many indaquate parents?

[Extra Stout]

The fact of the matter is when uneducated, stupid, and morally corrupt people get together imminent stupid and violent shit is going to happen. When was the last time a bunch of uneducated, stupid, and morally corrupt white people got together?

In a baseball game. And the same thing fucking happens doesn't it?

The real question is, why is Black community producing so many indaquate parents?
It's a vicious circle that I think started with the collapse of the black blue-collar economy.

With fathers unable to support their families economically, the families broke up. Increasingly, black boys grew up without father figures. More of them made bad choices -- sexual promiscuity, drugs, crime. Then they impregnate women, but haven't developed the ethic of responsibility to care for them. So those children grow up without fathers.

Even once a black man gets it together later in life, he carries a lot of baggage: children by several women, health problems due to drug use, a criminal record, limited job prospects due to a lack of education and the unavailability of blue-collar work. For a black woman, there's not necessarily any advantage to getting married under the status quo.

The circle has to be broken at some point, but how?

[Marcus Bryant]

Of note is that poor whites tend to show those same social pathologies.

[Extra Stout]

Of note is that poor whites tend to show those same social pathologies.
One thing that has changed from the past is that in previous days, women had very limited opportunities to support themselves without a husband, and so there was stronger incentive to marry, even when the prospects of the marriage were not as good. Now, a woman is far likelier to be able to support herself.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

It's a vicious circle that I think started with the collapse of the black blue-collar economy.

With fathers unable to support their families economically, the families broke up. Increasingly, black boys grew up without father figures. More of them made bad choices -- sexual promiscuity, drugs, crime. Then they impregnate women, but haven't developed the ethic of responsibility to care for them. So those children grow up without fathers.

Even once a black man gets it together later in life, he carries a lot of baggage: children by several women, health problems due to drug use, a criminal record, limited job prospects due to a lack of education and the unavailability of blue-collar work. For a black woman, there's not necessarily any advantage to getting married under the status quo.

The circle has to be broken at some point, but how?

Minimum wage has to rise otherwise kids with parents who are w/o education remain educated themselves throughout thier lives - having to help support family instead of being able to concentrate on academics. Like you said, it's a cycle.

Most white kids are given sufficient time and energy to concentrate on schooling. Shit, a lot don't even have to do anything, they just take on their parents' investments.

So it all starts with increasing minimum wage, enough so that this generation of black kids who have grown up without two parents don't have to work - I've known some of these inner city kids who have held three jobs while attending school.

Increasing minimum wage wil give them ALL a chance to succeed.

i'm in a rush but i'll post more about this later

[Yonivore]

I think the real issue dealing with African American culture flew right over Yaminoveres head. This is why he's a racist.

Instead of attempting to ask the important questions he decided to take a cheap shot at the culture by saying they are more likely to mob than any other group.
I simply asked the question. Is it or is it not more likely that blacks will engaged in mob violence?


This is akin to saying that White culture in America is defective because they produce more pedophiles.
That too is a fair question. Except many whites would argue there is no white "culture," per se. But, it is disturbing that most of th pedophiles and, for that matter, domestic terrorists are white.

I think it's certainly fair to ask the question of whether or not there is some cultural influence...some cultural influence that only whites experience. For instance, domestic terrorists tend to be associated with extreme religious ideologies or supremecist organizations -- both of which tend to attract whites more than any other race.

So, explore that if you like, I don't consider it racist. Just as I don't consider my observation that most mob violence is instigated by blacks a racist proposition. If it's true, what are the causes? If it's not, show me where such behavior is more prevalent in other cultures.


Or that Mexicans are more likely to steal.
Absent any demostrable evidence this is true -- which, beyond typical stereotypes, does not exist; this is as racist as claiming blacks are more likely to be lazy.

Mob violence is, I believe, beyond a racial stereotype. Nor was I trying to create some racial stereotype. I wholeheartedly agree that I was ineloquent in how I've proposed this issue but, oh well, sue me.

No one has persuaded me that mob violence isn't something that seems to be more prevalent in the black culture than in any other.


The fact of the matter is when uneducated, stupid, and morally corrupt people get together imminent stupid and violent shit is going to happen. When was the last time a bunch of uneducated, stupid, and morally corrupt white people got together?
The KKK pops to mind...and, apparently through no fault of their own (I'm guessing) they've been restrained from committing any mob violence for quite some time now.

But, this begs a bigger question. Why are you assuming that all black mob violence is engaged in by uneducated, stupid, and morally corrupt black people? Does that make you a racist?


In a baseball game. And the same thing fucking happens doesn't it?
That's rich. :lmao

But, actually, I think the police officers kicking Rodney King's ass is more analogous to what you describe than is mob violence in black communities.


The real question is, why is Black community producing so many indaquate parents?
Absolutely, another good question. And, while that may be the "real" question for black Americans, answering that won't help the Reginald Dennys of the world.