At the risk of suffering...

[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]

god damn yoni, you really are a racist bas .

I'm about as racist as Bill Cosby or Al Sharpton. Well, Bill Cosby...Al Sharpton is one of the most racist, bigoted mother ers on the planet, right behind David Duke.

no seriously, you are a racist bas . 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 ing 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 ins utions (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 re ed 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.

[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 iden ies 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

Police Release More Detail About Juneteenth Violence

Fights mar Juneteenth celebration in Syracuse

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 iden ies 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 modi 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 ins utions 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 cir stances 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 modi 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.

, 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 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 ins utions 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 ins utions?

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 bas ized 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 uncons utional.

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 cir stances 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 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 ins utions?

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 compe ive 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.

, 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.