12 year old Tamir Rice was murdered by police this weekend in Cleveland Ohio. He was executed for the crime of playing with a toy gun on a playground. Since the police can't figure this out for themselves, here are a few tips:
Hot Tip Tip #1:
When you confront a 12 year old boy on a playground and suspect that
the toy gun he is holding might be real, and if you fear for your safety,please stay in your patrol car.
A. Get as close to the suspect as possible, then from the safety of your patrol car use your loudspeaker, or a bullhorn.
B. Identify yourself, and then ask the suspect to drop whatever he may be holding in his hands
C. Instruct the suspect to raise his hands and then lie face down on the ground
Once the suspect has complied, approach the suspect and assess the situation.By using this method you will help to ensure the safety of the officer , as well as the suspect.
Hot Tip #2:
If you are afraid of 12 year old boys, I suggest a career change. Perhaps a career in accounting,or a managerial position at Dunkin Donuts.
What a horrific lost of a young life. There is a difference between a toy gun and a real one. I am so sickened by this. There are police officers who are clearly not suited for the job intellectually, mentally, and psychologically. There should be intelligence and psychological tests administered. They should also be trained in sociocultural empathy. Then, there is common sense which they should have had initially. Sadly, many are missing in the latter component.
So, apparently, is the value of a cops life. Gone, with the idea that cops never have the right of self defense, in the hindsight the cops never have. Gone is any semblance of common sense in that children DO intentionally kill others or that people very often do not look their age (is he 12 or 16?).
Wonder what the reaction would have been had it been a real gun and the kid popped off a few rounds, killing a few bystanders? Hang the cop for not shooting immediately?
But he had been pointing the gun at passers by and not fired a single shot. Add to that that the guy who reported it said he thought it was replica.
I agree! You are a 100 percent right! Wilderness . All of your points are the most realistic!
Nobody wants to be shot, the cop used poor judgement, that can"t be denied.
It is natural for cops to take defensive attitude about what looks like a gun regardless who is holding it. The points that you made would havecontributedto averting the tragedy.
There was an idea floating around that B&B guns, air rifles "nerf guns" be manufactured in pastel colors that would alert anyone at first glance that a lethal weapon is not involved. Law enforcement can now proceed under a different paradyme
And the points made would have created a tragedy if the gun was real. Hindsight is wonderful, isn't it?
If we paint play guns in pastels, how long until criminals and thugs do the same? It would, after all, make cop killing real easy.
This idea was one that was proposed by a legislator from a district with a high crime rate. Yes, hindsight is always 20/20.
There is never going to be all encompassing single solution to this problem. There always going to be people (criminals) that will thwart the best made plans? But, I can't see a lot of kids on the playground lying in wait for an opportunity to initiate the next criminal caper . Just another possible tool in the toolbox
Really? Can you please explain how ? I would love to hear it.
Sounds to me like you'll go through a lot of cops that way. And a lot of innocent bystanders as well.
You are probably proud of your tips - and the exhibited wit...
But would your point be as easily made if you were a little more accurate in your portrayal?
This sure looks like a replay of the media's Trayvon Martin images.
Then of course there is the "instant" recognition of " the toy" gun issue...
The "publicly known" circumstances sure look bad for the cop.
Which means this statement relating part of the event can't possibly be true...
"...LISTEN | 911 caller reports Tamir Rice incident
That's when officers on the scene said they asked Rice to raise his hands and he went for the gun in his waistband."
OK, so they are 10 feet away, it appears to be an overcast day, they are responding to a person with a gun call, and when they ask the victim to raise his hands, and instead he reaches for a not-so-obviously-a-toy gun in his waist band.
Hmm.. Cleveland, gangs, police interaction with gangs with guns - is it possible this scenario might be a familiar one to cops?
Of course for all I know the cop could be guilty as hell for excessive use of force and judgement so poor he shouldn't have a gun - but... it sure doesn't seem as obviously cut-and-dried as you portray it.
If I were more accurate in my portrayal, I would get banned from Hubpages! Today everyone wants to see the smiling face, hear the friendly word, and keep it upbeat, while children are being murdered by cops. Of course, to many Americans these aren't just children , they are "black" children. Consequently, the adjective makes a difference. Your own words help to prove my point. You have commented that the image looks a lot like Trayvon Martin. To translate for the slower readers, this is a clever way of saying, " They all look alike". You also are careful to make a connection between inner city gang violence and the murder of a child playing on a playground with a toy gun. I suppose you also think that all Italian kids living in New York City are somehow connected to the Mafia.
This kind of white supremacist logic may fly with the befuddled masses, but I'm not buying it. Every black person living in Cleveland is not a gang member. Furthermore, it appears that you are suggesting that any decent law-abiding black person unfortunate enough to have to live amidst poverty and gang violence is by default fair game. You are suggesting that the life of the police officer is more important than the life of the child, and that it is better to kill an unarmed child by mistake than to risk an officer being shot and killed. Posting an image of the two guns is a nice touch that will have the simple folk dancing in the aisles, but all it amounts to is more apologist rhetoric and propaganda.
Making excuses for the cops isn't going to help the situation. Their function and purpose is to serve and protect the citizen. But today, instead of being our public servants,they have become our oppressors, even to the point of killing innocent children with impunity, as evidenced in the Grand Jury's refusal to prosecute the miscreant who murdered Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri.
The following list will help those members of law enforcement who may find themselves in a situation
where they fear that a toddler, 1st grader, 12 year old, or teenager is carrying a toy that may threaten their life. Read and memorize the following:
• The life of a child is worth more than the life of a cop
• The life of a child is worth more than the life of a full grown man
• A man who murders a child out of fear or malice is a coward
• The man who defends a coward is defenseless
A playground and a city park are two very different things. A park is very open to the public. A playground is most often attached to a school, surrounded by a fence and just for kids. Your use of the word playground is misleading. Also, you said he was "playing" with a toy gun. No! He grasped it as though he was going to use it. It had been reported to 911 that there was a boy in the park with a gun. They came to investigate. What was the child thinking??? And why? Could he have had some video game playing in the recesses of his twelve year old mind?
The place is actually called the "Cudell Recreation Center". Please tell me how the word "playground" is misleading. Several news reports have referred to it as such. Furthermore, the boy was standing on the ground and he was playing, which is what children do with toys. Thus, he was at the playground, which then became a killing field.
A recreation center and a playground are also not the same. A playground usually has a fence around it and is designated for children. He was in a park near a recreation center. The police have the public to protect. Why have you no compassion for officers of the law who had the duty to protect citizens at a public facility?
Why do you not see that a twelve year old has no business with a gun? Actually he is too old to "play" with toys. It was a gun to him. He was practicing. He has been practicing. He used it as he has been practicing. He has parents. Did they supply the gun? if so, why? A toy gun in a park puts the child in a dangerous situation in more ways than one, if you think about it.
Why do you not hold the parents accountable?
And I agree with word55. The violence parents expose their children to on TV and in Movies is corrupting to both the psyche and the soul of a child.
It doesn't matter if he was at city hall or running down main street. Sometimes kids do things that put themselves in danger. This is why they are called children. We are supposed to look out for them. Of course the parent is responsible. But that doesn't mean that the rest of us get a free lunch. You are suggesting that if a kid doesn't have responsible parents to make all of the right choices, then any loser with a badge that wants to use them for target practice is justified.
Furthermore, until a few days ago I am sure that many parents weren't even aware that such a thing might happen. Kids have been playing with toy guns since long before I was born. I played with toy guns, and so did most of my friends. Our parents never worried about some idiot shooting us. In fact, until a few days ago it never crossed my mind. I was already aware that many in law enforcement aren't at the level of Einstein, but I figured they were at least smart enough to know when a kid was playing with a toy!
The American people have become so conditioned to an oppressive police state that now even the killing of children is taken in stride. The victims are blamed and the murderers are exonerated. What the ignorant masses fail to realize is that the state is continuing to criminalize natural human behavior; to the extent that children can no longer safely play in public places. And there is no need to stop at toy guns. Any number of toys can be turned into a lethal weapon. A doll could be fitted with an explosive device. I have even seen in movies where remote control toy trucks, and cars, were rigged with explosive devices. In a few years some kid is going to get killed by police for playing with a remote controlled Tonka Truck. Of course, they will all shake their head and say " What a shame, but the kid was making the truck go underneath parked cars, and someone called 911 and said it might be rigged with a bomb!"
Oh, I almost forgot: Kathryn, where were the citizens that the cops were protecting? Were they screaming for help? Were they being held hostage? Where were they?
"any loser with a badge"
innocent until proven guilty.
what happened to that idea?
were the officers proven guilty?
If we can't trust our judicial system we are just out of luck as far as justice, aren't we. Why even talk about it?
You want us to jump on the side of the kid... and of course we do care about the boy first and foremost!… but then there is the truth of the matter… this boy, for all intents and purposes, had a gun! I do not buy your Tonka Truck comparison.
If a twelve year old pointed a gun at you... would you not react in self defense on some level? and if you were a trained cop?
"Kids, never point a gun at ANYONE!" Remember your parents telling you that? We were so disappointed at that command, but we never did. What was the point of loading your cap gun if you couldn't point it at someone when you shot it. But we never did… did you?
We need more examples if you want to convince us that we have actually reached a police state in which the police are having a total field day with their power. I don't see it yet. maybe cuz I don't want to.
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Apparently you haven't watched the video. Barney Fife and Bobo pulled up in their cruiser and immediately jumped out of the car with guns drawn. Within seconds, not minutes, the 12 year old was murdered in cold blood. We can see from the video that no time was taken to assess the situation. This has become typical cop behavior in these situations. They will take the time to drive to the donut shop, stand in line to place an order, and then eat their tasty Dunkin Donut's, but the video reveals that they took no time to spare the life of an innocent child. Why the urgency? Where was the threat?
To answer your question, I am not an imbecile, nor do I consider murder an option. Perhaps I feel this way because murder creates a karmic cycle that is difficult to break. Perhaps another reason is because in the story of Jesus, we understand that Jesus allowed a race of men, not far removed from the baboon, or the monkey, or a goat, to torture and kill him in order to set an example, and to save the soul of man. This is a powerful story`, and whether one chooses to believe it or not, it illustrates how the karmic cycle of violence can be eliminated. We live in a world of violence simply because ignorant men continue to believe that violence and oppression, instead of love and compassion, can solve all of our problems. But we can clearly see that violence only leads to more violence.
We can understand by watching the video that no on, except Tamir Rice, was in harms way. The place looked completely deserted. This reminds me of the cowardly cops who recently killed a homeless man in Albuquerque New Mexico for "trespassing" and camping out on a worthless patch of desert. If I were a cop, and if I were a coward, I would remain in my patrol car, at a safe distance, and instruct the child through loudspeaker or bullhorn. A child should not have to pay with his life because these cops were too stupid to get this concept. I am not a coward or a murderer, consequently, I would have taken as much time as necessary to assess the situation, even if that meant hours. A human life is priceless, but this evil system has convinced many of you that compliance, rigid protocol,and expeditious procedure, are more important than the life of a child.
But please don't feel that I am trying to convince you of anything, as I am speaking directly to God. If there is a reckoning after death, I will not add the silence of a lamb to my list of sins. Osiyo!
Wow. so that is the superior Mensa intelligence perspective of wrenchBisuit.
Do you honestly think that my harsh words can compare to the excruciating grief that the parents of Tamir Rice are experiencing right now? Have you considered that they may have already bought Christmas presents for their dead son? Will they put them under the tree anyway and pretend? Will they put them away in a closet, or beneath the bed, never to be opened or spoken of again?
The truth is, there is nothing I can say that would inflict as much grief and torment upon the law enforcement community than has been inflicted upon the family and friends of Tamir Rice! Yet, you would rather vilify me than the miscreant cops who have brought a never ending pain and torment to an entire family.
I did not mean to imply you have caused anyone grief. I also did not intend to imply the police in this incident did nothing wrong.
From the safe comfort of my living room I am very critical of their actions. As Don W. said, there were a lot of things that should have been done differently by those officers, and maybe a young kid would still be alive if they had been done differently.
What I did intent to imply, and state outright, was that in my opinion your portrayal was so obviously slanted, misleading, and in several instances just plain wrong, as to shutdown any sensible exchange.
You topped that off with insulting and condescending remarks that painted a very unflattering picture of someone who thinks they are smarter and better than anyone that does not see things the same way you do. At least that is the way it appears to me, and is probably the reason you think my responses vilified you.
Did you see the video, GA?
The link should have been in the original post. It looks pretty bad, even though the kid actually had a pellet gun. It looks like the cop in charge shot him without even checking to see his age. On the 911 call they reported the kid as a guy. It looks like this cop was acting too fast and not carefully enough. The trial will be telling. It looks very bad for the shooter.
No, I did not see the police cam video. And I did not see a link to it in the OP.
I was also not intending to exonerate the officers. That is why I said this in the comment you responded to;
"From the safe comfort of my living room I am very critical of their actions. As Don W. said, there were a lot of things that should have been done differently by those officers, and maybe a young kid would still be alive if they had been done differently."
My responses have all been directed at the misleading characterizations used, and the obvious intent of those using them.
The most obvious, (and silly) ones have concerned the "toy" gun. They say the cops should have seen it was a toy gun in an instant. Well, take a look for yourself at the photo comparison a few posts back. That "child's" "toy" AirSoft gun was so realistic looking that you would almost have to examine it in your own hands before you could know for sure whether it was real or a toy.
I don't know any more about the facts than anyone else that only has the media and these forums as the source of their information, and I agree with you, it does look bad for the cops.
But I do know biased BS when I see it, and that is what my responses have been directed at. Unfortunately, that leads some to think I am blindly supporting the officers in this example. I do not.
No one could. If you check out the scene, the poor kid looks sad and lonely. Your heart just goes out to him as he wanders around shooting invisible targets. Then, they apparently shoot him into oblivion.
I had to deal with evil cops once. I could have sued them. They are out there. I think mine were on something. They were not rational and they were not kind. They were white and they called me every name in the book, not to mention stomping on my back and yanking my hair back as they did so. Why? cuz I had said "shut up" to them when they asked if I had had enough.
( I had been in a parking lot where I worked at a YMCA past the ten o'clock curfew.)
Anyway, I chalked it up to the luck of the draw. I learned how to treat cops and not push any buttons. But the kid in this video didn't really even have a chance.
He should not have been alone in a park with a gun that looked so real.
And some cops need to get it together.
Teddy Roosevelt , an outspoken racist, and 26th president of the United States,once remarked,
"I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth."
Yet, you speak of "my" unflattering remarks. As far as my "unflattering remarks" are concerned, this is not about flattery. I have made it clear in this forum , and in other forums, that I simply do not care about political correctness, false modesty, and the "proper social etiquette". Who among you would even give me portion of bread if I were lying at your doorstep starving to death? Most likely, the police would be called and I would be arrested for vagrancy. I am very popular with God, and that is good enough for me.
George Bush and Darth Cheney used the proper social etiquette. I don't recall either using the "N-Word" during any interview or speech. However, they certainly treated the American people in a manner that suggests neither had a very high opinion of the average U.S. citizen. They lied about weapons of mass destruction, most likely lied about 911, and the end result is that thousands of U.S. soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, and innocent civilians are dead. Thousands more have been crippled and maimed for life. And let us not forget to add the misery of those who have loved them; many who will be emotional cripples for the rest of their natural lives as a result.
How has a smiling face and the proper social etiquette made the world a better place, and helped all of the victims of the Iraqi war, the one before that, the one before that, etc.. How has it helped to prevent police brutality since the Rodney King beat down in 1991? It has been estimated that between 400 and 1000 civilians are murdered by the police every year. If we go with the low number, that amounts to over 8,000 murdered during the last 20 years alone. If we go with the high number, we are looking at over 20,000 U.S citizens murdered by police since 1991. Of course I am sure the numbers are much higher, but according to the Washington Post, there are no official government databases that keep track of how many civilians are murdered by the police each year, which is quite telling. However,the FBI keeps track of how many cops are killed each year. Of course, the cop killed in the "line of duty" is always revered as a 'fallen hero". The innocent citizen murdered by the police is hardly ever considere4d a "hero". At best, the victim of police brutality is considered collateral damage; the unfortunate cost of doing business.
You can read about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post … one-knows/
You are popular with God. You are popular with the Spirit of goodness and positivity and love? You are are popular with the Spirit of forgiveness? Then why do you not share that side of you as well?
It seems to me you want to infuse hopelessness, despair, anger and hatred. This is the attitude which you want to spread? why? for the cause of Anarchy?
Your negative view of the founding fathers of this nation and the supposed evil of them is really hard to take. Like any of us are perfect???
Like all of us would have stayed in heaven, if given the choice? If we had chosen heaven, we sure wouldn't be here.
The evil committed here in the name of Manifest Destiny is not "supposed" but very real. Perhaps a pedophile or a murderer does not make you angry, but yes, such people make me very angry, for they take something they have no right to possess or destroy. And yes, I make no apologies for hating the evil deeds of men. Truth and goodness can be a bitter tonic to those who have settled into corruption.
I am not responsible for anyone's feeling of hopelessness, for I am not filled with hopelessness. I have empowered myself. I do not need the protection of one evil ( a police state) to protect me from another. I am far more than flesh and blood, and the evil of this world cannot touch what lies beyond this mortal coil. Thus,I am not consumed by cowardice and conformity, as I only experience a transitory fear, due to my understanding of God. Concerning forgiveness: God has not forgiven America. Take a good look around.
The "founding fathers" that you speak of were criminals. What term would you use to describe the man who stole your home and your property, and your resources? What nice words would you use to describe the man who violated you, your mother, or your daughter? To further illustrate: Pamela Smart was given a life sentence without the possibility of parole for allegedly masterminding the murder of her husband, Greg Smart. Billy Flynn, her alleged teenage lover, the one who actually killed her husband in 1990, is currently in a work release program and will soon be a free man.
The system that you seem to worship has declared in this case, as well as many others , that the individual who masterminds,orchestrates, and sets the stage for criminal acts such as murder, is more culpable and accountable than the actual perpetrator of a particular crime. It only follows that George Washington, and the rest of these so-called "founding fathers" that you admire, are even more responsible for the rape, murder, and genocide of the Indigenous, as the individuals who actually committed the evil deeds, since they set the stage, and helped to perpetuate a system that could only lead to the utter destruction of an entire race of people. The fact that many of these founding fathers also owned slaves, and participated in kidnapping and human trafficking, only makes it worse.
I did not put the words into the mouth of Teddy Roosevelt . His words came from the corruption of a hardened heart. If you do not regard his words as evil, then what is your interpretation? There is nothing that I have said that matches the evil nature of his statement. When a president declares such a thing, others are encouraged to act accordingly.
His statement encourages the perpetrators of evil, and murder, and genocide. My statements denounce the perpetrators of evil,murder, and genocide. Apparently, you cannot see the difference. I am popular with God because I am, and that is all I know. Osiyo!
Thank you for explaining so clearly and honestly. We need to understand your position, as few of us can fathom your perspective. I have not heard any other original person (edit: part descendant of the original people of this land) speak as you do in these modern times.
Here is another question:
Q.What makes you think Anarchy is a workable solution? Doesn't such a system require a better type of person than any of us are?
BTW The police have become more militarized, I believe. But we do not have a police state. The American people won't put up with that. Believe me! And the cop in this incident will not walk... well, based on the video… but, still... innocent until proven guilty.
One more question in regards to this comment:
"Concerning forgiveness: God has not forgiven America. Take a good look around."
Q. What do you see?
(I understand if now is not the time to answer these questions.)
I was not addressing "unflattering" remarks, and I certainly was not criticizing you relative to Political Correctness, or "proper social etiquette."
But, I have had second thoughts on this part of my response;
It was too harsh and judgmental for a public comment. I certainly don't have, (nor do I want), the standing to make such a statement. My apologies.
As for the rest of your comment - the few points that I might find common ground with fall far down the line behind the rest of your rhetoric that prompted this exchange.
I thought of three people when I saw this video; Sed-Me, MelissaBarrett .... and you.
http://faithtap.com/2195/lowell-police- … surprises/
I know, I know, you assumed we would be smart enough to read between the lines for your implied qualifiers, like; some police, not all police, etc. etc.
Having superior intelligence is like being beautiful, many people will covet what you have and even hate you more than they hate people who are wealthy, as they themselves long to be. They hate the beautiful and the intelligent more because these are things money cannot buy, but are truly gifts from God. I don't know why you posted the disgusting video, but I hope it's because you have a sense of humor.
It's amazing how many gullible people will get all warm and fuzzy over such an obvious attempt to gloss over the evil that law enforcement represents in general. It is fascinating how many of you who would censor my words, will offer nary a harsh word for the murderers of children. Bravo!
Rather than superficial gestures, the citizens would be better served with the mandatory implementation of citizen review boards that would monitor and control police policy and activity. In other words, the police would be answerable to the citizen; as it should be in a free society.
Disgusting video? Really, after viewing a coordinated effort by a law enforcement agency to bring a little holiday surprise and cheer into the lives of the citizens they serve... and all you can say is "disgusting video?"
Sure it was a stunt. Sure it is probably a one-off. But it also paints a much different picture of community policing than you want to believe is the norm. I am surprised that I expected any other response from you. My bad.
And, I will try to phrase this as generically as I can to try to avoid getting banned. Your "superior intelligence," "I am good with God," and all the rest of your postulates are really getting hard to take. If I were to allow my true sentiments to control the keyboard, I might end up typing something about you taking your opinion of yourself and... well I think you get the idea.
On the other hand, the Curmudgeon in me is wondering if I have not fallen for a ploy. Can anyone really be as anti-good-in-life-and-humanity as you appear to be? Or are you just baiting the less intelligent of us for your own pleasure?
Oh well, I will go with first, second, and third, and forth impressions. You need to lighten up. You can't possibly be as superior as you think you are.
"<Or are you just baiting the less intelligent of us for your own pleasure?> Ulp ….
The "Ruling Elite" controls our representatives and our military complex.
So, lets get rid of the CAUSE of Elitism:
Capitalism. American Freedom American Liberty
We anarchists must destroy everything as it now exists
and instill something never tried before.
Good luck with that.
I think I will just go,
and be happy.
uh.... not sure but I think you are agreeing with my sentiments to WB's position. If that is correct, then, no worries, if anyone is to suffer a ban,. it will be me.
And I think you are right. Even if this was a one-in-a-million occurrence, it is a hellava powerful example of community policing. I am perplexed that anyone but WB could find it a "disgusting" video. Fortunately, I think that most will find WB's respective to be representative of a minority of one.
I had meant to say, seemingly justified in that prior comment. I wasn't agreeing with him. I only agree that its wrong to murder innocents, that sort of thing, when it comes to WB.
It's interesting that after all of the recent publicized killings of innocent people, "officer friendly" becomes Santa Claus. This is why people with low IQ's should not be allowed to be part of any serious decision making process that affects the overall welfare of the general populace. Give them a lollipop and they'll agree to anything. This will certainly make a difference with the family of Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, and the thousands of families across the U.S. who have lost loved ones to Killer Cops. (*note to the lovers of Freedom and Democracy: the previous statement is an example of sarcasm.) It's an interesting coincidence that after all of the recent negative publicity this video was released. I am sure there will be more government propaganda as well. I am equally sure this video will pull at the heart strings of millions of Americans as they sing Lee Greenwood songs, and tearfully exclaim, " God Bless America! We freed the blacks from the poverty of Africa, and all the Indian's from the headache of having to maintain an entire continent. Now, let us free them all from the myth of Police Brutality!"
My superior nature is not in question here. I have not used a superior nature to rape and stifle the minds of the innocent simply because I can, or from motivations of power, control, and greed. Your desire, and inability to say hateful things due to the restrictions here, should be satiated with the fact that I have felt the nature of your intent. The exact words would not add a significant amount to what I already understand.
Let it be known that I take no pleasure in seeing the dumb brute who licks the salt block led off to the slaughterhouse, nor do I see a sport in killing the foul of the air, the fish in the sea, or the deer that stands at the edge of the thicket. As I have traveled in time, it has become increasingly difficult to even step on the cockroach without feeling a slight sting of remorse. Understanding this to be so, I could hardly enjoy watching or participating in man's inhumanity toward man.
There is no hope for many who have already grown old, for they have served a purpose and will soon fade back into the dust. But it is the very young who may still have a chance to break free of this mental slavery.
Thanks for showing all those quotes. I think I had missed a lot of them actually. It sheds light a lot, especially when someone wants to say things, then say they never really said it or suggested it almost. Its time consuming, but they are there.
As for the video, it brought tears to my eyes, that was really cool of them to do that.
Thanks, I liked the video too. And guess where I found it? Of all places, on a Christian Faith site.
I got hung up and have spent hours watching a lot of their videos. Halleluiah to faith. I wish I had it.
The officers involved in this tragic shooting will probably be exonerated for under the circumstances. I find it strange that a 12 year old kid could not understand directions or respond to an obvious police presence. I think that there was something wrong with him. Mental illness, attention deficit, something. If I had a child like that, he or she would require more than the usual supervision. In all fairness, the parents needed to be more attentive to what was going on. Most of us by 12 years of age know not to resist instructions from law enforcement officers.
Would this had happened to Dennis the Menace while he was playing cowboys and Indians? Probably not. My complaint is that even though there is a justified fear by law officers of being shot and killed even by a child, the police force much as in the Ferguson case is not managed well. A force made of up more officers of color in Black communities could eliminate the possibility of the inordinate fear of blacks by law officers, who would then perhaps take a more measured approach to dealing with these situations. It is not just the individual but the police department as a whole.
So, segregation is good... again? Just because someone has a genetic code of dark skin they can only be policed by someone with a similar genetic code?
Good grief. Rip off the skin of anyone and we are all the same color. If you are talking culture... we are all Americans. That is the Ideal. Its about time we start working on our ideals.
If You Ask Me.
Racism is still part of the landscape and unfortunately we continue to intimidate each other, black and white. Too often, the ideal and the reality are far apart.
Looking at the fear and panic of the predominantly white police force in Ferguson contributed to what I consider poor judgment in how the Brown shooting was handled, much of this could have been defused with a police department more representative of the community it serves. This matter with the 12 year old could have been more deftly handled, I would have rather waited longer for a resolution and put the kid asleep with a tranquilizer gun than to have to kill him in cold blood. I would treat a trespassing bear with more compassion. That has nothing to do with segregation. There still exists a great deal of fear and mistrust between the racial and ethnic groups here. My suggestion would not solve all the problems, but would be one less negative variable when these sort of conflicts occur within these sorts of communities.
It is not just about the same color, but historical, sociological, psychological, political, economic etc., ( we certainly mark distinctions) differences that make it far more complex than the mere ripping of the exterior and seeing that we are all the same. You are right, but again, that is the ideal not the reality.( See Star Trek the Original Series "Let that be Your Last Battlefield')
When more of the defcon 5 attitudes between each other disappear as we attempt to correct what it is that keeps us from seeing each other as equals under the skin, then we can talk kumbaya.
Do you think that you would see yourself or society see you in the same way if your skin were brown or black?
Something to think about.....
"Would this had happened to Dennis the Menace while he was playing cowboys and Indians?"
Except for the cowboys and indians part... I think that in too many instances that might be a valid question.
A good accompanying question might be why would that be so? Racism, or cops dealing with reflections of a reality they deal with way too often.
"cops dealing with reflections of a reality they deal with way too often."
Deep down we are afraid of each other. Fear has a way of shutting down construction dialogue. Instead of looking at a 12 year old boy, it is easier to cling to prejudices and stereotypes and thereby overreact. . Blacks do it too, to automatically assume a defensive stance whenever something happens in a racial confrontation, not allowing for the possibility that the adverse action may well have had nothing to do with racism does not help. To make the ideal work, people have to work harder to rise about preconceived notions and biases, taking them into their workplaces, especially people with jobs in law enforcement. It is the difference in going to meet others in a 3 piece suit verses sitting around in your BVDs eating potatoe chips. Civility, treating each other with the respect that we ourselves would want to receive from others.
I have not read the entire thread before posting this so I might be repeating something already stated. There seems to be this unquestioned belief that cops are in extreme danger and likely to be killed at any moment. The profession of police officer doesn't even rank in the top 10 most dangerous professions. Look it up. Moreover, cops are hired to protect and serve the citizens who pay their salaries. They should be courageous, intelligent, and compassionate. Their primary concern should be the safety of the citizens they serve, not themselves. That includes a 12 year old boy playing with a gun or a homeless man who might be mentally ill, either of which might be unable to respond immediately to a command. Cops are paid to take a little extra time to assess situations before resorting to killing. They are supposed to be more brave than the average person. They are supposed to use deadly force only as a last resort. If a cop cannot do this -- act with courage, assess before using deadly force, put himself in danger in order to protect the citizens he or she is hired to serve --then he should not be a cop.
I agree. And I am willing to excoriate individual bad cops. But I will not condemn the lot, or automatically assume the cop is wrong when there is doubt.
The two current events being discussed make good examples of how I see this; The officer in the Ferguson shooting was not a bad cop, nor does it appear he acted wrongly or with malice - as I perceive the revealed details, but the cops in the Rice/Cleveland shooting were definitely wrong. They may not have acted with malice, (unknown to me), but their actions certainly illustrate a lack of necessary judgement after they arrived on scene.
But I disagree with your "extreme danger" thought. If they don't make the Top Ten most dangerous occupations list - maybe it is due to good training - as illustrated by the majority of police officers - because in almost every police/civilian interaction they are dealing with lawbreakers, some minor some dangerous.
Even the most routine traffic stop could, (and has) result/resulted in a policeman being shot at point blank range - with no warning or time to react. And even the most "safe" looking encounter with a loiterer or "minor" law breaker could turn out to be a deadly confrontation - as we have also recently seen illustrated.
Of course there are bad cops. There are bad people in every segment of, and occupation in, our society. I think the bad cops are a very very small percentage of the total cop population, and for the risks they take and the job they try to do, I think we all owe them the respect of the uniform until the individual wearing it proves they don't deserve it.
Holy cow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your superior interpretation of my remarks is so far off the mark that I think it is you that want to bring the stereotypes into the conversation.
"You have commented that the image looks a lot like Trayvon Martin. To translate for the slower readers, this is a clever way of saying, " They all look alike".
I am betting that the "slower readers" you refer to, (as in not as sharp and clear sighted as yourself), would have looked at the two pictures and seen the comparison being made was to the innocent cherubic image being used to manipulate public impression vs. the "less innocent" real image seen by the cops.
Here was my point concerning, "This sure looks like a replay of the media's Trayvon Martin images."
As can easily be seen, the media portrayal of Trayvon Martin, using 4+ year-old pictures presented a much different picture to the public than the more accurate "current" images of him that Zimmerman would have seen. Which was the point of my comment. Maybe some of those "slower readers" might chime in to set me straight.
I sure thought the included images addressed that point - for all readers, but if you really want to insist that I could only have been showing my true racist "They all look alike" colors, then maybe it would stem from your own superior perception of the media's images.
Then you continued;
"You also are careful to make a connection between inner city gang violence and the murder of a child playing on a playground with a toy gun"
Once more you twist a portrayal to suit your bias, rather than address the reality of the moment.
I provided visual proof that both the image of a child, and the obvious instant identification of a toy gun are inaccurate and misleading portrayals. Yet you insist on painting that as the true picture - regardless of the facts. You even got the location wrong. It was not a playground, it was a public park.
So, put the real facts next to your portrayal - " a child playing on a playground with a toy gun" and I think even "slower readers" will be able to pierce the fog and see the light.
Then you go on about the Italians and the Mafia, which confused me, because I would have expected a mind as quick as yours to slyly attribute something about watermelons and fried chicken to my thought process. Hmm...
My confusion continued when you said i suggested; "... the life of the police officer is more important than the life of the child, and that it is better to kill an unarmed child by mistake than to risk an officer being shot and killed."
Where did I suggest that? I would be glad to address that point too.
I have only spoken to the insulting statements and insinuations in your response because the rest is merely a rant on your part. Even so, I am feeling like I should include an apology to the "slower readers" that are familiar with my forum activities. I try hard to leave insults out of my exchanges, but in this case I did not want to be the one that brought a knife to a gunfight.
Rather then ending with a "Just sayin'" I will be more clear. Your response to my comment was, inaccurate, purposefully misleading, condescending, and insulting. Not a very effective way to communicate. Maybe you need to remember to downshift from the higher planes of other forum discussions you participate in and type slower using smaller words when you are here on HP.
I have lived in a racist society my entire life, so I am not moved by your accusations. I have heard excuses for the genocide of my people, slavery, and now the killing of a 12 year old child. There are no surprises here.
I am fighting the precepts of "no boundaries." Cops are beneficial for society. But, they need to follow moral codes.
"Apparently you haven't watched the video. Barney Fife and Bobo pulled up in their cruiser and immediately jumped out of the car with guns drawn. Within seconds, not minutes, the 12 year old was murdered in cold blood. We can see from the video that no time was taken to assess the situation."
NOW, you mention a video. Now, you tell us the time frame. Thanks.
"This has become typical cop behavior in these situations." You are trying to convince us… you might be able to, if you try. We need for instances.
...no, that was GA Anderson's post.
<"The teachings of Jesus, as well as the teachings of any number of philosophers, or men of God, could have solved all of these problems long ago, but the majority refuses to listen…"> End of story.
It will probably always be so.
We are here to get out of here, anyway.
I agreed on your post of police officers following moral codes:)
Yes. One thing we will never know, though, is how it is to be black. We will just never know. But, anyone can become a victim of an immoral cop. Thats why its important for our society to be allowed to have religious freedom and to encourage the belief in the reality of God. God equals goodness, self control and respect for one another as children of God, Creator, Father, Mighty Triple O.
This sorta of goes against what I said up there. oops…
Unfortunately, the ideal cannot be counted upon. The reality is that humans are not that grounded in the ideal.
When they are grounded, you know it. You can sense it.
But, it is a treat. It is not a given.
1. Police officers are vested with an authority and power that enables them (in certain circumstances) to temporarily impinge on the welfare, freedom and privacy of individuals for the purpose of preventing, detecting and investigating crime. They are trained to wield that authority and power calmly, bravely, responsibly and with as much restraint as a situation allows. For that reason police officers can and must be held to a higher standard. Simply put, in an emergency situation we should expect a greater presence of mind, calmness, professionalism and judgement from a police officer than from an ordinary member of the public. If we cannot expect that, then we may as well be policed by ordinary members of the public.
2. There is a risk that a police officer will be killed in the line of duty. Acceptance of the job is an implicit acceptance of that risk. Everything should be done to reduce the risk as much as reasonably possible, but if a police officer cannot tolerate that risk, they should not apply for, accept, or continue the role of police officer.
3. Police officers are public servants who swear an oath similar to: "On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency I serve". Public trust and upholding the community cannot be achieved by police officers reacting to preconceived notions of individuals (stereotypes) and pre-judgement of situations (prejudice) based on who is involved, where and when. Fear cannot and should not be an acceptable excuse (see 1). Policing is dangerous. One of the things that makes it so dangerous is that each situation must be judged on a case by case basis in order to avoid these types of situation. Allowing pre-conceived notions to determine their actions may allow police officers to reduce personal risk to themselves, but it does nothing to maintain trust and uphold a community as this situation shows.
4. A child playing with a toy gun, in a park, not breaking any laws, should be able to do so without fear of being shot dead by police. Fear of strangers? Maybe. Fear of being bullied by an older kid? Perhaps. Fear of being shot dead by the police? Absolutely not. And there is no sane counter-argument to that in my opinion. If people think there is, then there is something very wrong with society.
5. Children typically (by their very nature) lack the knowledge, experience and maturity of adults. That is why they are considered vulnerable members of society and are afforded special protections. A child pointing a toy gun at passers by in a park, should not have to pay for that immaturity and lack of judgment with his life. A stern word from a police officer, and complete dread of what to expect from mom for being brought home in a police car? Definately. Death at the hands of a police officer? No.
6. Anyone who has seen the video and knows anything about law enforcement will tell you that the officers in this situation deployed incorrectly. They are too close. Had it been a real gun and a suspect intent on harm, they could have easily been shot before they had a chance to exit their vehicle. In this situation, reaction time is critical. They gave themselves and the suspect none. The word that best describes how officers are supposed respond in this situation is: de-escalation. Ending the situation with no injury or loss of life is the optimal outcome. The video shows that these officers gave no opportunity for that to happen. This situation should have resulted in a standoff between the officers (guns drawn at a safe distance issuing warnings and instructions) and the suspect. If it had the outcome may have been very different. This is not the power of hindsight, it is basic law enforcement training.
7. The majority of law enforcement officers do a fantastic job. They put themselves in harms way to protect the public and uphold the law. They perform an extremely dangerous and often thankless job and most of the time the police get it right. On this occasion the police got it wrong, and it helps no one to pretend they didn't. We cannot let our gratitude to the police officers who get it right, prevent us from holding accountable those officers who get it wrong. With great power comes, not only great responsibility, but also greater accountability. That is the price police officers pay for the privilege of wielding the power and authority vested in them, and that is exactly as it should be.
Well stated. And valid explanations. Almost all of which I agree with,
But... why did you feel the need to describe what the police saw as " a child in the park playing with a toy gun?"
All you points were rational and well-grounded, except that.
He may have been only twelve years old, and could be called a child, but I think a more common description from most people would have been "kid" or "young kid," or maybe even from a casual observation, as a teenager.
I doubt that folks seeing what the police saw, and what the 911 caller saw, (he called him a kid), would call him a child. Your, (and others), use of "child" to describe him appears to me to be an attempt to manipulate. Your response didn't need it. It made sense without any distortion.
Also, the gun may have turned out to be a toy, but there is no way for anyone to tell it from a real gun without actually handling it, (the makers designed it for realism), much less from a distance and in the midst of a confrontational situation.
I think the cops were wrong. But for the remaining reasons you listed, not for the ones describing him as a child or the gun as a toy.
On the other hand, I especially agreed with your points #5 & #6.
The age of the boy and nature of the gun are relevant, because both highlight the error in judgment made by not deploying at a safe distance and establishing contact with the suspect. It reinforces the fact that pre-judging a situation is not always helpful.
And for the record (so to speak) are you saying that a 12 year old who looks older than he is, in a park, playing with a toy gun that looks real, who has committed no crime, should be afraid of being killed by the police?
Of course I am not saying that.
What I am saying is that using "child" and "toy gun" - in this case - as descriptors are misleading, and I think intentionally so.
There is a difference between being technically correct and realistically accurate.
Huh? If it is not a "real gun then it must be a toy gun. Are you suggesting that with an upgrade the gun could have used real bullets. LOL! There is no inbetween here. A great many Americans love violence, and they enjoy killing. Any ol' excuse will do. That's really what time it is.
Hmm... Is there a need to continue?
Would it be futile to point out one perception of a "toy gun" might be cap guns, and ones that go click-click when the trigger is pulled - and have bright orange identifying tips, or that there is an "in-between" type, like BB and Pellet guns that actually shoot a projectile?
Does it matter that the use of "toy gun" was used to imply it should have been obvious to the officer? If so, I will stick with my view that the term was used do denigrate the officer's intelligence, and to infer he had the evil intention of shooting the kid just because he was black. You are obviously welcome to whatever frame of reference fits your agenda.
We can clearly see that the intention of either officer was not to save the life of a child. Otherwise they would have taken more than 2 seconds to assess the situation when no one was in immediate danger. These cops are obviously cowards and murderers. But since a majority of Americans celebrate Columbus Day, it is not surprising that they would make excuses for the killing of a 12 year old boy. After all,Columbus is personally responsible for the killing of millions of innocent men, women, and children.
I see a toy gun as fantastically shaped and coloured and bearing little or no similarity to a real gun.
A replica gun however bears no visual difference from a real gun and would take close examination to tell the difference.
What is "safe distance" from a 9mm? One mile? Two? How do you "establish contact" from two miles away?
There is no safe distance from ignorance and stupidity, because these are the demons that follow the afflicted everywhere they go. The historical record has proven that violence will not end violence. Only a foolish race could believe otherwise.
And yet...I've never heard of violence from a corpse. Perhaps the answer is to simply eradicate the human race?
We can be assured that a flippant remark is not the answer. It is quite revealing that a 12 year old boy has been murdered by the police and many respondents on this thread are willing to defend the perpetrators of evil at all costs. But they will direct nary a harsh word toward an oppressive state that promotes and perpetuates a police force of simple minded thugs who prefer to shoot first and ask questions later. The good news is that I have no doubt the apologists will reap what they have sown. Good luck!
You're right, there is no safe distance from a gun that allows for communication, but even some distance makes you less of an easy target and so reduces the risk. It also has the benefit of creating an opportunity for communication to take place.
The video shows that these officers deployed in a way that 1) made them very easy targets, increasing the risk to their own safety; 2) prevented any communication taking place, and therefore any opportunity to de-escalate.
So perhaps the definition of a "safe" distance, or let's call it a safer distance is not just about how far the officers would have to go to not get hit by a bullet. Perhaps it's about reducing the risk to themselves and the suspect and allowing themselves to communicate and make decisions with the optimal outcome in mind - suspect in custody, no harm - as opposed to being so close that they are forced to act purely on impulse.
The assumptions they made, why they made those assumptions, and how those assumptions influenced their decisions on that day, are also important questions, but for me the lack of communication meant there was no opportunity to de-escalate. That was caused by the officers deploying incorrectly. As hindsight now shows us, that was a tragic mistake.
The no chance for deescalating, was my very first thought when I heard this story. It sounds like better options could have been pursued. I think when the child grabbed the gun, instead of raising his hands..... that made the officer seem to lose some sense of thinking clearly. Perhaps fear entered in, and then impulse. You seem pretty fair in your characterization, which I appreciate, though I came in late on all of this, and haven't read everything, and probably won't be able to.
For those who may still be in doubt as to whether this tragic incident may be symptomatic of a wider problem within the Cleveland Police Department, this is from March 2013:
"The Justice Department announced today that it has opened a pattern or practice investigation into use of force by the Cleveland Division of Police (CPD). The investigation will focus on allegations that CPD officers use excessive force, including unreasonable deadly force, and on the adequacy of CPD’s training, supervision, and accountability mechanisms that are essential to effective, constitutional policing."
This was prompted by a fatal shooting incident in 2012 that resulted in the deaths of two unarmed people after 137 shots were fired by police. As a result of the incident 6 officers were indicted, and 5 supervisors were charged with dereliction of duty.
More, or just as importantly, the guy who phoned it in said that he thought it was a replica gun, no doubt backed up by the fact that though the boy had been running around pointing the gun at people, not a single shot had been fired!
I am interested to hear the excuses this time. I am sure they will be very creative.
Sure, I support trying anything that might make a difference.
I would note that 12 year old boys can and have shot people. So there is a decision process police have to go through as to whether the threat is real, which is not always straightforward.
Look at who ISIS and the Iraqi "government" are using as "soldiers". Look at the incidence of children used as suicide bombers, or the numbers of servicemen killed in Vietnam by kids hugging them with grenades attached.
Our military has learned the hard way not to indiscriminately let children approach them, and while that's extreme for a cop, they can't afford to let children point guns at them or anyone else.
According to reports he wasn't pointing the gun at anybody. The gun was in his waistband, the police thought he was reaching for it.
No suggestion that the police had ordered him to put the gun down was there?
And why would they, if its in a waistband. It appears they made the right commands initially and were ignored.
Your "logic" is fascinating! This was not Vietnam. This wasn't a potential suicide bomber. This wasn't a kid suspected of stealing cigars from a local store. This wasn't a kid walking down the middle of the street and and then allegedly cursing at the police.
This was a kid playing on a playground , which is a proper place for kids to play! This was a kid that was playing with a toy gun; a toy that an be legally purchased at any number of toy stores throughout the United States. Furthermore, it is not unusual for little boys to play with toy guns. In fact, that's who they are primarily made for.
There were no hostages facing imminent danger. There had been no shots fired. No one was screaming for help. These are facts. Consequently, the police could have taken their time to assess the situation before using deadly force. They could have taken the time to understand that they were dealing with a child who may not have been aware of the seriousness of the situation.
Last but not least, as I have already stated,while taking the time to assess the situation, they could have stayed in the relative safety of their patrol car.They could have used a loudspeaker, or a bullhorn to communicate with the child. They could have also used binoculars to closely examine the scene from a distance. Had they done so they could have easily seen that it was only a toy gun. If the police don't already have binoculars in their patrol cars I suggest that the life of a child, or any other citizen, is worth more than the cost of a pair of binoculars!
My assessment has nothing to do with 20/20 hindsight. My assessment is based on my intelligence, my humanity, my morality, and my uncommon sense.. I will not use the term "common sense", because as this term is defined, and considering the current state of the world, I hardly believe that my wisdom is shared by a majority. Thus, the "common sense" is so far beneath me, that to the average American, my thoughts and ideas on this subject will have the overall impact of a whispering memory ... long forgotten.
This situation is very tragic. You are a 100 percent right. I am sure those Police Officers didn't wake up saying. " I'm going to kill a 12 year old today! I am sure that no Police Officer feels good about killing anyone. Playground and Public Park are very different. Look at all these kids that shoot and kill other kids in school. This situation the Police Officers should have not been so fast to shoot the boy. There are def protocols they have to follow and if it was real and the kid was going to shoot there is no way of those Officers knowing what is going through the kids head and this was I'm sure a big lesson to all Police Agencies. This had nothing to do with race. That's ridiculous! Tragic for everyone involved!
I have quit looking but to date, I am unable to find the "race" or "ethnicity" of the officers involved. Has that been provided anywhere?
It was just some of the threads some people had try to bring race into this. Which is not the case and I had mentioned that that had nothing to do with anything!
Yes! They belong to the race known as "stupid". It's a race that includes people of all colors and nationalities who are easily confused, shoot and kill 12 year old boys, and squeeze rabbits too hard.
Deputy Chief Ed Tomba said that the officers told him to show his hands and throw down his gun!
I believe that what you call a rookie cop is what we would call a probationer who would not be put straight into situations where they held the power of life and death until they had proved them selves to be stable under pressure and not to over react.
It must be awfully lonely up in your ivory tower WB!
This is a real gun that has been Cerakoted. Would you like to explain how an officer is to react if he sees this? Discuss.
So what is your point? The technology of today allows us to disguise our appearance and the sound of our voice as well. We must also realize that there are any number of ways an individual bent on violence and mayhem may fulfill their blood lust. For instance, a sheriff's deputy was recently ambushed and killed in Tallahassee Florida. It appears that a man who had previously threatened the police purposely set his own house on fire. Knowing that a neighbor would call 911, the man hid outside of his house and waited to ambush police. He killed one deputy and wounded another before he was permanently retired from active service.
So what is your solution? You have pointed out that a criminal can disguise a real weapon as a toy. I have illustrated that a 911 call can actually be used as a ruse leading to an ambush. With this understanding, I suppose we can conclude that it's OK to shoot and kill 12 year old boys who may be holding a real gun. I suppose we can also conclude that if someone runs out of a burning house, or suddenly appears from behind a tree after an officer responds to a 911 call, that it is OK to shoot them too. Let us not forget that meteorites have on rare occasion fallen out of the sky and killed people. Perhaps the police should just barricade themselves in bomb shelters and conduct all law enforcement by proxy.
In a civilized society we should not need guns. I guess we are not there yet. Until that time, I guess it truly is a luck of the "draw."
Parents need to get a grip. If we cared about our society we would not promote gun violence through violent video games. We feed our kids violence by buying these games for them and toy guns as well. They want guns. Teens play with guns: they run around the neighborhoods with big ol' fake guns playing war. I've seen it in my own upstanding middle class neighborhood! That kid on the playground basically should not have even been playing with a gun in these times. Guns are serious and should no longer be promoted as toys or in games.
Thanks for this freedom of speech.
You commented, "That kid on the playground basically should not have even been playing with a gun in these times." That sounds a lot like, " That woman that got raped shouldn't have been walking in the park wearing a short skirt", or " That guy that got mugged last week should have known better than carry cash in his wallet". It really is easier to blame the victim , isn't it Kathryn?
You expect perfection out of cops who have witnessed the desperate psychotic behavior of criminals, their violence and their negative gang mentality / attitudes. Some men and women recently back from war in the Middle East have become police officers. They know bombings. They know violence. They've seen kids with guns fighting alongside adults.
Why do we not expect perfection from the adults in our society who know the love their kids bring forth into the world from the day they are born? In my opinion, its a crime to allow children to play violent video games. These games put killing into the sub-conscious psyches of impressionable minds. Through these games young children absorb violence and killing during their formative years.
Then they cry for a gun when they see one in the toy store. Parents today do not know how to say, "No. Guns are not for playing with. When you are older you may have to learn how to use one to defend yourself, but right now, you are too young…No Guns!"
" But, Johnny has one…" the child will insist.
"NO! " the wise parent will say.
Its that easy!
So, why was that woman walking in the park in her short skirt?
In this day and age who carries cash in their wallet?
If you don't want to be a victim don't put yourself in that position.
Its called 'manplay', Kathryn. Conservatives talk of the sanctity of the 2nd amendment, well it goes both ways. Our culture is awash in violence and gunplay, how do we expect children, particularly boys to be insulated from it? Nature and nurture plays a role, I had a GI Joe set when I was a kid. We do not accept the premise that women have to shroud themselves in a burka because the sight of stocking would be shocking. Yes, there are many times that I carry cash, as it is sometimes the most negotiable in many situations.
The military attracts many who may be given an outlet for aggression, availability and socially acceptable use of firearms and ordinance. GI Joe and firearm replicas are cultural preparation to the kids and help them to see the military as an adventure. That is large part and not the whole story. Manplay has been around since the Pharaohs and is not likely to go away soon.
I agree that the numbness to violence is cultivated on television and in the video games. One of the best sellers in the video game market is "Grand Theft Auto". It is bad enough that patronizing the illegal act of car theft is combined with the violence in this game.
I am a proponent of legal gun ownership and do not try to distinguish between the Saturday night special to the assault rifles for sale. The simple truth is that why take away from the responsible what the criminal so blatantly is willing to use in a crime. I was a gun owner until my sons began to enter adolescence. I sold them and never allowed my children to have play guns. They never questioned me about it and to this day own no guns. They were taught that the weapon is not a toy and when someone points one at you in life it is a very serious act. I feel this is a parenting problem and as with our seeing apathy in the caretaking of this country I see the same with teaching our children responsibility for their actions.
I think the point of Superkev's post was that there is nothing to be gained by changing the colour of replica guns,
Perhaps that can be found somewhere in the mix, but I feel the big story is that he feels "Officer Friendly" is just trying to do his job best he can, and that a good white cop would never carelessly kill a little black boy, unless absolutely necessary. I wonder what Superkev thinks about Andrew Jackson, Columbus, Charlie Manson, or any number of miscreants who have had "good reasons" to kill .
I think that you are reading far more into Superkev's post than is there.
War killing and nonsense killing are two different things. Cops are trained to avoid nonsense killing. The law will take care of them when they blow it. We need to know more about this incident before we can discuss it reasonably and realistically:
"November 22, 2014, in Cleveland, Ohio. Two White police officers, identified as 26-year-old Timothy Loehmann and 46-year-old Frank Garmback, responded to a city park after receiving reports of a boy armed with a gun. The officers reported that during the confrontation, Rice reached in his waistband and grasped a gun, prompting one of the officers to fire two shots, fatally hitting Rice once in the torso with one. They later found that the gun was only a toy. Rice died on the day after the shooting." W
I wouldn't be a cop in today's world. Thank goodness some people are willing to take on this challenge. In the end they need to remember... they are Peace Officers.
PS A playground and a city park are two very different things. A park is very open to the public. A playground is most often attached to a school, surrounded by a fence and just for kids. Your use of the word playground is misleading. Also, you said he was "playing" with a toy gun. No! He grasped it as though he was going to use it. It had been reported to 911 that there was a boy in the park with a gun. They came to investigate. What was the child thinking??? And why? Could he have had some video game playing in the recesses of his twelve year old mind?
You expect perfection out of cops who have witnessed the desperate psychotic behavior of criminals, their violence and their negative gang mentality / attitudes. Some men and women recently back from war in the Middle East have become police officers. They know bombings. They know violence. They've seen kids with guns fighting alongside adults.
INSTEAD: Why do we not expect perfection from the adults in our society who know the love their kids bring forth into the world from the day they are born? In my opinion, its a crime to allow children to play violent video games. These games put killing into the sub-conscious psyches of impressionable minds. Through these games young children absorb violence and killing during their formative years.
It should become unlawful to make and sell toy guns that look real. TV violence is also more serious tin stead of being entertaining. There should be more restrictions on violence in movies. Parents need to know more of what their children are doing out in the streets and who they are hanging with. This kid should not have lost his life. Police are trained not to take chances. Plus, now a days, they shoot to kill.
... and also outlaw realistic play swords, play knives, Flinstone clubs, play cowboy ropes, (they can be used to hang people), play ninja toy weapons, play anything that isn't cuddly.
No. All weapons need to be taken seriously. Children should learn how to use them properly rather than play with them. We give children less credit than we should. They are very intelligent beings who need (and want) to know how to survive and defend.
A grown man held up a bank with a toy gun. He was the man ahead of me. I watched him demand money from the teller who burst into tears! Having been trained as a lifeguard, I instinctively and stupidly reacted by alerting the bank workers! "Stop him!" I cried out. "He just robbed the teller!" He turned around and pointed his gun, which was concealed in his coat pocket, at me and said, "You want some of this?"
Then, he turned and fled. They actually caught the guy because someone got his license plate no. as he drove away. It was in the paper the next day. (The article mentioned the toy gun.) Still, I will never confront a robber or criminal again! It could have been a real gun… uh, he could have shot me.
I couldn't help laughing at your conclusion. INDEED, INDEED.
It seems that our police is on a conscious killing rampage against our (as Americans)African community or shall I say against our minorities.
As I was watching yesterday the news about the protest in Los Angeles, I couldn't help thinking, now the action of protesting will lead any citizen to jail. What is next for the United States of Dictatorship?
"the LAPD and CHP had been "extremely generous in allowing the expression of 1st Amendment activities.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m … story.html
Our LA police force is probably the most tolerant of all police forces. People are probably angry about a lot of things these days, but they can't just do as they like.
"After about nine hours of protesting through the streets of Los Angeles, demonstrators split into separate groups and some began “significant civil disobedience,” Beck said. Demonstrators walked onto the 101 Freeway at Grand Avenue, blocked intersections and refused to disperse." http://www.latimes.com
The American people are already "putting up with it" and have been for a while. The police state is a work in progress since before the turn of the 20th century.The beginning of the end for the white Euro-American working class and poor, was the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The next step in the downward spiral was the Social Security Act of 1935, and the subsequent issuance of Social Security Numbers in 1936. At this point every citizen would thereafter be "branded" by the state. There are other lesser events that have occurred over the years but these two were the most significant until the passage of the Patriot Act in 2001. I would not say that this particular act is on par with the previous two I have mentioned, but it was a significant move toward greater state control over the populace.
Some of the lesser events I have alluded to are laws that are designed to essentially "protect us from ourselves" or enhance the greater good, and public safety. But do not be fooled by my choice of words. These lesser events, acts, or laws have significantly helped to erode the personal freedoms of the average citizen. Here is a short list of some examples:
• seat belt laws
• laws that require insurance on automobiles, especially off road vehicles
• laws prohibiting use of drugs such as marijuana
• laws that prohibit the feeding of the homeless
• vagrancy and trespass laws that essentially make it a crime to be poor
Laws such as these collectively help to transform the human population into a herd of sheep. They serve a two-fold purpose. First of all, they help to condition the human mind into accepting the absolute authority of the state. Over a period of years, the populace begins not to notice the many restrictions placed upon their personal freedoms, and so many begin to feel quite comfortable living in a cage. Secondly, these laws help to generate a considerable amount of revenue for the state; to the tune of millions of dollars every year!
All that has come before, as I have only briefly outlined, has delivered us to where we stand today. Today we are living in a country where the police are above the very law they claim to serve. Today, it is considered acceptable for a police officer to kill an innocent suspect rather than risk being killed himself. Let us be thankful that firefighters don't feel this way! A man who runs into a burning building to save the life of a man, woman, or child can hardly be considered a coward. Each time he responds to a fire he is risking his life. Furthermore, dying in a fire can be a horrible way to die. The Tamir Rice murder is a metaphor for a house on fire. Rather than run into the burning house to save the child, they chose instead to kill the child. Consequently, there was no need to run into the burning house and risk their life. When we understand that in this case the metaphorical house wasn't even on fire; when we understand that they could have taken at least 5 minutes to assess the situation, instead of 2 seconds, we begin to understand what cowards,and what heartless animals these cops really are.
In its entirety, people are quite loathe to acknowledge the increasing encroachments on their very freedoms. In fact, they even rationalize this encroachments as security measures to ensure their protection against terrorism and related threats. They even believe that the purpose of social security and other monetary impositions is to safeguard them in their old age and/or time of need. There are those who contend that giving up some freedoms is a price to pay for a more secure American fabric. Almost everything in American society as of present is going under intense governmental scrutiny. Big Brother/Sister is IN WORKING ORDER!
You are absolutely right. The excuse that they must shoot to kill, especially when confronting a 12 year old boy who may or may not have a real weapon is ludicrous. But anyone who has watched the video knows that these two cops "were not" in fear for their safety. How do I know this? Common sense tells us that a man who fears for his life does not pull his patrol car directly up to a suspect believed to have a lethal weapon. A fearful cop would stop his car a safe distance from the suspect and then take some time to assess the situation before moving in. Their behavior is very suspicious indeed. Life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is what these two miscreant cops deserve.
Really u gonna kill him cause he had a TOY GUN!!!! HE IS A KID MY BROTHER HAS A TOY GUN AND HE IS 7 BUT A 12 YEAR OLD KILLED! THIS IS a kid we are talking about
Which inhibits immediate "toy gun" identification. Right?
It is simply absurd to focus on the physical characteristics of a toy gun. The focus should be on the lack of professionalism and the poor judgement used by the officers. If a house was on fire, it would be rather odd for a fireman to arrive at the scene and remark," Gee, I realize there is a 12 year old kid inside the house, but it looks like a "real" fire, and if I go inside I could be seriously injured or even killed". Most would consider this to be cowardly behavior.
Now let's look at where the slippery slope of cowardice can lead: Let us imagine an angry husband. We can see his wife, who is of Middle Eastern decent walking out the door with her suitcase packed, never to return. The angry, vindictive husband dials 911 and says his wife is on her way to the airport with a bomb in her suitcase, and that she plans to commit suicide by blowing herself up in the crowded airport. Not long after arriving at the airport the woman is murdered by the police. Surely,because Barney Fife saw the woman , told her to drop the suitcase, and she first turned to ask him why, many apologists would say that he had every right to shoot to kill. After all she didn't immediately respond to his command, she did look like an Arab, and many innocent people could have been killed. This scenario could very well happen anywhere in the United States. What we must remember is that the most important skill a police officer must possess is the ability to think and reason. It serves no one to have mindless, donut eating thugs, roaming the streets and killing 12 year kids, killing teenagers walking down the middle of the street in Missouri, or homeless men sleeping in the desert near Albuquerque New Mexico.
"It is simply absurd to focus on the physical characteristics of a toy gun. The focus should be on the lack of professionalism and the poor judgement used by the officers."
We can see where your focus is. Is it absurd to focus on the facts? The officer had a limited amount of facts at his disposal, and was in a pretty bad situation. The risk involved, thinking it was a real possible gun, when we know kids get killed by guns that they get a hold of too often. The colored "toy" indicator was gone, probably by no fault of the boy, but it WAS gone. Other innocent lives at stake very possibly. Let us all be glad we aren't those same cops in those situations! How absolutely awful to have that death on your hands! Then to be so accused after the fact, and all that is suggested.
After the fact, hindsight.... its so easy to blame as the ones in full view of all the facts. To judge those that had only a minimal amount at the time. I only speak up in the name of fairness, and pursuing of logic and rationality here.
I guess I don't claim to fully know all you think and believe, but you sure seem to be suggesting a lot. If there was some secret power hungry desire of some even truly bad cops, couldn't they carry those desires out in some other way than this? Funny, it was a lose lose for him when he made that choice. Perhaps sometimes, police don't get the credit they deserve, and aren't really killer thugs. I have to think the true killer thugs do their dirty work in less conspicuous ways. No, I don't have any family in the police force, nor any friends that are.
I imagine part of the point of a colored indicator, is to prevent this sort of tragedy. Perhaps we can focus on who took that off, and why they let a 12 year old wave that around in the area he did. He isn't old enough to fully weigh out those consequences and real danger. A cop shot him, after weighing all the facts, it could have been a parent or a passer by with their own weapon. Its a tragedy on multiple levels.
Regardless of the outcome I have to ask what the emergency was and why the police rolled up to the suspect with such urgency. I could understand if they saw upon their approach he was pointing the gun at a innocent bystander but I don't see any indication that took place. Was the report of an older suspect reason enough to drive off the road and rush up to the suspect holding the gun? Too many unanswered questions an I will anticipate the explanations forthcoming from the investigation.
I am going off of stories like this one,
http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/ … by-officer
and it says he was scaring everyone, putting the gun back in his waistband, etc. He was there with friends, so there were others. He pulled the weapon out.
Its horrible and sad.
I too am waiting for even more details.
I am responding to the video that shows the boy by himself as the police car comes in to the picture. The quick action on the part of the police may have spooked the boy and he responded as anyone would. There is a better way to handle a situation like this with a controlled response that would not precipitate quick reactions. The ten year veteran should have known better.
Perhaps so. By the way, when you say the boy responded as anyone would, how do you account for all the people that do put up their hands as police try to assess the scene, where a lethal weapon may be present? I don't really expect you to answer, but wanted to point out that all I am saying is we see the assuming of the worst of one side, and the total innocence of the other. It turns out he was pretty innocent, among other things, and didn't realize how very serious his actions were as seen by the public.
I don't deny for a moment, this is a needless tragedy, horrifying for all involved especially the family. The cop has to live now with this on his hands, and on top of that the harsh judgement of so many that are not being totally rational, suggesting so much more was likely going on in his mind that would better explain his actions than that of what the details point to. It was probably over reacting, at the very least. Officers however, have to deal with people with real weapons from the hands of children.
Am I the only one here that ever hears about little siblings and small children or adults getting shot because a child got a hold of a real gun. I am sure even if I am on HP that the officer knows guns can be reached by children. Sad but true.
As will most of us. But I admit the circumstances in this incident look much different from the Ferguson event.
So you are moving on to other complaints different from the "toy gun" aspect of your previous condemnations?
Exactly. I am in late on this whole convo, but from what I heard, the color was removed that would ID it as a toy gun.
Edit: It is so easy to damn and judge the officers after the fact. Assuming they mean real harm to twelve year old boys, when in all likelihood, they are out to save the lives of all children, twelve year old children included. (Like other children on a playground.) As if said officer wouldn't be raked over the coals for his choice. I don't think it makes a lot of rational sense that an officer wants a death of a child on his shoulders, and all that would follow after that, JUST to get away with some possible secret hatred for children or even racism. Like he saw an opportunity to "get away with it" because it looked like a real gun.
Even "donut eating thugs" would rethink such an idea, I would think. Its funny, some are so quick to judge, while not thinking through fully what they are suggesting.
I have judged no one after the fact. I, and many others, have foretold the evil of Ferguson and Cleveland long ago. But many have chosen to bury their head in the sand and ignore reality. It makes perfect sense that a coward would shoot first and ask questions later. It makes perfect sense that a simpleton would mishandle a situation and allow what should have been routine to escalate into murder. It also makes perfect sense that psychopaths, killers, and sadists would find police work attractive. Other than the military, it is the only job that allows you to mistreat, brutalize, rape, and even kill people with relative impunity. Finally I am not quick to judge. My understanding is based on a lifetime of living within this evil American system. My understanding is also based on my years of study that have helped me to understand what came before. Welcome to the real world. http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column … an_cops-0/
I too, am against those that choose to bury their heads and ignore reality. You bring up Ferguson, this is a great example of where we actually saw some facts come out, and saw the hell break loose. Its about people's personally held beliefs so often I think, and NOT about logic, reason, and rationality. Viewing everything not on their individual merits, but on what they are insisting on seeing despite facts to the contrary.
I would imagine that simpletons and cowards that might actually be psychopaths, killers, rapists and sadists need not stage such elaborate schemes to get their dirty work done. Its just not rational to assume the worst so much of the time, imo. To judge so incredibly harshly, before all is known. This is the real world. I don't have time for the others.....
Toy guns in this day and age should have to be neon pink and neon green to eliminate any issue. Of course, you'd probably have some criminal element manage to color real guns in such a manner and a lot of dead police officers.
I could not find a good video of this shooting - they are all very grainy and unfocused. I cannot, for instance, determine if the child had a sad face (something I've seen said) and was shooting targets when the officer's arrived on the scene.
I am concerned with the quickness with which this officer shot this child, mainly, but I cannot see if the child is reaching for the gun.
I am angered that the initial information given to the officers neglected to mention that the complaints said they believed it to be a toy gun. That information might have made the officer pause and take cover rather than shoot first. I don't know.
I am wondering who took the identifier off the toy gun in the first place and why. Was the child bullied at school and flashing it as a means of protection? Was he the bully and using it to bully others? Did the parents know the identifier was off the gun? In this day and age would you allow your child to walk around town with a toy gun that looks like a real one? I surely would not.
Lastly, why did this 12 yr old child think confronting police officers was the good choice? If my 12 yr old heard a police officer order him to do something, he'd do it and be shaking in fear wondering what he'd done wrong. Then he'd shake in fear of facing his momma.
There is so much wrong - so much needs addressing and fixing.
It makes me weary and not very hopeful.
A mature adult when ordered by the police to drop his weapon would do so slowly and deliberately to avoid any action from the armed police standing ten feet from him.
This was not a mature adult.
Do you know he wasn't shaking in fear and so desperate to remove the threat from the two police confronting him that he made a grab for his gun to throw it down as ordered as quickly as possible?
Like I said, I would like a better video of the incident because it is difficult to see what is really going on.
Every report so far though says he was told to put his hands up, not drop the weapon.
Mostly, I want to know why the fact, a very important one, that the callers said they believed it to be a toy gun was not relayed to the officers. I think that one thing would have made the difference in this case.
Are we sure it wasn't? After all, whether a bystander thinks it was a toy or not has little to do with how the cops react; they simply cannot afford to assume a gun is but a toy. Even if they were told that it WAS a toy (not just maybe), they cannot take the chance it is not.
It is irresponsible for a policeman to assume that a pistol that looks real is a toy, instead. He has the responsibility to survive his shift and to protect any innocents that might be killed if the gun proves to be as it appears. He can hardly do either if a gun that looks real proves to be as it appears and he is the first killed.
The police department involved came out and said that the information about it being a toy was not relayed to the officers. It is not that I think they would have just laughed it off if that information had been imparted, because I've see the pics of the gun and it does look real. I just think he may have taken cover behind the car and given the order at least one more time perhaps, before firing.
Even with the bad video you can see he shoots very very quickly upon exiting his vehicle.
As you said, contrary to what some seem to believe, a police officer shouldn't die in the line of duty if it can be avoided either. They have to assume it is real, I understand that, and I'm not really blaming him though I can see how it appears that I am. Just that it may have given that split second - then again, I see your side where if real, that split second might cost him or another their lives.
That's why I say neon pink and neon green for toy guns. Whatever easily seen identification as a toy can be done. Whatever it takes that is not also easily copied to cover up a real gun. Certainly we can come up with something in this day and age.
Reason does not seem to be the trump card for some here. Nor are certain terms acceptable except in a confined group of like minded folks. But we must notice a recent remark regarding a "foolish race."
Is there such a thing? Or is it simply mirror-image remark?
What race sold their heritage for a bottle of whiskey time and again? What race split their allegiances to their own to help the invading hordes of greed? What race hated each other by tribe or clan or sept to such a degree that there was enjoyment in seeing their enemy burned in a variety of ways? What race never learned from the past? My Cherokee ancestors were part of such a race.
But the above is a short history of every race. "Lord, what fools these mortals be."
You have a lot of questions. The most important question that you must answer is, "Which is my left and which is my right?" When you have answered this question, I am sure that all else shall be revealed to you. Such a verbose response was not necessary to illustrate your allegiance to the status quo. Furthermore, you would have done well not to use this as an opportunity to slander the Indigenous.
Your "history lesson" is a racist cliche that will play well with those whose attention span is limited to fictional accounts of 500 words or less. But it is well known that Tecumseh, Tatanka IyoTanka, Goyathlay, and many more were honorable men who stood against the European Invasion, and fought bravely for their people. If your ancestors were traitors that is your problem.
I guess I should be insulted! Let me think. Hhmm. No, I'm not. Armchair politicians are, at best, humorous in their attempt to deal in areas where they have no expertise, knowledge or experience. But thanks for the kind words and enlightenment. I am sure you will make a difference in a lot of peoples lives.
Here's what I am wondering:
The officers in both of these current incidents, (involving Michael Brown and Tamir Rice) shot their suspects and killed them. Why? They know the justice system. They know many get away with their "gang activities" produced by their "gang mentality" because the justice system is overburdened.
In the case of Michael Brown, he stole items from a store and he had been smoking pot. He slugged the officer, etc. But, I do not believe he should have been executed on the spot. In fact, one of the videos on You Tube shows people in the process of observing and mimicking Michael Brown who did finally hold up his hands in surrender. He was killed with the final shots afterwards.
Perhaps. I am only surmising. The verdict has been reached, after all.
In the case of Tamir Rice: When I watched the video again, I saw that a figure walking past the boy had been removed from the film. (You can see it clearly in one particular version.) As the figure passes, Tamir holds up his realistic looking pellet gun with both arms held out straight and aims it directly at the passerby's back. If the cops took the video, one could imagine they were QUITE alarmed! They did not care that this individual was young. He looked old enough to be a threat to the lives of others. But, they took it too far. It really seems like they went in with the intent to eliminate the threat altogether.
The jury will decide based on the facts. Hopefully they will look deeply enough.
I am wondering if the mistake these officers made is this:
First of all, they are judging a book by its cover, (prejudice based on past experiences alone.) Secondly, they are taking the law into their own hands as they justify providing what they consider to be an appropriate punishment: death.
If so, this is deplorably mistaken thinking of the highest degree, to say the least. What we might be witnessing is an abuse of the power their job provides them, pure and simple.
What is the solution?
Not letting them get away with it and calling it as it is.
They are not allowed to be judge and jury and they are not allowed to by-pass the judicial system, just because they think it's in the best interest of society.
Funny thing.... I am actually one that does not automatically trust cops or the government, certain leaders, etc. So I just find this all kind of ironic.
I think we need to be careful that we aren't inadvertently encouraging more harm to be done to people and officers overall. I am just saying this is so easy to "arm chair quarterback or back seat drive" in our judgements. Why judge harshly now that we KNOW what the officer DIDN'T know at the time. He knew there was a gun that might have been a fake or a toy, but that lacked the usual ID of the toy guns. Scaring people in parks isn't ok either. He shouldn't be dead. That is horrifying. Another day though, some will likely have to die, and people will be raking the officers over the coals then for NOT shooting when the person with a gun didn't comply.
IF its true as we know the details as of now, that the boy grabbed the gun again after being told to raise his hands, and the gun didn't indicate it was a non lethal gun, then we ought to perhaps give the care we are demanding the officer had at the time..... Care and consideration, before assuming people are donut eating murderous thugs, in essence. Good grief.
You are missing the point entirely. The actions of a 12 year old boy are not the issue here. The issue is the unprofessional and reckless manner in which the cops handled the situation. The cops are trained and paid to be professional, and to handle situations like this. Their job is not to simply run in like Rambo and neutralize a potential threat without properly assessing the situation. Scaring people in parks is not a capital offense, and no lame brained cop has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. Perhaps the difference between us is I do not defer myself to the state or it's minions. The police are public servants, and should be brought to heel and made to behave as such. Instead, they have claimed absolute authority over every citizen. A citizen is expected to obey their every command, under threat of violence or death. It is the majority's deference to unbridled authority that will lead to more killing ,unrest, and ultimately a bloody revolt.
You say, "You are missing the point entirely."
Am I though? Or am I being fair to look at what even brought the police out in the first place. I observe that you are keying in much harder on the actions of the cop, but also observe you kind of separating out the actions that preceded the officer's. You cannot fairly do this and claim to be about fairness and freedom for all.
I am not decided fully on the officer's actions, and only weighing what we do seem to know for sure. That is, a call was made, an officer responded to a person that had been waving a gun around, scaring people. When approached, and asked to raise his hands, he did not. He not only did not, but grabbed the weapon again. Tragic, considering he was only 12!! I don't claim to know what is taught at any academy anywhere, of what an officer is to do when a person grabs for a gun instead of raising their hands. I understand you are suggesting he have let it play out, let the boy play with or pull a weapon that appeared to be lethal, with innocent civilians around, including himself. This all IS very much the point. Without such actions we wouldn't be here discussing this.
How many seconds exactly DO you wait, when children and other civilians are around, and a person that has a gun pulls it, rather than raises hands? How many seconds does it take to kill someone with a real gun (from the officers point of view, as I see the story), over waiting to negotiate with a person that would rather grab a gun than raise hands as asked?
You, WB, do not have the same access to the mind of the officer you are judging as he did/does. All I am saying, is he COULD have been absolutely properly assessing things. We don't know fully, but with what we do know, it very well could be. You seem to assume the worst. Do you know this cop? Is it a warranted thought that he didn't properly assess, or maybe even running in like Rambo, wanting to shoot a kid in a park that was just scaring others? Are you really suggesting this cop thought it was best to be judge, jury and executioner, at the cost of a twelve year old's life? How does this benefit him exactly? He MAY have been reckless, and probably with your and my hindsight MAY have wished he would have done something different. I am seeking fairness.
You say, "Perhaps the difference between us is I do not defer myself to the state or it's minions." Why would you say this to me? What do you mean exactly?
You then say, "The police are public servants, and should be brought to heel and made to behave as such. Instead, they have claimed absolute authority over every citizen. A citizen is expected to obey their every command, under threat of violence or death. It is the majority's deference to unbridled authority that will lead to more killing ,unrest, and ultimately a bloody revolt."
I don't know what warrants all of that.... I know nothing I have said does. I can't stand the idea of unbridled authority, especially if it is lacking morality and or lacking a freedom and justice for all. Perhaps you are assuming a bit too much about me, and everyone that doesn't automatically agree with you? If you explain why you are making such a charge that I defer myself to the state or its minions, then I won' t have to ask. We could save some time there.
I don't recall I said anything about fairness and freedom for all. Such sentiment is used in these types of cases to elicit sympathy for criminals.
You speak of what we know for sure, but the part about the boy grabbing the toy gun again, is a story told by the officers. I watched the video and the boy was obscured from view after the cops arrived. To my knowledge there is no other camera that verifies the officers account. Apparently, whatever they say, you are willing to believe without corroborating evidence. Ironically, you have accused me of making judgements before all of the facts are known. Yet, you speak as if their version of events is the gospel truth. Let me also note that I have not suggested that the cops should have let the boy pull the supposed weapon, point the supposed weapon, or let any sort of dangerous scenario play out. This is a fiction you have created to bolster your argument.
I have maintained throughout this thread that the police were reckless, and put themselves , and Tamir Rice, in harms way as a result of their stupidity. I have also maintained that the life of a child, or citizen is more important than the life of a cop, or public servant. If after all necessary precautions have been taken, and the cop is still injured or killed, this must be accepted as the cost of doing business. A fireman accepts the dangerous nature of his job, and for him there are no guarantees of safety. Why is a cop any better than a fireman?
You have asked, "How many seconds exactly do you wait? The answer to the question is:" You don't". You don't put yourself in harms way from the start. There are procedures and precautions that help to minimize danger. That's why police officers are supposed to be trained. Furthermore, when we look at the video , there are no innocent children standing around waiting to become victims of a 12 year old playing in the park. No I don't have "access to the mind of the officer " as you have stated. On the contrary I am an intelligent person and would never create a situation that could escalate into the murder of an innocent child. In fact, my IQ prohibits me from becoming a cop in certain jurisdictions because I am too smart.
If the cops had been properly assessing the situation , Tamir Rice would be alive today. What don't you understand here? I do assume the worst because a child is dead and an entire family has been crippled for life. I have no sympathy for the killers who will spend this coming Christmas with their families. I do not know Adolf Hitler or Columbus, but I have the mind to assess the legacy of a tyrant. The legacy here is that someone is dead who was a threat to no one. The legacy here is that in their supposed attempt to protect the public they created a victim. The very facts warrant my outrage. The facts show that these losers were either very stupid, or that they had a blatant disregard for human life. Either one of these is unacceptable. I suspect that anyone who behaves in such a fashion must have sadistic tendencies.
Your very words indicate that you have deferred yourself to the authority of the state. You concern yourself with fairness for the minions of an oppressive system when they have proven that they are cold blooded murderers. There is no question about what they have done. There is no question that they took no time to assess the situation. There is no question that they were reckless. The "why" of a psychopath or sadist will not mitigate the cold blooded murder of a child.
Your mindset is revealed in the words you speak, as well as those unspoken. If you have spoken the truth then you have revealed that you are existing in a state of mental, and physical slavery. You say,
" I can't stand the idea of unbridled authority, especially if it is lacking morality and or lacking a freedom and justice for all." Yet, this type of authority has existed, more or less, for over 500 years on this continent." Where have you been?
"If after all necessary precautions have been taken, and the cop is still injured or killed, this must be accepted as the cost of doing business"
I submit to you that "necessary precautions" include removal of the threat of being shot and that includes shooting anyone trying to point a gun at anyone else (including the cop). It even includes grabbing a gun after being given orders not to.
You do seem to ignore the family of the cop, but cops (and their family) are at least as important as the ones they protect. They are, after all, people and deserve every opportunity to make their jobs safer.
By all means, let's make our jobs safer by killing little black kids who play with toy guns ... just in case. After all, it is this kind of logic that has made America the greatest show on Earth.
And we all know that exaggerated drama doesn't make for great shows, lol. This kind of makes my point again.
People can make points, that may not necessarily agree with all you say, AND not be for cop killers, that go after little black kids that just want to play with toy guns on playgrounds. Good grief. Doesn't this kind of strong rhetoric just cloud the real facts of the discussion?
Of course it clouds it. But isn't that the point? To cloud the facts and turn it into another rant against the evil descendants of Columbus?
What would you expect to come from the egg of a chicken? A turtle?
I know neither your parents nor educators; I could not have any expectations as to what either one would produce.
The judgements never end. People need not do anything but be a descendant now.. Point made again.
Even with the IQ I have (lol), I gathered something along the lines of this. It doesn't make sense to me to drag another debate or discussion though, into this one.
Even if it did make sense to someone, where would it ever end? How could any past wrongs be corrected or "righted" by using what seems to me to be rather poor analogies.
What we do know, is that we won't ever just be talking about what it seems we are, and this can have many problems associated without the ability of being a mind reader at least. It does cloud, doesn't help, and can't correct past wrongs done to any people groups. Its very possible the judgements seem to come from the same spring, and nothing will quench that need for justice, when it is attempted to be done through such a means. How could it? Thus possible frustration for a real matter that happened so long ago, and going after the wrong people to rectify, if so. I could be wrong.
Of course it doesn't make sense to you. Your comment further illustrates why the world is in constant turmoil. There is a connectedness to all things. The idiom " one thing leads to another" is applicable here. Everyone is looking for a quick fix, but such solutions go against the very laws of nature. America's preoccupation with man-made laws has blinded the people to the natural laws. But it is common for an individual to dismiss what is beyond their comprehension.
Furthermore, I have no need to seek justice, because a man is not above the Earth , nor is he the master of what lies above, below, and within it. Your perception of my motivation is quite distorted. You believe in the past , the present , and the future, but such things do not exist as commonly defined, and so you are left to wander in the dark. But you should not trouble yourself with such matters. Murderers freely walk among you , yet it is my words that you find most offensive. This is the problem that you must solve.
How exactly does my pointing out that you are debating a current story with the lens and reasoning from injustices in history, mean my comment illustrates why the world is in constant turmoil? I am not the one using the illogic that you are, and I think, inappropriately so in this case with a twelve year old little boy being killed?
How am I looking for a quick fix, if that is what you are suggesting? If anything, I am one of the few on here that actually will spend more time than most are willing, to pound out issues, that can't be for me. (Not usually in the political boards, etc. but others.) You begin to make even less sense, when you speak about the quick fixes, and how they go against the laws of nature.
I think you need to make your connections from past historical injustices, and how those might have clouded the judgement of the officers in this case, or even in Ferguson, since you brought that up earlier. AND/Or the people that are sticking more to the facts, over getting on board with your harsher judgements that you can't possibly know about. You bring these things up to those that are talking about the facts of a particular matter, and borrowing from history in an effort to back up your strongly held judgements, that I don't see warranted at all.
What have I dismissed that is beyond my comprehension? I notice you don't always answer either. You perhaps ought to make points that you can answer for, because I will ask like this. Others ought to also.
Your wording begins to get a little bit more interesting here. You need to understand, that you speak another untruth when you say I find more fault with your words than that murderers walk freely among us. That of course isn't true. I have observed you speak multiple times as being so above others, at the very least intellectually, with your high IQ and all. I have spoken though of wisdom, and that is something altogether different.
You really have no need to seek justice, really? After you say all of this about me finding fault for one thing over another, etc? I beg to differ. I think you are probably very upset about the past, rightly so. I think even if there is misapplication of one matter to another, no matter how you view time and its passing, is a fallible way to work through a crisis, if for no other reason than each case carries its own set of particular facts. Particular facts of the matter, you know, things that juries and judges care very much about, the very thing you seemed to care that people weren't falsely accused for just days ago?
I can only go by what you say, and how you present yourself here. Your words are the measuring stick, and I can ask questions and deduce just fine, while not assuming too much about you. If you care about such things that are over the earth and mankind, I would think you would care very much about what my issues with some of what you are saying are. I too care about such things, and have my own views on a variety of things. This is perhaps just a clever attempt at distracting from the points of this one case. Perhaps to avoid what one doesn't want to see. So the problem you state, isn't even based on a truthful premise. Things like truth, justice, freedom, goodness, fairness, life and death aren't small things. Words and ideas matter. This is the reality I am working within in this context.
Make your points, and make the connections you begin to draw upon to explain yourself, or don't. But do not put what comes from not doing that, back upon me when you choose not to, then talk about the fluidity of time or something, or things above or below to complicated for supposed simpletons to ponder. Wriggly.........
There is nothing exaggerated about the evil perpetrated on this continent by the European Invaders. Neither have I exaggerated the evil perpetrated by the United States government against all races of people. You comment that my rhetoric is strong. However, after 500 years, the killing of innocents upon this continent continues. What do you suggest? A kinder gentler approach? Should we patiently wait another 500 years for the killing to stop? There is no "in-between". We either are against evil, or we are for evil. Those who refuse to speak out against this evil are as guilty as those who wallow in it's corruption.
You insinuate that the murder rate is higher now than it was 700 years ago; something I highly doubt. I would, in fact, question if the yearly total murders has grown even though the population has increased a thousand fold.
The point I was making is obviously beyond your reach. Please, interpret it anyway that you like.
You seem to forget, that this came after you said, "By all means, let's make our jobs safer by killing little black kids who play with toy guns ... just in case." Remember? THAT is dramatic. To answer with this kind of twisting, to borrow from past evils perpetrated onto people, to defend your indefensible statements, is illogical, unreasonable, and even sophomoric, to be honest.
We aren't talking about evils perpetrated by governments onto its people, or particular people, we are talking your drama playing out in words as in this case with the little boy. Do you need to actually be reminded that people trying to keep the lines of communication here open and clear regarding facts, ACTUALLY don't think its ok to shoot little black children playing with toy guns?!
What I suggest, is to repeat myself, because fairness is what matters, not lumping all of the police force together with horrifying terminology as you have done several times, because you don't know. I take issue with you, that you claim to be so all knowing about the heart and mind of this officer, and others, and lumped them. Not only in the initial way you did, but even more so to this degree with the past and the "evil" descendants of Columbus? I would have almost thought it funny when Wilderness said that, but he seems to be right! Unjust, unfair.
Its good to speak out against badness, wherever it is. You seemed to care about people being unjustly imprisoned or accused in another thread, where did that go? Were they all NOT descendants of Columbus, how do you know for sure? What is your measurement of how to tell if something is right or wrong? I am scared to ask, more scared for the answer!
You appeared to me in the recent past, to be about fairness for Americans, for people. That was me being generous, assuming you were about freedom and fairness for all. You seemed to care about such things, perhaps that was a mistake on my part.
I am sorry if you missed the several times I have referred to waiting to see what evidence comes out, as we know more. I shared a link to the story as I knew it, and am going off of that. If that turns out to be wrong, then I could be wrong in my assessments, sure. If you are not suggesting something different have played out than what did play out, then you are just being conveniently confusing, imo. I have no need to engage in fiction. I do know how to deduce.
I hope you have not missed my other words, that happen to show my stance, I need not reiterate them all here.
You assume too much about me, and that is fine. I wouldn't be alone. You are simply wrong. I do care about fairness, and you seem a harsh judge, yet don't want harsh judgment in particular cases for particular sides. I see that and get that. You lump in the words cold blooded murderers there with the rest of your description. Are you saying that officer is a cold blooded murderer? Or are they just all donut eating thugs, and sometimes cold blooded murderers? Its in the same paragraph as other things that describe them.
Edit:I see you also throw in psychopath and sadist.... and then I am left to the casual observer to almost be defending a a child killer, lol, when I am not at all. Its your drama with words, for effect, that I have been challenging. You saw me do this before.
If my countering your harsh words and judgements of officers and these in particular, based on the little we do know,(like that it looked like he picked up a "non -toy" gun, when told to raise hands), means what you say of me, so be it. I can't and wouldn't ever lose any sleep over that. I simply disagree with your assessment. Based on your other points in another thread, I thought you were about one thing, I was simply wrong.
I observe you have a unique lens on things, and have possibly have some passion driven by all sorts of possible injustices in our nation's history. Many people think the USA is/was a great country to live in, if you are for freedom for all. Not many countries have really mastered that. Who doesn't want an ideal world? We all do.
For being a person that must exist in a state of mental and physical slavery, I will continue to not bow to pressure when I am simply seeking fairness. I will take all your insults. I don't think all cops are like you paint them, and I don't see how any reasonable person would, or could. That is a personal choice of yours. That you lump me like you do for not thinking the same, is revealing. It must feel great to so easily figure people out to the degree you claim to do here with me. You seem to even judge my unspoken words. So glad you are not my actual judge then, nor on any jury where I have been put on trial, even with "your incredible IQ."
The conclusion from this ongoing conversation. Police have the right to shoot any child, black, yellow, or white, if they are found to have in their possession any item that can be construed as a weapon of any type. Since this 12 year old child (this is what a twelve year old person is) never really pointed the gun at the officers (as many of you have attempted to twist the story) and their was very little time for him at 12 years old to comprehend and respond to the officers shouts (which even an adult has problems doing) we now have open season on children by police. Or maybe just maybe there is something else driving this conversation in the direction it seems to be headed.
SOBF, I would totally disagree with your first statement there, but perhaps I have not read something on this thread that suggests what you are saying is true! I can't imagine anyone would ever have suggested that. I think its a horrifying suggestion that you say its open season on children by police. This is a true twist I think.
I disagreed with the adjectives like cowardly, rambo, donut eating thugs, and all the rest assumed about such an officer that was in the knowledge he HAD at that time. We are harsh critics, perhaps more so in a tragedy, and can lose all sense of fairness at times.
I will assume you aren't talking about me in your comments.
What is really sad, is that in an effort to keep to the facts, I think some can't see that this doesn't mean I automatically side with the cop. I don't. I shouldn't have to say that, for all the times I have said I am waiting to find out more details. We don't have to wait for those, to see some of the mentality here that can be alarming in and of itself, at least to just be talked about. Its a tough time to be a cop when the mentality that they are all bad and out for "this and that", especially if you are doing it for the right reasons.
One picture You have not posted is your large A symbol. Maybe if you explain why you often use that A, it will answer some questions as to why you are way harsh in regards to American history and in regards to our form of government and in regards to law in general. Your harshness is hard for the average, person who is just trying to do their best in surviving and staying positive in this life. I think you owe it to this forum discussion to reveal your actual agenda.
Wrenchbiscuit, may I ask what is your cultural heritage, your nationality? I don't want to assume anything. I will respect your right to not answer if you choose. I wonder if you are 100%, whatever your ancestry might be? To not be, might have some European descent in it, no? Or perhaps not necessarily. I just don't know, but it needs to be asked, because of your strong views, or so it seems, against people of European descent.
If I am wrong on that, I will apologize. If I am not wrong on that, how is that not a form of absolute racism of another kind? I claim ignorance here. I just don't know, but am willing to go there since you brought it up, and how the evils are being perpetuated, etc.
I am against evil, btw. Very much so.
Once again you have created a fiction. Not anywhere, on any forum have I commented that I hated Europeans. Your comment is slanderous. Racism, as we know it today, was essentially invented by the Catholic Church, and the European nobility. I assure you that I am far above such nonsense.
LOL! It wasn't the Catholic church suggesting that children of different races be put into separate schools and taught a different curriculum...
Your reading comprehension is quite remarkable. The Catholic Church, and the Protestant Church both have participated in the genocide of the Indigenous. It appears that you know nothing of American History. I suggested a program that could help to reverse the effects of 500 years of racism and genocide. I suggested one aspect of a remedy that can help to free the Indigenous from mental slavery, and from the lies that have been forced upon them by the European. Seeking to empower a people who have been oppressed for over 500 years doesn't have anything to do with racism.
Would you be so kind to share again, what you mean by this comment?
You said, "I suggested a program that could help to reverse the effects of 500 years of racism and genocide. I suggested one aspect of a remedy that can help to free the Indigenous from mental slavery, and from the lies that have been forced upon them by the European."
This is probably one of my biggest questions from you, and I hope it doesn't go unanswered like so many others. What do you suggest, that would reverse the effects as you understand them to be?
I simply seemed to have missed your suggested program, and one aspect of a remedy. Thank you.
WB is on record as suggesting different schools for different races. Probably how he figures on "freeing the Indigenous" from "mental slavery" and the "lies of the Europeans". Nothing like a little racism to counter racism, eh?
Osiyo! First of all it is a myth that a minority in a racist system can be racist. This is simply not possible. A simpleton might believe such a thing, but we are powerless to convince the mindless as we walk through the wilderness of "Huh?" Racism is not only an individual's dislike for another race, but this dislike must necessarily be institutionalized in the same socio-political system in which said individual is a member of the majority. A minority, on the other hand, may dislike, or even hate a member of the majority. But since the majority does not have the weight of institutionalized racism bearing down upon them as well, it is not possible for them to realize the burden of racism. Thus,we cannot truly define a minorities hatred of the majority as racism, as it could never deliver the proper effect.
Concerning my concept of a separate but equal public school system: As an example, on May 11, 2010 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed House Bill 2281 that prohibits Mexican American studies in public schools. Here is an excerpt from MLA: http://www.mla.org/ec_tucson
" In December 2011, Judge Lewis Kowal affirmed Huppenthal’s decision, saying that the Mexican American studies program had “one or more classes designed primarily for one ethnic group, promoting racial resentment, and advocating ethnic solidarity” and was thus in violation of state law.
Here we have the decision of a racist judge, upholding a racist bill that was passed in Arizona, and signed by a racist governor. I especially like the "promoting racial resentment" part of the decision. Let me translate: In other words, if we tell the truth about American History; about how the colonialists tortured, raped, murdered and then stole the land and resources from the Indigenous, while teaching them the Ten Commandments, some students might get upset. Instead, we will give them a watered down version of American History that makes the Euro-American look like great pioneers, and benevolent god-fearing people."
Essentially the racist Arizona government declared it illegal to tell children the truth about American History in public schools. But this is only one recent example. Generation after generation of Indigenous, and African children have been denied the chance to learn the truth about America, and their ancestors in the public school system. Since white Euro-Americans continue to refuse to offer Indigenous and African children anything other than a Euro-centric version of the world, I suggested the logical alternative, which is a separate but equal school system. Students could participate on a volunteer basis, and Indigenous and African taxpayers could choose which system to support with their tax dollars.
It should be common knowledge that a majority of people do not study history outside of the public school system. Consequently, citizens of all races grow up with a distorted, and incomplete view of American History. Understanding history is important, as it affects many aspects of the present. For instance, concerning the murder of Tamir Rice, understanding the nature of law enforcement over the last 200+ years enables one to better understand what is happening today. Today we see the beginnings of a police state that could not so easily be seen 30 or 40 years ago, at least not by the white majority. Today, whites are just as likely to be the victims of police brutality as minorities. For example: 2010, Belmont Shores California, police shoot and kill 35 year old Doug Zerby for holding a garden hose that police mistook for a gun.
The public school system has been used as a tool of genocide. The revisionist history, the Euro-centric values, "the melting pot" etc., help to destroy the cultural identity of the Indigenous, and the African. Many applaud those who have attempted to save a species like the whale from extinction, but not many care that an entire race of people will soon become extinct. The flesh and the blood of a people are only superficial aspects, compared to the mind, the spirit, and the cultural identity.
I am of Scottish descent. You, wB are of another genetic line. Why, oh why, can't we focus on what is possible for ALL of us? As people?
P E O P L E?
The Original Asian Immigrant People are in a position of command over themselves as are all cultures who live in this nation. The Constitution provides for the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for any one of any genetic line. (I am speaking of citizens.)
WHY not accept it? It is offered to all who live here.
Rising above the low consciousness of people with racist attitudes is the challenge.
If they won't let you ignore them, resist them... but not with hatred!
Rosa Parks was a great example.
Mahatma Gandhi was a great example.
We can be here now and have command over ourselves.
We all have to deal with prejudice. Its how we deal with it that counts.
I will reply to this in parts I think. First, you mention,
'" In December 2011, Judge Lewis Kowal affirmed Huppenthal’s decision, saying that the Mexican American studies program had “one or more classes designed primarily for one ethnic group, promoting racial resentment, and advocating ethnic solidarity” and was thus in violation of state law.'
If there is a class that focuses on just one ethnic group, at this stage of a child's education especially, what would you say about the Canadian history, or South American history being left out? Are you sure this is a case of racism? We are speaking about children that do live in the USA, right? You don't really question the focus of one, over all? I am not even bringing in the idea here, say of Russian students, Australian ones, etc, that have immigrated? I think most of them know that if they were in their homeland, they would be getting Russian or Australian history. This is working outward to more detailed histories as a child grows up. Are you sure you being totally fair in what this must mean? That they are trying to inhibit truth about American, historical atrocities or some such thing?
Can you not see how many other, (fill in country -blank here)-American studies programs are also being excluded from the idea? There are tons of __________ - American studies that could be pursued at this point, including history of their own mal-treatment upon coming to the country..... They are being equally left out, right? I am not downplaying any wrongs done, btw, to the indigenous tribes from here.
My family and I went to Cahokia Mounds in Illinois last year. You want some rich American history, and the like, with a mystery tied to their extinction? That is interesting stuff, and I think it was long before Europeans were trying to settle there. Something else killed them off. A whole civilization, that got pretty far compared to others.
I am seeking ideas that resonate more with fairness, then seeing things with lenses that cause one to be narrow sited, only seeing what you want to see perhaps. Racism can mean different things, btw, if you look up the definition. I think hatred is a real problem, personally. Why not pursue love and forgiveness and peace as a better way? Even IF so many down history got that part very wrong?
"...but not many care that an entire race of people will soon become extinct."
Good! The world would be a much better place without races OR the racism that they seem to inevitably bring. Far, far better that the Great Melting Pot of America be used to destroy all races that it touches, leaving behind only the species of man.
But, it is also valuable to keep in touch with our roots. Our cultural histories reveal our strengths and uniquenesses. All genetic lines are very amazing and special.
(Mistakes of the past are not to be focused on, after all "Mankind is ever fallible unless anchored in…")
Disagree. Cultural histories reveal strengths and uniquenesses...of that culture. Not of a race, and not of the culture that (may have) taken the place of the older one.
I confess I've never understood the fascination of one's "roots". Past my father, or perhaps grandparents, those ancestors mean nothing to me. Interesting, perhaps, but knowledge of no real value. That I had a mass murderer as a g'g'g'g'grandparent has nothing to do with what I am.
DID YOU??? I mean a mass murderer in your genetic line… uh oh…
Just kidding… But when one has a king or queen in their genetic line… well, its another story, isn't it?
That's what I don't understand. We gain nothing from such ancestry; why make such a big thing of it? While some of your father's traits are likely passed to you, those of a king dead for 5 centuries will not be (unless, of course, it is through your parent).
Even brothers and sisters from the same parent will be entirely different. Even twins. Or people considered great and noble can have offspring who turn out to be the opposite.
Just so. But then what is the fascination with genealogy? Why are we "proud" of our ancestors...ancestors that have no real connection to us at all?
Same reason we believe in God, silly! Imagination!
But, in defense of the reality God:
Recently, I told God in no uncertain terms to tell me where the single key I dropped was. It was my son's key and I had to find it, or else!…(I mentioned that to God, too.) I had given up looking for the key based on logic, as I could not find it.
I said, "God show me where the key is…" He said, "Stop thinking…" So I did. I picked up on memories of my past actions. I believe I was led to the shopping bag I had looked into earlier. I reached into the bag absent-mindedly with my hand and felt something cold on the bottom of the bag, It was the key! (The bag had been in the fridge. I had looked into the bag before but had not seen the key as it was the same color of the bag.)
I believe God, Mighty Triple O, lead me to where it was. How...? well, through intuition, of course!
That was a message from Our Sponsor
Back to you wB!
Wilderness has commented: "We gain nothing from such ancestry; why make such a big thing of it?"
A psychopath like Ted Bundy most likely asked a similar question concerning conscience. His actions confirm that he was not capable of remorse. I honor my ancestors,and they also know my name. In fact, I am famous. I would never dishonor the good European, or the Indigenous by glorifying , or bowing down to a legacy of evil that continues to claim the lives of innocents. Evil men speak many words about peace, love, and Jesus. But it is most interesting that instead of leaning on Jesus, they are quick to take up arms and start the killing, in order to satisfy their carnal lust. Perhaps it is true that you have gained nothing from your own ancestry, as you have stated. But I am posting this response to alert those who sit on the fence that such proclamations may apply to some, but not all of us. Many apologists will try to convince the Indigenous, and the African that the past, and our ancestry are not important. But when we look around us we see the hypocrisy in full relief:
• U.S. currency is adorned with the images of dead presidents who have already turned to dust
• Holidays such as Columbus Day and the 4th of July are celebrated yearly
• Christmas, rooted in the 4th century, is celebrated yearly
• The English language, which hasn't changed much since the 16th century, predominates in the U.S.
• Mt. Rushmore celebrates dead presidents in the Black Hills South Dakota
• Civil War re-enactments occur every year in the U.S.
• History classes in public schools are biased toward the European perspective of American History
• Christian and secular speakers, politicians, and evangelists, all reverently speak of "the founding fathers"
All of these things I have listed are "of the past". I am sure there are more examples I could include here, but these are quite obvious, and so I have made my point. The apologist who admonishes the Indigenous and the African to " forget the past", clearly doesn't expect the Euro-American to forget their own, or their own Eurocentric version of American History. Many Euro-American apologists feel that they have the authority, because of white privilege,to pick and choose what the majority will remember, and who the majority will honor and glorify, and on what day that will be. And so I will conclude by saying, " To all of you who suggest that we should get over it ... you go first ! "
Odd, how your memory screeches to a halt in 1492. What happened with the native Americans before that date? Why is it never discussed? What is there to hide?
Maybe actions exactly like those of the hated Europeans? As in rape, pillage, murder and genocide?
Of course, whenever you cannot win an argument you move off topic. To refresh your memory, you had commented, " That's what I don't understand. We gain nothing from such ancestry; why make such a big thing of it?" My last comment was a direct response to your aforementioned comment, as anyone can clearly see. Your present question has nothing to do with the conversation, and is a crude attempt to divert the discussion away from the indisputable points I have made. Using your logic, it can only follow that :
• The Jewish Holocaust could not have been a war crime, since somewhere down the line those Jews must have been related to ancestors who had committed similar atrocities.
• The "Rape of Nanking" was really no big deal, since the Chinese had surely also raped and murdered innocent civilians prior to December 13, 1937.
• Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshioma and Nagasaki shouldn't be considered a war crime since the Japanese are responsible for the "Rape of Nanking!"
But of course, if we continue to follow your logic, then any person guilty of rape or murder should not be dealt with too harshly, since their victims are most likely related to someone, somewhere, and in some time, who are guilty of similar crimes. If anyone had any question as to why miscreant cops are murdering citizens, even children, with impunity in the United States, I believe you have just provided the missing piece to the puzzle. I thank you for that.
Wilderness' query is valid, because you opened the door on numerous occasions:
What is evil? Evil is not only the deed itself, but it is also the apathy, the acquiescence, and the ignorance that nurtures and perpetuates a world of misery. Just as a man is connected to the past through previous generations, the evil that took root here in 1492 is also connected to the present.
The evil deeds, the apathy, and the acquiescence we see today are directly associated with that which began in 1492, and which has continued unto the present.
To eradicate this evil, we must begin at 1492,
This is the history of America: A group of rapists, murderers, and treasure hunters came to this continent in 1492. After them came a more docile variety of European who was content to ignore the evil of genocide and slavery.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126950? … ost2682338
You imply or claim, that all the evil we see today started in 1492. Do you think the Spanish or Italian explorers employed by Spain were all rapists, murderers, and treasure hunters and they invented that stuff and the New World was populated by Gandhi's and Mother Teresa's?
I am not surprised that you have found a friend in "wilderness", since your argument is purely emotional, and your interpretation has distorted my meaning. Once again , I must point out that you, like many others that frequent these forums, have created a fiction, and then created a counter argument to your own imaginary tale. This reminds me of "Don Quixote meets Ground Hog Day!" Here, you have made a statement followed by a question. Your initial statement is completely false since I have not implied nor claimed that " all the evil we see today started in 1492". You will find no such statements in this thread, and since this can easily be proven by anyone taking the time to look, I am surprised that you, and others, continue to make such outrageous and slanderous remarks. I have been speaking of the evil that has existed for over 500 years on the "American" continent since 1492. This conversation is not about Russia, North Korea, Siam, or Australia. The topic here is about violence, evil, and police brutality upon this particular continent. Why is this so confusing to so many of you?
The question you ask follows the same logic as expressed by wilderness, and so I feel I have already explained in depth. But I will try once again. Suffice it to say that all Nazis were not rapists and murderers, and all rapists and murderers were not necessarily born that way. In fact , maybe some of them started out as nice guys. But this is all very basic and elementary, and completely beside the point. Two wrongs don't make a right no matter how you slice it, nor does one evil mitigate another. The year 1492 was the year that the greatest holocaust in recorded human history began. Because of this evil, and America's arrogance, and refusal to accept responsibility for it, the killing has continued unto this day. If anyone is not intelligent enough to see the connection, then it is no fault of mine.
The teachings of Jesus, as well as the teachings of any number of philosophers, or men of God, could have solved all of these problems long ago, but the majority refuses to listen, because the majority is addicted to materialism. It is well known that a junkie will even kill the man who comes to take away his poison. America has placed it's future in the hands of the capitalist and the politician, and so America continues to reap a foul and bitter harvest. Perhaps this is what many Americans deserve, but unfortunately, many innocents will also continue to die in the process, and many before their time. Tamir Rice is one of them.
So did American Indians ever rape, murder, plunder or have any kind of slave trade, of their own, prior to contact with Europeans?
The Iroquois League of Nations or "People of the Long House", based in present-day upstate and western New York, had a confederacy model from the mid-15th century. It has been suggested that their culture contributed to political thinking during the development of the later United States government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Ame … ted_States
The Iroquois League was established prior to European contact...
One recent study argues that the League formed shortly after a solar eclipse on August 31, 1142, an occurrence apparently related to oral tradition about the League's origins....." most Iroquois people are satisfied to say simply, "a long time ago."
According to tradition, the League was formed through the efforts of two men, Dekanawida, sometimes known as the Great Peacemaker, and Hiyonwantha, a name later appropriated by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow as "Hiawatha". They brought the Peacemaker's message, known as the Great Law of Peace, to the squabbling Iroquoian nations, who were fighting, raiding and feuding with one another as often as they fought other tribes. The nations who joined the League were those who still comprise it today: the Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga and Seneca.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#F … the_League
My question is: What would the pre-1492 Iroquois, or say, Shoshone, think about Mr. WrenchBiscuit 2015? I mean, I am guessing you have a PC computer and a Toyota - like the rest of us - ?
Moreover, say in 1500's AD some Iroquois Tribe members and say a Frenchman or some guy that was on Columbus' boat -would have much more in common with each other- , than you or I would have with them? I could even see them banding together to come and get 2015 you or I...
The Iroquois League was established prior to European contact...
One recent study argues that the League formed shortly after a solar eclipse on August 31, 1142, an occurrence apparently related to oral tradition about the League's origins....." most Iroquois people are satisfied to say simply, "a long time ago."
According to tradition, the League was formed through the efforts of two men, Dekanawida, sometimes known as the Great Peacemaker, and Hiyonwantha, a name later appropriated by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow as "Hiawatha". They brought the Peacemaker's message, known as the Great Law of Peace, to the squabbling Iroquoian nations, who were fighting, raiding and feuding with one another as often as they fought other tribes. The nations who joined the League were those who still comprise it today: the Mohawk, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga and Seneca.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#F … the_League
My question is: What would the pre-1492 Iroquois, or say, Shoshone, think about Mr. WrenchBiscuit 2015? I mean, I am guessing you have a PC computer and a Toyota - like the rest of us - ?
Moreover, say in 1500's AD some Iroquois Tribe members and say a Frenchman or some guy that was on Columbus' boat -would have much more in common with each other- , than you or I would have with them? I could even see them banding together to come and get 2015 you or I...
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126950? … ost2683038
"Of course, whenever you cannot win an argument you move off topic."
To be perfectly honest I simply wasn't motivated. As time goes on, it becomes ever more difficult to care about people who don't even care for themselves; people who would rather throw themselves into the abyss, or under the short bus, rather than admit that they might have got it all wrong. Arrogance? Stupidity? Karma? Perhaps all of the above. Whatever the case, I am confident that I will do well with the current book I'm writing on the topic. However, I suspect that even if sales exceed my expectations , I doubt that it will make much of a difference in the real world. At best it may one day become a curiosity, or a cult classic after I am long gone. But most likely, it will get lost in the shuffle; somewhere beneath a stack of dusty Popular Mechanics magazines.
It is impossible to win an argument and pointless to even try, if the debate centers around dramatic narratives. I am 1/32 Cherokee, and I guess I will have to make the other 31/32 feel guilty for being Irish and whatever else, Regardless, Columbus Day will still be a day the banks are probably closed and it means nothing more to me.
Not off topic at all, you just don't wish to discuss it.
The question is why you only look at the Indian culture after the advent of the evil Europeans. You glorify them, thinking them so much better than European, but refuse to look at what they were just a few years earlier or without European influence. You are just as guilty of manipulating history as those that find good in Columbus, refusing to look at the history of the American people as a whole and choosing to only focus on a few, exactly what you are saying is wrong.
We all have heroes and we all have villains in our family tree, but unless those people were very close to use on the timeline they play no part in making us what we are. You want to vilify all Europeans because of the actions of a few, a few that generally followed the ethics of the time. Just as the earlier Americans did when they wiped out existing tribes and took the land (can't really call them "indigenous" unless you refer to those first people that entered the American continents, and all of those were destroyed by later actions of new tribes.
Try to remember what you wrote just a few days ago about special schools for those of differing races. Then think about what you just said: "Racism, as we know it today, was essentially invented by the Catholic Church, and the European nobility. [b]I assure you that I am far above such nonsense[/b ]."
Above racism, even as you denigrate every race but American Indians and promote special schooling for them? I think not...
Racism was created by the first caveman with a tan looking at a caveman without and clubbing him to death. Racism is as old as any other form of tribalism, as old as humanity.
It is a popular misconception that racism has existed since the beginning of time. However, the historical record tells a different story. Many confuse racism with tribalism, and xenophobia. Racism, as we know it here in America, is a relatively new concept that was invented by the European nobility, and the Catholic Church to help ease the conscience of European Christians who may have been uncomfortable with the West African Slave Trade, which later turned into the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. The foundation for racism was laid on June 18, 1452 when the papal bull "Dum Diversas" was issued by Pope Nicholas V. Your happy hour history lesson is amusing. Thanks for the memories.
Hatred can look like one thing, and many people unfortunately hate on some level or another.
Serious racism expressed where you are talked about in a certain way because you are simply a descendant of some evil acting ancestor is a whole other level, something much deeper, imo.
Many people can hate, and I don't think they would do that. We all probably know of people who have ancestors that were maltreated as slaves here in America, and don't hold the descendants of such, as awful people, autormatically.
On that note, which of any of us here, would be free then from such accusation, using that same standard? Does any race have absolute moral perfection within it, anyway? Isn't that highly hypocritical then?
It is a tragedy for the family.But working for the Sheriffs
office for 30 years.The officer had every right to protect himself.My family are officers and protect and serve everday.There are certain procedures to follow when dealing in a deadly situation.My heart goes out to the family.
Wrenchbiscuit - I have a question. Are you maybe assuming that people like myself (or any ole' American), endorse all of the things that happened to the indigenous people's of the territory now known as the USA?
http://www.amazon.com/Against-State-Int … 0791474488
"anarchist libertarians argue that, to check government against abuse, the state itself must be replaced by a social order of self-government based on contracts. Indeed, contemporary history has shown that limited government is untenable, as it is inherently unstable and prone to corruption, being dependent on the interest-group politics of the state's current leadership. Anarchy and the Law presents the most important essays explaining, debating, and examining historical examples of stateless orders."
I do not have such a gift that allows me to discern your motivations, or feelings on any matter through cyberspace. But I will attempt to answer you with several other important questions:
Why do birds sing so gay?
And lovers await the break of day?
Why do they fall in love?
Why does the rain fall from up above?
Why do fools fall in love?
Why do they fall in love?
You have asked, " Are you maybe assuming that people like myself (or any ole' American), endorse all of the things that happened to the indigenous people's... ?" To paraphrase Bill Clinton: I guess it depends on how one might define the word "endorse":
If someone stole your car, and while they were stealing your car they murdered someone you love, and then they sold that car to me. How would you feel about me?
Especially after I looked in the trunk of the car and found, to my surprise, your inheritance; a nest egg which consisted of gold and silver, and the deeds to numerous oil wells and mineral deposits.
Especially if I decided to claim it as my own. Especially after I had been informed that the car had been stolen and the original owner had been murdered.
Especially after I shrugged my shoulders and said, " Hey man, I didn't do it". Especially after I said, "Why don't you just get over it?"
Especially after your family had been impoverished, and mistreated as a result of the stolen inheritance, forced to speak a foreign tongue, and pay tribute to the thief that created their poverty.
Especially when you were forced to gain your financial freedom by the rules set by the same murderous thief. How would you feel about me? Would you believe that I endorsed the evil? Would you believe that I was a participant? Would you believe that I endorsed your misfortune?
The United States has claimed that there is no statute of limitations on murder. When an individual is found guilty of certain crimes such as murder, they are forced to forfeit any money, possessions, or real estate that was acquired through the commission of said crime. I agree that this is fair.
If you truly believe in love and forgiveness, I suggest that every rapist, thief and murderer should immediately be granted amnesty and released from prisons throughout the United States. After all, the European is free to live and prosper on a stolen continent while walking on the bones of murdered innocents. Since God has forgiven those who have prospered indirectly from the evil deeds of others, it only seems fair to return the favor. Peace and Love!
Repeating: "Mistakes of the past are not to be focused on. After all, "Mankind is ever fallible unless anchored in…"
( Edit: BTW You say: "If you truly believe in love and forgiveness, I suggest that every rapist, thief and murderer should immediately be granted amnesty and released from prisons throughout the United States.
The Consequence for an action (prison) is required by the law for the safety of the innocent and as punishment. Spiritual forgiveness can be and is granted, all the same. )
...we have to start from N O W.
Here it is, the season of the One who forgave us all!
...and wilderness is right... what do our ancestors really have to do with US TODAY...?
We are truly free to move ahead, if you ask me…which no one did.
If we are "moving ahead" then why are we debating whether or not a cop has the right to murder a 12 year old kid? That's the whole point Kathryn. That's what I'm all about. I was tough love before tough love was cool. Now you can see the vision because we have come full circle. Drink it in, and inebriate yourself with understanding! Evil men are killing innocents just as they did in 1492. Now is our chance to do something about it. We can stop the killing in "our time".
"First of all, they (the police) are judging a book by its cover, (prejudice based on past experiences alone.) Secondly, they are taking the law into their own hands as they justify providing what they consider to be an appropriate punishment: death.
If so, this is deplorably mistaken thinking of the highest degree, to say the least. What we might be witnessing is an abuse of the power their job provides them, pure and simple.
What is the solution?
Not letting them get away with it and calling it as it is.
They are not allowed to be judge and jury and they are not allowed to by-pass the judicial system, just because they think it's in the best interest of society…"
We must isolate the difficulties of the issue accurately.
1. To say it was racist of the cops is not accurate.
2. To say it is an abuse of power is more accurate.
3. To say the government is contributing to militarism of the police is … well what do you think of this?
...and how can we stop it, if it is accurate ???
Who said a cop has the right to murder a 12 year old kid? Who is not trying to do something about evil men killing innocents now, just as they did in 1492? Do you really see this happening? If so, where? I am not sure this really is about evil men killing innocents now, just as they did in 1492.
If you are being truly sincere, then please make your case. As of yet, this is not seeming very rational, reasonable, or logical. THIS is the point. You, sharing your personally held, and strong beliefs and seeming to argue with people that supposedly don't share similar ones..... Do you really think all of us here think its ok for evil people to kill innocents, or police to murder 12 year olds. You don't get to frame an argument as such, when it lacks simple rationale, Wrenchbiscuit. You need to make your case, and stop the damning judgements of people that actually hold these same ideas as good, and the bad ones as bad. Connect the dots, make the points, make your case.
I think you really think that cops are not about stopping the killing in our time. Insisting on seeing things in such a fashion alarms me, and makes me wonder too if you have ever considered that having you think in such ways, puts you in the palm of someone's hand somewhere, that wants you to think JUST as you are. All the while, hoping you don't notice the sense of justice and righting the wrongs is so possibly misplaced.
If you are truly about saving innocents, then you want to get on the side of truth and reason and morality more, I think it is a better path, personally. IF you are, or when you do, your arguments will better reflect those ideals and values, than I see them doing now. You talk big. Fair enough...I can understand IF you are really about what you say you are. Choosing so hard to not see the disconnect or where your ideas break down, isn't something anyone can do for you but you. I will try to, as I see it. The rest is just a whole bunch of division, needless at that, between people that really want the same things as you! This is the point. Unless you aren't being completely forthcoming in all the points you are making.
Ok, to clarify, as you said it depends on what you mean by endorse.
To support, approve of, think its ok, etc. Are you assuming, that people like myself would have done the same thing as Columbus did to those he hurt so long ago? There, I narrowed it down some as well.
To express approval of or give support to, especially by public statement; sanction.
endorse a change in policy; endorse a political candidate.
To recommend (a product), often in exchange for payment, as in an advertisement.
To write one's signature on the back of (a check) to obtain the amount payable or to make the amount payable available to a third party or to the bearer.
To write one's signature on the back of (an instrument) to transfer the rights available under that instrument to another party.
To place (one's signature), as on a contract, to indicate approval of its contents or terms.
To acknowledge (receipt of payment) by signing a bill, draft, or other instrument.
We must isolate the difficulties of the issue accurately.
1. To say it was racist of the cops is not accurate.
2. To say it is an abuse of power is more accurate.
3. To say the government is contributing to militarism of the police is … well what do you think of this?
...and how can we stop it, if it is accurate ???
Very fair points. Even number two, possible abuse of power, to the detriment to the degree we see, is awful and horrifying. Number three is very possible, and it leads me to believe that IF there was ever a desire to militarize police, and create friction to TRULY control a populace by the state, that THIS kind of division among the people using very poor ideas and rationale, is exactly ONE way to get it done. To take advantage even, of people that maybe haven't been taught to think better. Or think, minus the intense emotion tied to very big atrocities in the past.
A very clever (or not so clever) way to keep a people under the thumb, by those that might truly desire it. To not LET true racism die, by fanning the flames of it, thinking all of this is actually about something that it is not. Example: Al Sharpton, and how close he is with the White House..... supposedly for one thing, but actually using and abusing those he is supposedly helping. Playing on past hurts and emotions. That is pretty evil stuff. Some can't let racism die.
"Some can't let racism die."
Sadly, all too true. Some make their living from promoting racism; to let it die means they will need honest productive work. Others truly do find their value in the color of their skin and to let that die means they become without value. Those needing a "gang", or group, generally look first to race and without that will find no one to join.
I agree, wilderness, the melting pot needs to be kept hot.
We need individuals who are willing to work together harmoniously. Not schools of fish warring against each other… But come to think of it, not even schools of fish do that!
It's odd really - we all have our strengths and weaknesses. But not a single one of those automatically comes from the color of our skin (whether plus OR minus). Nor do they come from sexual preference, gender or much of anything that people generally identify with. Maybe, in a thousand years or so, the human race will grow up a little - enough not to assign value on such superficial attributes anyway.
"But not a single one of those (strengths and weaknesses) automatically comes from the color of our skin."
I agree, our strengths and weaknesses come from our upbringing and ourselves as individuals through our own efforts in conjunction with the society we live in.
"Those needing a "gang", or group,
generally look first to race
and without that,
will find no one
Q1 Why do they need to join one? (Factions are one thing, gangs are another…)
Q2 And what about gangs who have the same color of skin warring against each other?
Q1: Beats the tar out of me. I've never been a "joiner" and would run from anything approaching a gang or cult not open to everyone. A square dance club is about my limit.
Q2: to exhibit superiority. Once joined, after all, the members are not only blue skinned (or whatever they are) but also a member of the gang. A gang that is superior to every other gang and must prove it by exhibiting great stupidity.
What Upbringing?: No man in the house due to the government's generosity to welfare programs for single mothers.
What Independence?: Mexicans now being given priority to jobs over blacks through non-deportation of illegal Mexicans from Mexico.
They freaking need to eat and many are no better off than newly released slaves thanks to government policies.
Thanks for nuthin, elected officials.
And Obama is blaming………who?????
Upbringing? By the gang, of course. Dad's gone (to the gang?) and Mom's too busy making babies.
Not blacks and not just low end jobs. With a guarantee of a life here, education (at public expense) is a definite possibility. We'll soon see illegals (of every nationality) taking work as skilled, educated tradesmen.
But you must expect such travesties; how else can your elected official get your state more free (federal) money if they don't buy a few votes now and then?
So Anarchism might be a solution? (Just trying to stay with "the program," I mean the unmentioned side-topic of the OP.)
Well, I don't know about that. There will soon be more illegals than citizens; When automatic amnesty is the result of illegal activity instead of jail or deportation it can't be otherwise.
Oh my gosh! and Yikes!
We could have protected ourselves against
1. Increasing despotism
2. Inevitable anarchy
By following the guidelines of the Constitution!
Executive Order vs Following the Laws as set forth by our founding document.
Or by putting a high value on country and individual responsibility/duty.
Check it, wilderness,
http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/view … ooperation
Would you say there is a universal trend toward the Global Economy? Soon we will not have anything we are now talking about.
It was fun while it lasted.
Not sure that would be a bad thing, particularly with geographically close neighbors.
Like NAFTA, trade with China and all countries. The increase of competition… I see.
I equated it with a one world government push, like the influence of the Council of Foreign Relations, which aims at removing the borders of Mexico and Canada.
Boundaries and borders guarantee our liberty. In the end, that's what we will loose.
Umm. I don't see one economy and multiple cultures/government styles as mutually exclusive. A country could even have an internal economy different from that of the general world and still fit into trading worldwide.
You are right. But you would rather maintain the borders of Mexico and Canada, right?
CFR United States
Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. foreign policy think tank.
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2013/1 … rld-order/
Actually, no. Given a Mexico that could and did support itself at a level of the US, and a Canadian philosophy less socialistic and more like ours, I would prefer to see no borders. I like the idea of states that vary by culture while still keeping basic freedom alive, including the freedom to travel, have commerce, etc.
< "I like the idea of states that vary by culture while still keeping basic freedom alive, including the freedom to travel, have commerce, etc.">
We have a extended republic…The Goldilocks principle is in effect as far as the size of the United States. It can't be too small and it can't be too big. You are proposing a territory that would be too large to govern. Roman History has shown this to be a Mistake.
Ah, but the communication and transportation abilities of today are not those of ancient Rome. It isn't a matter of square miles, but of how big or small those miles are. And they're pretty small today.
How do we control an overburdensome govt. with the size the country is now?
Isn't this already the problem…? If it becomes so large, how do we maintain our liberty? our authority? our control?
I don't see it as a problem of controlling the government (with the system we use). The problem is in controlling the people that create that government with their votes, and as long as there are more than one of them that problem will continue.
As soon as people figured out they could vote themselves "free" food, housing, health care, cell phones and all the rest of it the nation was doomed. Unless we find a way to stop the trend we will continue to spiral downhill.
With a republic that is too large, its citizens will not feel themselves to be a nation of people on the same page. They would loose their collective (patriotic) sense of identity and care/concern for the Homeland. They would stop voting. They would not care anymore. Some states might be tempted join up and secede from such an enlarged impersonal "nation."
The President has proclaimed that racism and is is alive and well. I wonder what he thinks the solution is. Oh wait… he just bypassed it.
Racism is still part and parcel of AMERICAN culture, it is a bit subdued today when compared to the past. I have faced accusations of being the beneficiary of some affirmative action program instead of being recognized and appreciated at face value for my achievements academic or otherwise. But that is ok, because those that thought that way were vunerable With an Achilles heel or soft underbelly so that they could either be outwitted or circumvented in someway. Such people always had a button you could push to neutralize and render them harmless. The underdog always has his or her own set of advantages, I wished that we as a group would avail ourselves of them rather than engage in destructive behavior. Nobody could ever really stop me once I decide to go after what I wanted. There is no excuse for the rioting response in our communities, we need to be concerned as to where we are going to shop and do business. Blacks are a passionate group while I found the Asians, particularely the Japanese to be quite sterile, living in Hawaii for a few years. We could use a little more of their discipline and self control, and still not become robots. Gangs are an expression of power among groups that have been powerless within the larger culture. This ain't West Side Story, why fight over something you don't really own? The alpha male today is not based on physical prowess, but on economic wherewithal. That might be part of the explanation.... The Anglo has always had their own mainstream method of prominence within a culture dominated by them, they have Harvard and Yale and do not need a "rumble" to decide who is top dog
It is all rather interesting. Thanks for sharing that. It seems like some are being manipulated almost into hurting themselves and their communities. Knowing exactly some of the things you mention. It is like it can't just be a warm ember about to extinguish, before we have some in power and influence come and stoke it, and fan the flames, lest it die.
These same people don't have to live in those neighborhoods, and pretend to be speaking FOR these same people, that live among the ruinous culture/community that just got totally crapped out all the more. This is horrifying to me. I think we need to talk about it to help all see it, to stand up, because most people don't want to be racist, and it doesn't even make sense to. The tricky part is dividing the few truly bad people from the rest, and trying to keep lines defined to a helpful degree. By truly bad, I mean the ones that are willing to take an officer's pay in order to really hurt those they want for bad reasons. (at least in part.)
Sorry you have been assumed about. You seem to be fair and see what is going on. I think we need to keep a close eye on things. Keep on thinking about what would explain the things from the powerful positions that don't want to let it die, and get mad at the right things. I think its so easy for powerful, truly evil types to sit back and almost just smile as all hell breaks loose, and not in their own neighborhoods exactly. What is the point, besides at least for sure getting a good smoke screen going? That some want to group up, get loud, have the mentality we see, shouldn't be something that is used against them for someone else's gain. In individual cases we can see this happening, when it becomes FORCED to be about, things its not actually about.
I see that you are both a prolific writer and superb communicator.
Would it die, if we would heed the wisdom of not opening old wounds?
So many of US make more problems among ourselves than what is imposed from the outside. I have seen some of the rioting after the King assassination. Anger and rage needs to be properly directed so that a bad situation is not aggravated further. I have discussed these points in a few of my hubs looking for answers. Ultimately, it is about power and wealth, belonging to one ethnic group or another is becoming less relevant.
The press has manipulated the tragedies of these shootings, there has been another one in the Phoenix area as of late. The point has been well made that there are similar shootings of whites by black law enforcement officers, but there are no riots. While I am part of this tribe, I do not always understand why we do what we are doing. I have said many times in other threads that the Police Department policy in Ferguson leaves much to be desired, and leaving a body on the street, without medical attention or proper disposal for hours is a sign of disrespect, fear or whatever toward the Black community there.
We have a sieged upon mentality, or what Eldridge Cleaver once called a healthy paranoia. These issues were at the forefront in the 1960's, surely we have progressed since then? I like to think and reiterate among my immediate family that if a person of color can become president, with the proper determination and a dab of patience you could do or be anything you like.
Where the racism exists today can now be overcome with sufficient effort and desire to succeed in spite of it . When interacting with society and trying to get ahead I always kept the comedy 'Hogan's Heroes' in mind as to how I had to engage 'the system'.
I don't know if even thoughtful, reflective people like you could help much, we have so many skeletons in the attic to attend to first. I get embarrassed when members of my tribe act up like this with this needless rioting and incitement and am irritated further being at a loss to explain it. I have seen the seed of a self destructive nature over my lifetime.
Thanks Credence, I hadn't had chance to respond. I am not sure racism would die if we stopped opening the old wounds, but I believe in letting the healing continue, which can of course have its hiccups. It can't hurt, and there is more involved as well. Like not fanning the flame, which could be seen almost like inviting infections into the old wounds, to let them begin to fester in their healing.
I hear what you are saying, and appreciate your comments and point of view. Power and wealth are driving forces, sure. There are so many different dynamics also, its hard to know where to begin. I wonder if some people just aren't sure exactly what it is, and since some suggest or insist "racism!", then they jump on that bandwagon. Not because they maybe want to believe it so bad, but in case of, "what if it is?" Like better to be on some safe side perhaps? Just thinking it through to see what could explain, and trying to not assume so much on my part.
Its sad to me, that some night not be being racist at all, and some might just really die because of the dynamics, and would have also if it were a white person in all of these cases. Its like the CHANCE that it MIGHT be racism, can't be let go of, even when the facts that come out don't seem to point in one direction or another. There is a LOT of assessing of color ALL around it seems. The color of this and that person... good grief, I wish it would stop, and be about the facts. Thanks again for your point of view. You seem very fair, and to me, that goes very very far in this world. Fair in their thinking, reasoning, what morals they uphold, etc. You can get a feel usually for this I think.
Wrenchbiscuit ... here are some truths/thoughts to consider:
None of us chooses when we were born.
None of us chooses what family we are born into.
None of us chooses where we are born.
None of us chooses a society or religion to be born into.
These are things that we all have in common as human beings, at least.
On the basis of these things, seem to come some of your broad judgements of others here, as I have seen from your posts. By the same token, you would be "guilty" of the very same things that you seem to lay at the feet of others here. I am sure of course, that you don't see it that way, but it makes sense all the same. WHY you won't think of yourself as guilty, is the crux of this whole thing, and what I and perhaps others are trying to get you to see. You don't even know for sure, what the nationalities are of people here, it seems to be assumed. You seem to only care of your own. It seems to remove all guilt, and even a parallel example for yourself.
Why does one race, get excused from the same judgements placed on the others? (In your eyes?) If this is really about inheriting the sins of the fathers in your eyes, were all of yours, going back to the beginning of the existence of mankind, perfect, not lacking in morality? Even perhaps someone monstrous in your own line? Logic would dictate that all races have these types in every line! I have so much more I could say, but will hold off for now.
Point being, your own measurements, point right back to you, only no one is doing or suggesting to you, what you are to them, that I have seen. Food for thought, or I can hope I am inspiring some thought in this regard. This isn't just about being intellectual, or anything like that. It is partly about being intellectually honest with others and self.
First of all, you asked a question and I answered your question. Otherwise, I wouldn't have gotten into a discussion about race, at least not to this degree. Concerning my "broad judgements" : My judgements are based on what a particular commentator has posted. I am very well aware of the deception that abounds on the internet, but my thoughts are my own. My arguments, and my analysis, are valid regardless of the authenticity or sincerity of a particular commentator.
Why do you suppose I should think of myself as guilty? What am I guilty of? Being honest? I am a student of History, I have been living in the world; I have been participating in the world; I have lived and died,and then I have lived again. When I hear a dog barking I say, " I hear a dog barking". When I speak of America I only speak the truth. In light of the truth, there is no need for an opinion.
This is the history of America: A group of rapists, murderers, and treasure hunters came to this continent in 1492. After them came a more docile variety of European who was content to ignore the evil of genocide and slavery. This "kinder gentler" European began to build towns and cities. They became the new caretakers of the land that the earlier, more ruthless pioneers had "cleared" or ethnically cleansed to facilitate white settlement. This process of ethnic cleansing was followed by wave upon wave of Europeans. These facts are well documented, and my repeating these facts does not , by default, mean that I am racist, that I hate anyone, or that I place any race above another. In fact , I have no allegiance to any particular race of people, and I would be more accurately described as a misanthrope than a racist. Foremost, I believe in God, I believe in the truth, and yes, I hate evil, and the ignorance that allows it to flourish.
You have commented: "Why does one race, get excused from the same judgements placed on the others?" And you have ended the argument with "Logic would dictate that all races have these types in every line!"
You begin this argument with a fiction based on your assumptions. I have never stated that anyone gets a free lunch when it comes to immorality and injustice. If I were presently living in a nation that had been brutally carved from the blood and bones of another race by Fiji Islanders; a nation presently dominated and ruled by Fiji Islanders, I would be discussing the evil of the "Fiji Islander Invasion", but this is not the case. Furthermore, this is not only about inheriting the sins of the fathers, but more about a nation that has "accepted and justified" the sins of the fathers through the fiction of Manifest Destiny. Neither have I stated that I only care about my own. Here, you deliver yet another fiction based on an erroneous assumption.
The German and the Dutch are as much "my own" as the Tsalagi, and the Shawnee. Like so many others, you have decided that to speak against the evil of the European Invasion is an indictment of the entire European race. From this point, you and others on this thread are seeking to invoke the myth of "reverse racism". Contrary to your opinion, my measurements, and assessment of the European Invasion do not point to me, or the Indigenous of this continent. I have not sat idly by, refusing to speak out against the evil of America, and so my conscience is clear. I have taken the time to challenge the status quo, not only in cyberspace, but also in the real world. Of all of my sins this is one I will not have to answer for. Furthermore, there was no invasion of the European continent by the Indigenous. The French , the British, and the Dutch are not speaking Tsalagi or Nahutl, while referring to Tecumseh as a "founding father". Your entire argument is nothing more than common apologist rhetoric.
I like to use the history of the Jews in Nazi Germany in such arguments, as it clearly illustrates the hypocrisy, ignorance, and inhumanity of many Americans. You have used the common tactic of equating the oppressed with the oppressor. The fact that there most likely have been Jews that committed atrocities prior to WWII; the fact that there were Jews throughout history who may have been morally reprehensible, or even monstrous, hardly justifies the mass murder of European Jews by the Nazis during the war. Such an argument is absurd, yet, you have raised the argument here. Your logic could lead us to the conclusion that the character of a woman who has been raped should be considered when assessing the seriousness of the crime, as well as the appropriate punishment for the rapist. Using the logic you have presented,a woman who has lied, cheated, stolen money, or slept around most of her adult life, is hardly worthy of the same consideration as a bible thumping virgin. Consequently,according to you, the man who rapes the sinful woman is less culpable than the man who rapes a god-fearing virgin. As you should now understand, I have no need to spin your words, or to create a fiction in order to destroy your argument.
My analysis reveals that your weak argument only further illustrates the degree of denial that exists in America today. I have clearly illustrated that the Indigenous are no more responsible for the holocaust of over 100 million at the hands of the European Invaders, as the Orthodox Jews are responsible for the holocaust of over 6 million at the hands of the Nazis. In either case, the victim does not share the guilt of the perpetrator.
Concerning your opening words of wisdom: You claim to know that a man has no choice in 4 things. Your comment is very poetic, and perhaps this is true of your life, but contrary to your belief, I have had all of these choices, and more than once. Your proclivity to make assumptions will only lead you to more confusion. The world will speak to you and tell you all that you are capable of knowing, but you must first believe that the world has the ability to speak. Otherwise, you will only hear the rustling of the wind. Osiyo!
Thanks for your response. I will try to respond to all, and warn of more questions which in part shed light on where I am coming from, and not always what they seem. I hate to say this, but it seems you have to some degree seem to have mischaracterized what you think my argument was. It was much simpler, not so extreme. It was and "if/then" and does break down purposefully because I am not sure your premises are correct, your own train or flow of thought. The logic, and what necessarily seems to "follow", I don't see a cause and effect. So I will try my best to answer or correct.
I think its good we got into this deeper discussion, because to be honest, in the short time I have known you here it is really not very far beneath the surface of your other discussions. It is almost begging to be talked about, and I don't probably disagree, especially now. I don't know which question or commentator's post you are speaking of exactly, an maybe that doesn't matter.
I don't think you need to see yourself as guilty necessarily, unless you have been unfair. You seem to miss my point of ancestors guilt, almost altogether, which may be my fault in the presentation of what I was trying to say. I don't find that descendants of people like Columbus or European settlers, COULD ever be held guilty for the sins of their fathers, if they have not done the wrongs themselves, for simply being born into a time and place and to people not of their choosing. I am trying to tackle that actual assumption on your part, head on. No, not verbatim, but you seem to even accuse officers as in this thread, seeming to be so sure of their evil intent, and that it then of course is par for the course in your eyes. It doesn't seem to occur to you that an officer COULD just make a mistake, even a lethal one, have a bad day, use bad judgement, etc. You seemed to care about fairness and justice and judgements of people before, especially unjust ones. Yet I see you do this a great deal in your rhetoric, based on very old historical narratives as the driving force very often. A mindset, if you will.
So my argument is very valid I think. In light of what you can't possibly know in the hearts and minds of all people, including in this forum, because they may not agree with you. Is this not a judgement of a whole race of others you share at times, while excusing possible real sins of your own fathers, even if not exact as those of the known European sins against Indigenous?
People here and in this country,, or Europeans, seem judged by you. They live here, sure. Is this warranted judgement? Lets run with that for a moment. Lets say that being born, living, working, dying here MAKES them guilty of what you say it does. Then here you are with your own family, also being born very likely here, living, working, dying here also. I am actually making a very simple argument. It seems however, and I though of this when I wrote it, that we do have a differing of beliefs about the afterlife, and perhaps before. I don't find evidences for prior life, or reasons to think so. I do think there is afterlife. I think we come into being in our mother's womb, our souls even. I do believe in Spirit, and other dimensions, and that much much more is going on. I just don't think I have justifiable reasons for thinking I existed eternally past, only into the future.
I would never say someone is guilty for being honest. I also am a student of history, as I can continue to learn, especially. I have a love/hate thing with it, but love it more than anything. Its heartbreaking, humanity is. We have great and grave issues for sure. If you are guilty of being overly judgmental of others hearts and minds however, and not in a positive sense of some, but are with others, then I don't know what to say to that. My points are really simple. I am encouraging love, fairness, peace, knowledge, facts, and wisdom.
We simply disagree on some things. I hear what you are saying, but don't see the equivalent in simple wording. If you say you see a dog barking when you see it, then I am trying to get to the bottom (all the more) of why when a minority dies at the hand of an officer, you don't just say what you saw, you inject all the rest. The parts that you can't possibly know for sure, and man they are harsh! I can't make you see it if you don't want to. You could be right! That are maybe not, is something to be more careful with, because of the weight of what you are saying! I have been over and over the intensely strong terminology I disagree with, at least until we know more.
Ask me questions, ask others. Ask before judging them. Are we of the same mindsets that we are being lumped with? Do you ever give benefit of the doubt, as a form of grace or mercy that you didn't see others being given? Would that be a good thing, and doesn't good rise far above evil? Easy? No. Good, strong, incredibly light and bright, speaking volumes in the face of true horrors, yes. I think evil isn't so easily conquered. I see an America that is actually trying to become less and less racist in the minds and hearts of some, but in others, their hearts and minds are easily stoked by those that take advantage of the past history. We have more racial tension now than in a long time, but I think its because people are being taken advantage of, and holding tightly to what they don't want to let go of.
You may find logic in thinking certain ways and then communicating those thoughts, where I can't see it for the life of me. It makes one look deeper, to the unaddressed issues here. Do we all need to leave, in order to not be guilty? What would, or could actually right things? Leave America, try to get back to your native tongues? Property, what about that? Please don't assume so much about us is all, about all officer's hearts, how can you? A lot of our stories are tragic also, full of sacrifice, heartache, etc. There is so much more going on that just what happened to one race or a group. Ask. Don't assume. What do you want to know?
I don't like what happened. I don't like what happened a lot in history on many counts, to many people. We are making history too, in small ways, sometimes larger than we know now. If certain bad choices were made, and that is the focus, why isn't the new focus to do better? Do we leave? I don't think it would help actually. I almost think what is being suggested, is the impossible. That it never have happened. I wonder if you know much about Scottish and Irish history, and many other countries. This is a human problem, and it is awful. Everyone is trying to survive. Why can't we try harder to be fair in our judgements? Short on time. Perhaps can answer more later. I didn't do those things. That officer didn't do those things very likely. Address the particular ignorance you want to. Its the lumping and assuming I have a problem with. As for your ancestors, my point simply was, if there were any bad among them, morally, why don't we lump you with them? I won't do it, because its not fair to. I believe in responsibility, and have to answer for my own problems most of all. I don't agree with the bad things. I think it is awful, sad, and hard to remedy. This is why goodness must prevail over evil. Nothing else can quite kill it. You believe in God...? I think he is best judge, not too lenient, nor too harsh, all knowing. It will be righted, and we need patience I think. In the mean time, goodness, peace, love, wisdom, knowledge, facts, forgiveness. Forgiveness, that isn't saying it was ok, but for peace, and trying to show a better way for the future.
If generations continue upon the same course that was set by criminals, and if these generations, knowing the evil truth of the path that they follow, do nothing to seek a remedy, there can only be one conclusion. When we also consider that these generations have knowingly prospered as a result of their evil predecessors, the situation becomes even more egregious. Just as the great Osceola, I am as much a European as I am Indigenous, but my European ancestry has not blinded me to the truth, nor to my personal responsibility to seek a remedy. I do not love one race and hate the other. I am too intelligent to fall into such a simple trap. Racism is a divisive tool of oppression; an instrument set in motion by Pope Nicholas V in the year 1452. I would never allow myself to willingly become the pawn of an evil system. What I am doing here, any man can do. But many will not speak in favor of humanity because they are selfish cowards who have become fat and addicted to comfort.
What is evil? Evil is not only the deed itself, but it is also the apathy, the acquiescence, and the ignorance that nurtures and perpetuates a world of misery. Just as a man is connected to the past through previous generations, the evil that took root here in 1492 is also connected to the present. You choose to believe that there is no connection , but the laws of nature , as well as the laws of science, have shown that no person, place, or thing creates itself. All that is has only continued and transformed from what has come before.
The killing of Tamir Rice is just one in a series of killings that have happened recently. Here is a very short list:
• March 16th 2014: Albuquerque New Mexico: A homeless man,James Boyd, was murdered by police for illegally camping.
• June 18th 2014: An Oklahoma City police officer was charged Friday with raping or sexually abusing six women he allegedly threatened to arrest if they did not submit. Officer Daniel Holtzclaw, 27, was charged with two counts of first-degree rape, four counts of sexual battery, four counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of indecent exposure, one count of first-degree burglary and one count of stalking.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati … /14830063/
• Diana Showman, a mentally ill woman brandishing a power drill was shot dead by an officer after she called 911 and told San Jose dispatchers she had an Uzi. Diana Showman, 19, had come out of her house, ignored demands to put down the weapon, and was shot once. Showman’s parents criticized the officer’s response, saying that the police needed to be better equip to handle mental health issues.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Pa … 07961.html
• In 2010, Belmont Shores, California police shot and killed Doug Zerby for holding a garden hose that police mistook for a gun. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 … ozzle.html
Interestingly, there is no official government database that reflects how many citizens are killed or raped by the police every year. However, the F.B.I. does keep track of how many police officers are killed each year. Independent organizations have estimated that between 400 and 1000 civilians are killed by the police every year in the United States. We can see here that the "public servant" is obviously considered by the government to be more important than those being served! Can we really imagine that the butler or the maid is ever treated with more respect and consideration than the master? Can we really believe that their needs, their concerns, and their personal safety supercedes that of their master. Historically, this has not been the case. So we must ask ourselves how the police have gone from being the servant, to being the master. We must wonder how a public servant can now commit murder with impunity.
The evil deeds, the apathy, and the acquiescence we see today are directly associated with that which began in 1492, and which has continued unto the present. The very system itself is founded on evil, and so any solutions that do not involve the creation of a new system are nothing more than band aid solutions. This can easily be proven by using an open sewer as an example: Find yourself a volunteer and have him stand waist deep in the filthy sewer water. Stand at the edge of the sewer and throw bars of soap at the man. How many bars of soap will it take to wash him clean? Of course, we can all guess that until the man chooses to step out of the sewer, he will never be able to wash himself clean. Metaphorically speaking, this is what has been happening here in America for over 500 years.
When we step out of the sewer, we step out of the dream and into the real world. It is only from the standpoint of the real world that we can make substantial and lasting changes that will remove the violence that has followed us like a plague, and that permeates our society today. To eradicate this evil, we must begin at 1492, and then move toward the present. My words and concepts may seem strong, and perhaps unreasonable to many, but this is only because I have long ago stepped out of the sewer of materialism and greed. HOW DO YOU LIKE ME NOW? Perhaps some of you would rather hear a rousing rendition of the old Hank Williams favorite, "Kaw-Liga". I am sure there is a traitor living nearby who would be glad to sing it for you, or any number of Lee Greenwood songs. My state of being is not perfection, but perfection is not necessarily a prerequisite for peace, love and understanding. And after all, "What's so funny 'bout that?"
Ignorance nurtures and perpetuates a world of misery.
You are fighting ignorance through educating us. You inform us that we are witnessing evil which began when Columbus and his men in their ships burst upon the Eden of the Indigenous.
Actually it began in another Eden much much farther back than that.
Just to remind you.
But, thanks for your efforts to educate/inform us regarding events of recent history.
I hope it helps.
Just for the sake of clarity and the false narrative being proposed:
Kenewick man, the oldest known body recovered in the US shows no genetic similarities to Native Americans and was found with a stone projectile lodged in his chest.
Soooo - let's see - Native Americans arrived and populated the continent, displacing and eradicating people already here.
Plus, in South America, the same can be said as the descendants of the indigenous people there share genetic traits with Native Americans but ancient bodies found there share no such traits. This led to the theory that Native Americans continued their migration south, displacing and eradicating the original indigenous peoples.
Bottom line: no land has been continually held and/or populated with the modern day people within those lands. They have all been invaded and/or conquered. All of them.
Also, your 1492 narrative is also a false one. Columbus never set foot in North America ever, nor even explored the coast line. There is some evidence that Cortez made explorations North and engaged the tribes there at the time, specifically in Florida.
Slavery is also an ancient concept and not one invented by the Europeans. In fact, historically every race on the planet has been held as slaves or oppressed at one time or another. Even in North America, the tribal nations practiced slavery and the exchange of persons for goods. In Africa, it was the tribal nations who captured and supplied the slave trade already having the practice of capture and slavery within their own cultures.
It is a circle and not linear. If you believe that everyone should be punished, then you must then punish all people, everywhere. Why does the line of guilt end with the people who inhabited North America when the Virginia Company and the Pilgrims arrived? It would then continue back to the people that those tribes had displaced and eradicated.
The most modern day people can do is learn from the past and work to make a better future. Living within the past does not accomplish anything.
There are no Pilgrims alive today, no slave owners, no persecutors of indigenous people. There are no slaves alive today, none of those alive who suffered the grievous injuries.
Your false narrative does not move forward the discussion into the tragic death of a 12 yr old boy - nor offer any solutions how it can be avoided in the future. It only distracts from it.
First of all your comment about Columbus makes no sense at all. Like others on this forum, you have invented a fiction and then attributed it to me. I have made no such statements as you have ascribed to me concerning Columbus. Furthermore, my goal at this time is not to offer any "solutions" as you have mentioned. I have only pointed in the right direction. It would be foolish of me at this time to proceed any further. If the government wants details, then let them set a price and I will consider it.
Your apologist rhetoric completely misses the point of my commentary and analysis. I am completely aware that a world of ignorance and evil existed long before 1492. It is humorous, and also frustrating that you felt the need to highlight the obvious. But your commentary is important as it helps to illustrate the difficulties one must face when attempting to inject a new paradigm into a primitive society. For you to point out that violence and evil have existed throughout history, and throughout all races and cultures is remarkable.
I have suggested that there is a way to mitigate, and possibly eradicate violence and murder throughout the United States in our time. It is the arrival of the European to this continent in 1492 that we must be concerned with, because it is the European legacy that continues to prevail socially and politically. It is the European legacy that we can clearly see is not working for the majority, which includes the majority of working class Euro-Americans. To suggest that the Indigenous who existed at the time of Columbus may have displaced other races or civilizations in the distant past only serves to support my argument: "If we continue down the same path there will be no hope for humanity". Today, unlike in 1492, it is possible for us to eliminate a present and future misery by addressing a past misery, and moving forward from 1492. You have attempted to reduce a serious argument to the superficial level of "My Home Team vs Your Team", which is not uncommon, nor unexpected. Osiyo!
You are the one with the 1492 fetish and dismissing anything that comes before that date.
As for moving on from 1492, the majority of the world, not just Americans, have moved forward. Right now, I've only seen you stuck there in regards to this thread.
I'm still waiting for how all your posturing in any way contributes to this discussion. You failed to address that part of my post. I understand why - since the answer is it doesn't - just thought I'd point that out.
You travel around in circles, attempting to sound collegiate, in the hopes of confusing others, when all you're really doing is repeating yourself over and over, standing high on your soap box, clearly rooted in 1492.
Join us in the 21st century. We haven't found all the solutions, we still have problems, but we attempt to approach them having learned from the past instead of wallowing in it.
It's not all sunshine and lollipops but we try.
Your assumptions and conclusions are quite remarkable. Now you accuse me of " attempting to sound collegiate". Please let me inform you that I am not impressed with the educational system here in the United States. In spite of such prestigious institutions like Harvard, established in 1636, innocent children are still homeless and dying in the streets, the environment continues to be polluted, women continue to be raped and molested, over 40,000 die annually in traffic fatalities, war has become big business, drug abuse, poverty, and the band played on! What have all of these college graduates been doing since 1636? The current state of the world should have given you a clue that college has little to do with true intelligence, and more to do with making lots of money, which by the way, any drug dealer or pimp is also capable of doing. No, I am not interested in being mistaken for another soldier in an army of educated fools.
What I find most interesting is that you insist on presenting a fiction and then arguing against it. It is apparent that you are providing generic answers without reading my posts. Evil can be likened to a virus or a disease. I have simply provided a location on the timeline; a place in the past where the present evil begins. I fail to see how you have construed this as "wallowing in the past". If a doctor is going after a brain tumor it would make little sense to start with an incision in the buttocks!
Furthermore, when an adoptee discovers their birth mother, and inquires as to what family illnesses might exist, it is not wallowing in the past when she informs her child that there is a history of diabetes in the family. I do not need to explain the benefits of such information.
Today, many are seeking a solution to the problem of police brutality, and violence in general. I have shown you the beginning of an end to this misery. The reason that it is taking the world so long to find a solution is because many people are very arrogant, but not very smart, and this has proven to be a lethal combination. If you can't see how my input has contributed to the discussion that I myself started, then I am at a loss, since I have been quite meticulous, albeit necessarily brief in my commentary. As far as the invite to join you in the 21st century, I think I'll pass, and go back to the future instead. Hafa Adai
"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." Federalist No. 15 Hamilton.
- enforcing constraint is the only solution. If the police think they can get away with brutality they will.
- who was constraining Columbus? Far far far from any sort consequences for his actions.
- who was constraining Jefferson or Washington? Slavery was accepted during their day.
- Who / what constrains the officers who abuse the trust and the authority they are given?
That is the question.
"Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation." Federalist No. 15 Hamilton.
I just found this article you listed earlier on.
It explains a lot.
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/column … an_cops-0/
In our time we have often heard people say, for one reason or another, that we should not live in the past. In fact, I have recently been accused of "wallowing in the past". Of course, such accusations are meant to have a negative connotation. Instead of living in the past, we are encouraged to look toward the future. But when we ponder the nature of time, this becomes quite puzzling.
We only know who we are, or who we are supposed to be because of the past. Our memories are very important, and a memory is nothing but a snapshot of the past. Without a memory of the past, we could not find our way home; we could not remember our name, we would be unable to speak a language etc.. Consequently, we can understand that there is power in the past. With the past, we can do seemingly miraculous things, like play a musical instrument, drive a car, fly an airplane, or even have sex, because without the past we wouldn't remember where to put things. To remember means to reconstruct, and a memory is nothing more than a reconstruction of the past.
Knowing all of this to be true, it follows that an historical record is a type of memory; a memory stored or archived through a particular written language. Because of the historical record, we can in a sense re-live the past through the memory of someone else. This type of memory also gives us power, and this power can be likened to the burst of energy we might feel after consuming dead plants and animals. Of course there is more to be revealed, but this is not the time or place. Suffice it to say that 1492 is the only place that this will ever end, and that is the point of termination; where 500 years of evil, and unspeakable atrocities, will fold back into the Earth. Osiyo!
<Of course there is more to be revealed, but this is not the time or place.>
Why just 500 years? Because, trust me, there were atrocities before 1492. There was evil before 1492. There were wars. There were killings. All before 1492.
There were cannibalistic people within North America before 1492. Sacrifices. Of children. People captured and their hearts cut out of their chests while they still beat.
You see, you are stuck in 1492 - doesn't matter if you are calling it some beginning of something - evil and atrocities existed long before then.
So how far back you going with your beginning of evil idea? Just curious.
Oh and absolutely nothing that happened 500 yrs ago molded you into who you are nor helps you find your way home. Nor, I might add, do you hold any memories of it.
Clearly, many are flailing about here in this forum as if someone threw a rock and hit them in their big brown eye. Why just 500 years? That is a very important question, and those of you who may be able to think outside the box most likely already know the answer, although you may not have heard it articulated in this particular fashion. But I will only give you part of the answer, and it is as follows:
As I have stated, there is a great power to be found in the past. But we must learn to use this power while we continue to move forward; allowing the process of social evolution to unfold. Ironically, I have been accused of being stuck in 1492. But the truth be told, it is the majority that is stuck in 1492.
1492 was the beginning of the European Invasion; the beginning of colonialism upon this continent. This was the beginning that led to the formation of all of the colonialist governments, or as some would say, squatter nations that now exist upon this continent. The United States, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Argentina etc., were all created as a result of this invasion. Today, these nations carry on the legacy of the early European. Queen Isabella, Ferdinand, and the rest of the European nobility were not interested in making new friends here in the New World. They were interested in plunder, conquest, gold and silver. While they set about the business of conquest, and seeking riches, they also set about killing the original inhabitants they found here, enslaving them, converting them to Christianity, and replacing their culture and traditions with a Eurocentric view of the world.
The problem with the United States, and all of the colonialist government's on this continent is that these governments haven't progressed beyond 1492. Yes, over the last 500 years we have seen great advances in science and technology, but the general mindset of the average American hasn't changed much since the original Europeans. Today, just as in the past, the average American is primarily concerned with materialism, sexual gratification,drunkenness, drug use, and entertainment. If for no other reason, I am ahead of my time because I have struggled to evolve, and move beyond 1492, whereas the majority has chosen to remain. This is why there is so much violence in America today, and this is why the United States is turning into a police state. As I have already said, America must start at the beginning in order to free itself from this curse. And that beginning is right here today, in 1492. I am only bound to speak the truth. Those who read my words may ponder them, fill in the blanks, and move forward toward peace, or they can remain in a perpetual state of ignorance, and constant turmoil.
<"move forward toward peace,">
You anarchists never exactly say H O W ! except through some sort of communism.
How does one evolve?
And maybe we will de evolve as well… what prevents that from happening?
(...and It can happen, believe me!
...well, maybe not to YOU!)
I've been telling you how throughout this thread. I have certainly provided enough clues that you should be able to figure it out.
- what about "contracts"?
- what would replace governments…?
What do you do with people who are more ambitious than others
or those who are less ambitious?
After all, goodness and equality cannot be infused into the population…except by oneself.
What would motivate equality and goodness?
For instance, what if I do not feel like setting a good example for you… well, maybe today, but not tomorrow?
There are planets where beings are more evolved.
How did you get stuck here?
(That would be an interesting reality show: The first dome on Mars: featuring a colony of anarchists.
Of course, we haven't even perfected reality shows yet.)
Seems to me that if we want peace, we need to start before the Apache, the Cheyenne, the Iroquois, the Aztec and the Inca. Before the Navajo, the Comanche and the Blackfoot.
All destroyed their predecessors, taking the land and its resources for themselves. All made the violence of America today look like a walk in the park. That stone age technology is hard to conquer with is the only reason they didn't steam roll more than they did.
Have you ever heard the oath of a court witness? "The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"? You have a curious propensity for leaving out important parts in the continual effort to degrade anything and anyone of European descent all while declaring "I am only bound to speak the truth."
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Kathryn, you have commented that Hamilton said:
A. "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint."
B."Government implies the power of making laws. It is essential to the idea of a law, that it be attended with a sanction; or, in other words, a penalty or punishment for disobedience. If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation."
It is well known that Alexander Hamilton was a nationalist who admired British political systems. It is also noteworthy that Hamilton eschewed the Articles of Confederation because, among other things, the document lacked taxing powers. When we examine the quote "A", we can see from the very beginning the hypocrisy of this so-called founding father,and that his primary interest was in controlling the populace after they had been "freed from the crown". Hamilton speaks of "... the dictates of reason and justice". But whose reason and justice? How can anyone but a fool not understand that the ethnic cleansing which continued westward, and to the south after the U.S. Constitution was adopted, had more to do with shortsightedness and greed, rather than reason and justice. But when we observe that slavery continued unabated in the new republic after the signing of the U.S. Constitution, Hamilton's hypocrisy is only magnified. The historical record clearly reveals that his "reason and justice" were that of a master thief, a kidnapper, and a murderer.
When we examine quote "B" we get a glimpse of the foundation that has led to the death of Tamir Rice, and the millions of innocents who had preceded him. Hamilton suggests that without penalties and punishments the law would only amount to advice and recomendation. Although I can appreciate the poetry of this idea, we have clearly seen that over 200 years after the fact, the law and punishment that Hamilton advocated has only helped to perpetuate crime, and police brutality, throughout the United States. We can also understand that the criminal justice system has become a major source of revenue for the government, as well as private corporations. These corporations often have contracts with the states which require a 90 to 100 percent prison occupancy. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/23/6_shock … y_partner/
Some commentators in this forum have suggested that I am living in the past, but it should now be clear that the antiquated ideas of a prinmitive like Hamilton have proven to be ineffective, and only useful to a ruling elite. The most important things that the European brought to the "New World" were the teachings of Jesus. But unfortunately, instead of following the advice of a great prophet, which would have led to a new beginning, they have followed a simian cabal into a new version of the same old song and dance. Osiyo!
@ wB: How does one combat evil? Is Manifest Destiny the most evil? If I were to say the most evil is the earth, what am I to do about it?
How would I combat the earth?
How do we combat what has already happened in History?
How do we move on from Today?
Ignorance allowed evil to flourish then as it does now.
How is evil and the ignorance that propels it to be combated, in your view?
By your example, one way (to combat evil) is to be disrespectful to the police and all they stand for. I have always cringed to hear them called pigs, which everyone did when I was a teen.
Another way is by accusing the founding fathers of being terrible sinners.
Another way is by accusing the explorers who came upon this land of being horrendous sinners.
Well, we are ALL terrible sinners and we sin ALL the time.
And yet, is mankind intentionally evil? NO.
Does mankind act in ignorance? YES.
How do we combat ignorance? Basically, WE CAN'T.
In human affairs families educate their children, OR NOT! School systems have had their day and are now failing miserably. Churches too.
In the long run, it is all about me and my efforts to educate.
Q. But, how can I educate if all I do is focus on the gutters of life rather than look up at the mountains of greatness and goodness that truly exist here, today... as they always have.
PS What gives me the courage and inspiration to look up is working with/caring for children.
They are our true hope in life.
PSS If we do not attempt to make life good for them, who will we make it good for?
Fine! I will gladly take over!
The proper boundaries maintain freedom.
Proper boundaries must be enforced.
This case concerning the actions of these officers is a simple case of over-reacting and over-reaching their authority... and … why? because Police Officers are fallible humans. The judicial system and the law checks the fallibility of humans in maintaining justice for all.
We need to maintain faith in our system. Its fine and all is well. But, we need to understand it and apply its principles rightly.
And this is where (true) education comes in handy.
Perhaps it is far too easy to criticize a government, that you at the very same time are benefiting from. And likely have been, for a very long time. That of one's family as well, friends, etc.
Of course this is no utopia, and of course examples of accidents and outright current atrocities can be pointed out on occasion. This has been a problem for humanity from its inception, pretty much. That the USA is still one of the best, and in existence now, seems to be another reason to criticize it, as it hasn't been taken over in the same way, by some other greater power. That seems to be its only way out!! If you notice.......
I have been paying attention to all of this, and to me, it seems to be indicative of something much simpler. To act as if all others can't see the points being made, when it could be the points being made aren't working out as logical, reasonable, and moral for all.
Perhaps the European hadn't come, and some others did. Surely the indigenous would be so much better off now? I don't know how that case would be made, and how it would come across. Perhaps NO one ever came (unlikely, as this is mankind's "way", including the Native American's in question, on most all continents) If no one ever came, would those here never war with each other, and all live and let live? This all seems to be hinging on, or needing other unreasonable things to be true, to even begin to make sense.
Disgruntled, and poor reasoning, poor reflecting on the nature of man overall, a not looking at other countries, pretending this isn't what was always done/is done. The strong need to brainwash those that will listen, that there are some, "extra" evil, while having to ignore the others to make the points. We love our families, and admire certain people we think would never make a mistake. Yet I think one was made here, and its easier to believe the make believe, than what is more reasonable and rational.
Its sad, because bad things did happen, but that those that did it THIS one particular time, are still under the same government and we all live and work here, well.... they are the super guilty ones.?? (How does that follow, if not by sheer belief, while ignoring so much?) All because of a boy in a park with what looked like a real gun that was genuinely scaring people, and a cop that didn't do 100% best in that. Then picking, looking for something else to critique, to hopefully not notice that new rabbit trail being focused on.
Truth is, we all know that if someone today, came to any of us and said they wanted our land, or our possessions, and tried to take them by force, that we have actual recourse with our government in question here. The very powers that be right now, would protect the very one using their voice to criticize. It seems exaggerated and a distortion. Indignant, not thinking broadly overall. I don't get it, and can't get on board no matter how much I am in the persons shoes. Its not all fair, but it doesn't mean we aren't probably living in one of the most "fair" places on earth. I encourage better thinking on it, more fairness.
Take it up with Emma Goldman et al.
If you will read her writings you will "get it."
Well, I think I do "get" it. Perhaps it was how I worded things.
Can anyone point out how societies are thriving, where anarchist ideas have been allowed to played out?
What are some of the best ideas that come from the anarchist political philosophy, and why should America quit what its doing, and adopt those ideas instead? Lets see it! Someone, please, make a case. While benefiting from the very things in place now, that protect them, while they benefit say off of capitalism also, etc.
In particular, I am interested in how this anarchist philosophy will crush, or deal with human's desire to sometimes commit atrocities or have legitimate accidents, better than our current system does? If the USA is so FAILING, because of problems seen across the board in humanity, across all times and all people groups, can someone offer up a better solution that is coherent and workable?
The murder of Tamir Rice and thousands of others by police every year in the United States cannot be resolved by voting,town hall meetings, or violent protests. Unfortunately, the solution is far more complex, because it requires a revolution of the mind, and a freeing of the majority from mental slavery. This is the hardest part because the majority are living in an artificial reality, and until that reality is discarded there will be no significant changes.
The United States is based on a corrupt and unjust system that claims to promote freedom and equality, but ironically, it is the antithesis of both. Police brutality, poverty, violence, drug addiction,slavery, and racism are perpetuated by this system. To argue that these same conditions exist throughout the world is meaningless, since nearly the entire world operates through the same capitalist system.
My position seems unreasonable to many in this forum because they have literally been brainwashed and manipulated by the status quo since the time of their birth, just as many generations before them. This is not unusual, as it is well known that during the antebellum, some slaves had grown so accustomed to their servitude that they did not wish to be freed, and would betray anyone who sought to rebel against their "master", or escape. To distinguish the two era's of slavery, I have coined the phrases: "Slave State of the First Order", and "Slave State of the Second Order". Of course we are living in the latter. It would not be practical to attempt to explain the benefits of Anarchism over the current system since such an explanation would fill volumes. Anarchism, and all of it's permutations can no more be reduced to a convenient soundbyte than the Christian Bible, or any other philosophical or religious belief. Suffice it to say that there is a wealth of information available for anyone interested in understanding the truth about "Anarchy vs the so-called "American Dream".
To better understand Anarchist thought, I would suggest reading the entire book "WHAT IS PROPERTY?" (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/360 ) as well as " Civil Disobedience" by Thoreau (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search … sobedience ) and "Anarchism and Other Essays" by Emma Goldman ( http://ucblibrary3.berkeley.edu/Goldman … Anarchism/ )
Here are some excerpts from:
WHAT IS PROPERTY?
AN INQUIRY INTO THE PRINCIPLE
OF RIGHT AND OF GOVERNMENT
by P.S. Proudhon
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809 - 1865) is reputed to be the first person to declare himself an anarchist.
Excerpts from : WHAT IS PROPERTY?
... Thus the law, in establishing property, has not been the expression of a psychological fact, the development of a natural law, the application of a moral principle. It has literally CREATED a right outside of its own province. It has realized an abstraction, a metaphor, a fiction; and that without deigning to look at the consequences, without considering the disadvantages, without inquiring whether it was right or wrong.
It has sanctioned selfishness; it has indorsed monstrous pretensions; it has received with favor impious vows, as if it were able to fill up a bottomless pit, and to satiate hell! Blind law; the law of the ignorant man; a law which is not a law; the voice of discord, deceit, and blood! This it is which, continually revived, reinstated, rejuvenated, restored, re-enforced—as the palladium of society—has troubled the consciences of the people, has obscured the minds of the masters, and has induced all the catastrophes which have befallen nations.
This it is which Christianity has condemned, but which its ignorant ministers deify; who have as little desire to study Nature and man, as ability to read their Scriptures...
... Not only does occupation lead to equality, it PREVENTS property. For, since every man, from the fact of his existence, has the right of occupation, and, in order to live, must have material for cultivation on which he may labor; and since, on the other hand, the number of occupants varies continually with the births and deaths,—it follows that the quantity of material which each laborer may claim varies with the number of occupants; consequently, that occupation is always subordinate to population. Finally, that, inasmuch as possession, in right, can never remain fixed, it is impossible, in fact, that it can ever become property.
Every occupant is, then, necessarily a possessor or usufructuary,—a function which excludes proprietorship. Now, this is the right of the usufructuary: he is responsible for the thing entrusted to him; he must use it in conformity with general utility, with a view to its preservation and development; he has no power to transform it, to diminish it, or to change its nature; he cannot so divide the usufruct that another shall perform the labor while he receives the product. In a word, the usufructuary is under the supervision of society, submitted to the condition of labor and the law of equality.
Thus is annihilated the Roman definition of property—THE RIGHT OF USE AND ABUSE—an immorality born of violence, the most monstrous pretension that the civil laws ever sanctioned. Man receives his usufruct from the hands of society, which alone is the permanent possessor. The individual passes away, society is deathless...
This excerpt brings many questions to mind: (Thank you for providing it, by the way.)
The problem is, how can we get everyone to stop claiming land?
On THIS planet?
...and how can we get them to value society over themselves and their offspring?
Love is at the root of this… love of self and immediate loved ones versus the society at large. (How large?)
There will always be those who will attempt to overpower the weak. After all, what is the use of being powerful if it can't be used for some advantage?
- usually the advantage is used for something one is passionate about.
- usually one is passionate about one's own life and family.
What has happened on this earth is due to human nature.
You say the Oai people did not own land?
Well, the farming ones did. Sure enough, they were the ones who were the most vicious as they had to protect the source of their survival. But those who did not own land lived in triblets or tribes. They did not have land, but they did have each other as far as survival and protection. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but this creeps me out. I would hate living in a tribe of people. Was Proudoun an advocate of tribal living?
Or what did he imagine as far as his envisioned "society?" Would factions or autonomous communities exist?
- or what?
Proudhon could not have expressed himself more clearly when he stated concerning property and the law: "... It has literally CREATED a right outside of its own province. It has realized an abstraction, a metaphor, a fiction; and that without deigning to look at the consequences, without considering the disadvantages, without inquiring whether it was right or wrong."
Here we see a common ground between Proudhon's conclusions, the teachings of Jesus, and many Indigenous nations that existed here prior to 1492. The childish treatment of my comments by many on this forum is indicative of why nearly 150 years after Proudhon's death, a majority of Americans continue to cling to a lie, believing that somehow, someday, things will get better in a system that cannot possibly afford to the many when it's very design can only accommodate a privileged few. This is not a matter of race or a clash of cultures. Proudhon was a French politician, I am an artist of mixed race (Euro-Indigenous), Jesus was a Jew, and the Indigenous nations that have existed on this continent for over 10,000 years are as varied and unique as the various European tribes. But in spite of, racial, and cultural differences, and in spite of the passage of time, there is a commonality of thought and understanding.
All of the French, especially the aristocracy did not share Proudhon's views, of course not! Neither have all Indigenous nations shared the same views on ownership and property. But the fact that the world at large has never truly followed the teachings of Jesus, Proudhon, or any number of philosophers, or social architects, does not necessarily render their teachings irrelevant. On the contrary, the fact that we have the luxury of hindsight, and can clearly see that the present system has, and will always accommodate only a privileged few, must lead us to explore a different approach to the maintenance of society; one that is more productive and less adversarial.
Whether or not a majority could ever accept a world that allotted a fair share of land, resources, and wealth to everyman, while denying the greedy motivations of evil men is not the proper, or relevant question. The question that we must resolve is, " How many generations are we willing to forfeit, and sacrifice, for the false security of servitude?"
Wb, in reference to your last paragraph, we are always going to forfeit, sacrifice for the false security of servitude as long as the majority accepts a world that does not allot land and resources to everyman equally, denying the motivations of evil men.
We go from slavery, serfdom, to wage slaves under capitalism, those that have will never give up their advantage.
What kind of economic system do you envision that will reward people in proportion to their work and ingenuity? People can't be counted upon to be altruistic about their time and energy indefinitely. Every system accommodates a privilege few, as in "Animal Farm" 'some are more equal than others'. Such has been the case with the ancient Egyptians down to the present day capitalist moguls. Looking around the world where are there are societies that have more equal distribution of wealth, Scandinavia, a relatively homogeneous society?
The scriptures say that Man dominates Man to his injury. It applies to ALL MEn not exclusive to European, Asians, Africans, I have witnessed brutality from all, and all have fallen short of the ideal. To talk about a fundamental change, would be the same as talking about warp drives, molecular replicators and such. We as a SPECIES are a long way from such sophisticated viewpoints and thinking. What do we do in the face of the reality today?
"People can't be counted upon to be altruistic about their time and energy indefinitely. Every system accommodates a privilege few, as in "Animal Farm" 'some are more equal than others'. Such has been the case with the ancient Egyptians down to the present day capitalist moguls. Looking around the world where are there are societies that have more equal distribution of wealth, Scandinavia, a relatively homogeneous society?"
Exactly. Its like addressing the frailties of mankind, with a wrong band aid kind of. While missing the greater threat to the body as a whole. It has to actually be able to work, to work. Whatever is being suggested. Its like a partial misdiagnosis, and blaming the wrong "culprit" for the disease we observe in humanity. Not thinking FULLY through, only partially, while being so sure the proposed bandaid or medicine will actually work. Science and medicine looks for things that have been proven to be true for those fields. If there IS no perfect solution to be forced onto a people through government, it doesn't mean we abandon what IS still the best, all things considered. Yes, its all risky, it always was! This is why the best thinking matters on all things. I hope people challenge my ideas in such ways, if they think I am wrong.
Animal Farm..... Speaking of that, I think its a must read, and very short. Some say it might not apply, but the ideas expressed and how they are expressed, are very eye opening. Very wow factor, jaw dropping. Again, the disease is not what it seems to be, and there are MANY forms of abuse, in our society.
First, I think you need to be a bit more honest about your accusations of police murdering people. Murder, vs. killing or killed, means something very particular. Its not fair to those that ARE truly murdered in cold blood. Kids HAVE been murdered by adults, and I think you minimize the seriousness of all these cases, because of a possible, personal agenda and points you are literally forcing with rhetoric. This is careless at the very least.
In the very first words of your first sentence, you come out with part of your problem, and what I think is (possibly) a true form of brainwashing and belief. How horrifying that you think police are just murdering people. Your premises need to be right, and they are wrong right off the bat. This isn't responsible or intellectually honest thinking, and incites more violence among people that don't think things through, and that respond to simple emotional appeals. I am kind of sick of it, to be honest, everyone ought to be.
The solution IS more complex, and I think you alluded to it before, that ideas like Jesus espoused, are more of an answer. (Or those are my words, more of an answer.) Jesus describes a human problem, doesn't blame any particular people, but all of us that have ever done wrong. Your misapplication of what is happening is an attempt to get people to side with you, at least, but you will only remain frustrated ongoing because you aren't even framing the problem correctly, or fairly. You have not made a case.
It isn't meaningless to discuss other times and other countries, but would surely benefit you in trying to force the argument to be what you seem to want and NEED it to be, to even get off the ground. If we point you to the logic of the greater problem of mankind, then you are forced to face your own possible brainwashing, that perhaps wasn't intended, but seems to be rooted very strongly and deeply in your thinking. Its like a lens put on your view of everything, and you use other people's possible lack of intelligence compared to yours, or lack of reasoning against them, so they "must just not see your points for issues like that." I don't think that is the case at all.
Your simple (yet crazy bold) assertions DON'T make an argument, unless they are all true. Your beliefs over the actual facts of matters, don't make your argument for you. You are counting on being 100% right 100% of the time about the motives, intentions, and deeper dark desires of police and the ruling authorities in our country, and its time you stopped it. If this is what you are going to be writing about in your book, I would greatly encourage you to slow down, and be a bit more fair, and work with the actual facts, which will admittedly be LESS satisfying to your desired beliefs about people, but more fair. Not only that, you will be taken as a credible writer then also! Don't you want that? You have deep passion for these things, but if misplaced and misguided as I have seen, you lose your whole point! You could exact some true change, by being more reasonable and fair.
The problem in particular cases, CAN be met and addressed hopefully in a system that we hope does do what it says it will do. The checks and balances HAVE done some good, while not negating all the bad, and how could it? SOME true corruption here and there doesn't mean the WHOLE is the same. It doesn't logically follow that it would.
Your position seems unreasonable to some in this forum (most all that I have seen) perhaps because of the parts that ARE unreasonable, and you can't show they are not, other than to say others are brainwashed and manipulated. No one wants to be, including you, right? Well we have to see.
I trust you actually saw my questions and read them, when you responded. I will go address those now in a new post. I admit I have not evaluated and addressed the other points. You have not made your first points however. Lets take things slower and see where it goes, shall we? I will leave my response as this for now, so we don't get novels for answers, then I will also look at how you propose a new way of governing (perhaps) will solve the things in a way that our current system does not address.
In this thread, I have accidentally and on many occasions said "indigenous" of the Americans in this locale in the 15th century. I don't mean indigenous, like how it sounds. In this conversation the distinction needs to be made.
You seem to have adopted ideas you either came up with, or heard expressed from others, that (with all possible due respect) do not do you justice. Perhaps you totally trusted the person or people telling you the things you have heard and have now made your own ideas. I find it very odd, the talk of manipulation, brainwashing, reality, and the rest. As if that could never have been done to you. Even by very well meaning people..... If you choose not to challenge your own ideas, how can you be so sure they are the correct ones? Even if you think you HAVE fully thought things through, can't it be possible you are wrong somewhere along the line, if you are? You are not omniscient, or all knowing. This is why your ideas and mine need (and ought to be, all) critiqued, and hard. I say this all the time, that part of the reason I hold the views I do on all kinds of things, is because I test my views the hardest of all! I don't want to believe in things for what turn out to be crappy reasons! Especially not as a passionate person that cares about people and about moral things, and all the really important stuff of life! So that is all I am doing here. Testing your views hard. This isn't about slandering or attacking views you haven't espoused. This is about discussing what you are actually talking about. I think you might actually really believe that police are murderers. How can anyone actually talk rationally with you, if you adopt such an illogical and immoral idea such as that? It would mean you wouldn't be swayed by reasoned and moral arguments, yet I can tell that is what you seem to want to come across as having. Go after that disconnect perhaps, but it means you have to tackle your held views.
I have to think that if you want to be taken seriously, you want people to critique your views hard, especially if writing a book.
First of all, it is not my burden for you or anyone else to "take me seriously". Like so many others, you assume that because I am using a common English language, and I am posting in a common internet forum, about common social issues, we both have similar ambitions ,desires, and values; that we are cut from the same cloth. That we are "equals". I assure you we are not. But you have expressed yourself in a manner that betrays a hidden motive. For instance, you have ascribed to me that which I do not own! You say,
" You are not omniscient, or all knowing. This is why your ideas and mine need (and ought to be, all) critiqued, and hard."
Your preceding comment is totally absurd, and serves no purpose other than slander. The difference between my comments and yours is that I assess the character and the understanding of an individual, or group based on what has been stated, believed, and practiced by said individual or group. It is not merely my opinion, educated or otherwise, that the United States is essentially a slave state. No more than it is my opinion that the police murder and rape thousands of citizens each year. These are facts! Simply because you have not studied certain issues and are not aware of the facts does not reduce these facts to the level of a personal opinion. It is not my burden to convince you that you are a slave when the chains that bind the poor and working class are clearly visible to anyone who cares to look.
I have not stated or even implied that I am "all knowing", and such slander can only be explained as follows:
1.You are purposely being slanderous to entertain yourself.
2.You fear that you have been made a fool of by the government, and so it is easier to attack and slander the messenger.
3.There is an issue of comprehension
4.There is an issue of social or racial bias.
5.It is difficult for you to accept a higher authority.
Whatever your reasons for slander, although your assumptions may provide you with some personal satisfaction, they will not break the chains that have bound the common man. Even someone who has never studied logic, or philosophy, or religion , or science,or art for an entire lifetime, understands what it means when someone is lying dead in the street! The ideas and the society that you apparently defend have provided, over the last 200 years, empirical evidence that clearly substantiates my claims. On the other hand,you challenge my position but you have no such empirical evidence to attack the validity of my arguments. Based on your commentary, it appears that you have accepted that it is natural and proper to be born a slave, and to live and die in servitude to a ruling elite; a ruling elite that stands behind the curtain and actually controls and manipulates the wealthy 1% that sit above the rest of humanity.
Finally, your opening statement challenges the source of my knowledge and understanding. Such statements are, to say the least, arrogant. But most importantly, your opening statement further substantiates my claim that a majority of Americans have been brainwashed. Your statement reveals that you cannot conceive of an authority; a philosopher, seer, holy man, extraterrestrial, or emissary of God who would ever speak directly to you in an online forum. It appears that you will only accept what has been sanctioned and disseminated publicly by the government through various media, or television programs such as "Oprah", "Nancy Grace", or "CNN".
But it should be clearly understood that if the simian can learn to speak this language, and to effectively communicate; write essays, treatises,books, poetry, and song, it is not so far fetched that a superior entity, or the humble emissary, would utilize the English language as well. There are humans of great conscience who go among other species in an attempt to keep them from harm, or save them from extinction. There are also entities and humans who serve the human race in the same fashion. I am not here to win a popularity contest, or to gain "followers". There is too much at stake to concern myself with such pedestrian concerns. In the months and years to come, there will be more rapes and murders committed by the police, while millions continue to suffer under the yoke of "freedom". Tamir Rice is the image of God that has been defiled and cast aside. He deserves more than 15 minutes of sympathy and soundbytes.
WB, You avoid so much. I didn't ever say you claimed to BE all knowing or anything of the like. So stop that. Its a simple reminder, and an observation on my part of your behavior, that you DO judge others as if you seem to know when you most certainly do not. You do NOT know the motives of the heart and mind and their inner beliefs, for what their occupation is. That is a GOD attribute that no man has. Its illlogical, untruth, a lie, at the very least. You believe it very firmly. IF you WERE all knowing, (which was inherent in my post that you are NOT), then you WOULD be able to talk so big about officers of the law in the US. You missed the point, and turned it into you being a victim. I have observed this in many of your arguments with others in discussions.
It is simply IMMORAL to accuse so many of murder. It is disgusting, actually! No more tip toeing around.
Tired of your frequently played, "slander" card. All to seemingly to avoid the points. Well done. Not.
I actually almost lol when I saw your MLK quote. Its one of my all time, literally, all time favorites. Why do you think I am speaking out?
I have observed you take a tiny little point, and extrapolate on that (the omniscient comment by me as example) to avoid the main points. While missing the one, turning it into what you do.... I see this.
You seem to place yourself as so morally superior and knowledgeable over others, and miss simple concepts and won't see a mirror when held up. No one is doing to you, what you are doing to so many. (Example, officers of the law.) Accusing of murder like you have! This is fact. You don't have to accept or see it, but you are welcome, for me pointing it out. I don't see you as a victim of slander or anything else, sorry. I see you as promoting bad ideas, and a possible type of racism that seems to run very very deep. Almost impossible to be reasoned with. It creates more problems. Choosing to be a victim of what results of putting certain blinders on, while accusing it in others, is something you have to wrestle with.
And YES, you do have the burden of expressing yourself in a way that can be taken as serious, when you are accusing so many left right and center, while wanting to be taken at face value. Assertions and beliefs are just that. This is what you have expressed, and propose things that won't fix. Then are frustrated at what is wrong with these people that are just enslaved and brainwashed? Super wow.
Edit: All I can do is recommend to you, to be a part of a healing, truly workable solution, and consider your own possible brainwashing of things that turn out to be beliefs. You can be the most passionate person wanting change, but really be the equivalent of a guy trying to get somewhere important, while really "being stuck in a muddy rut with mud getting flung everywhere around." All the while wagging the finger and stating why others that want change and are passing you by are just not educated enough, high IQ enough, or observant enough. Sorry..... I think it needs to be said. Lets look for the real bandaid, the real medicine that isn't more problematic and doesn't address real issues. No one will want to get on board with any of your possible good ideas, and "go where you are going", when you get so much wrong. I am doing this because I care actually.
I can't fix them all, but I CAN address absolutely wrong ideas. That cops are what you say they are, when its NOT the case like you claim to make it look like. This is just one of the problems I have seen. If this was a surgery with surgeons in the room, ready to right the wrongs, excise the bad and help mend the wounds, would they ask you to leave? Man, anyone can talk big! I am sure you have a lot to offer, and you are willing to voice things. Do it better, or please don't be surprised when you are shown how they break down and even cause more harm than good.
I have many talents, it is true. I am also physically attractive, and so I have known and enjoyed many beautiful women, as well as those who might be considered quite ugly, since I respect all of God's creation. But for some things, you don't need a special talent in order to understand. Sometimes you just need to read, look around, and experience for yourself.
John Brown was ahead of his time, yet he was ridiculed and hanged by the neck until he was dead. Jesus was said to be the son of God, yet he was tortured, spat upon, and crucified. I do not expect to be treated any better than those far above my station, nor do I expect nothing less than the ridicule that you and others here have delivered.
Here in the United States, the families and the victims of those who are raped, murdered, and abused by the police every year, know that I speak the truth, because they have already received their proof: empirical evidence that came in a box , a funeral urn, or an indelible memory of injustice and humility.
Q. What type of society did Proudon want to be realized / brought into existence?
I mean, it is one thing to say no one should own land. It is quite another to implement such an ideal.
The Oai people were basically nomadic…would we have to have temporary structures... or maybe bands of roving RV's in this day and age?
As soon as farming became important to survival, ownership of land was everything.
The original people of this continent came here following the game they hunted. It was so far back in time they were following Mastodons, oversized Bisons, Saber Tooth tigers and such. When they got to this beautiful continent it was teeming with life. It was a paradise of plants, birds, lakes and rivers teeming with fish, mountains, snow, water, fertile grasslands. All they had to do was tromp around and hunt animals, gather edible vegetation and catch fish. Eventually, they killed all the prehistoric game and it went extinct. Still, they continued their roaming about, hunting, gathering and fishing.
Tribes were not always harmonious. Many chiefs were not benevolent and wise. They were ruthless and exacting. scalping was not taught by the French to the Indigenous. They were already scalping. They loved power and they would battle other tribes for many reasons. Why would they not? They had much to gain… way of life and survival being valid. You think stealing and theft was unheard of amongst the original people? You think murderous actions and emotional outbursts were not part of indigenous life? In my view, human nature is human nature, no matter what time, place or culture.
As (you?) said earlier, there can be no farming without ownership. No permanent homes, no hospitals. No schools, no roads and no power plants (no computers). No factories, no iron or copper.
It would seem that we would have to go back to the hunter/gatherer stage, where only a small fraction of the people could be fed. One could say that only governments could own land, but then we're immediately at the same place we are now, with "governments" fighting each other for resources just as they did 1,000 years ago.
We are made free by God. We do not owe another man for the right to exist. Neither do we owe any man for the right to work, to prosper, and to have what is necessary for a man to live in a state of freedom. What is necessary is food, water, and a place that we may dwell and build a home. It is a perversion of nature, and justice, that laws have been enacted that have placed a middleman between God's promise and mankind. The land belongs to us all. Each and every one of us. For a man to lay claim and hoard the land that God provided for us all is one of the greatest evils, as it leads to all others.
All people. All citizens, especially those who have been warehoused in the ghettos of every major city across the U.S. should be very angry, because their birthright has been stolen by evil capitalists. A price of admission has been placed upon their inheritance; a price that many will never be able to pay. The ignorant do not know this truth. They refuse to believe in an evil so great; an evil that would force them to work and slave for a lifetime, only for the right to possess a small home and parcel of land that God had already provided for free; for the enrichment and glory of all mankind. It is a perversion to expect a man to pay for land that no one but God has produced.
It is a great fiction that the state has the "right" to mock God. Neither the state, the European, or the Indigenous created the land. Consequently, no one but a criminal can demand tribute for what they have not produced, nor could ever truly "own". Men suffer because others have taken more than they need, and the law has protected and rewarded the greedy by allowing this evil to flourish.Proudhon was a genius, and truly far ahead of his time. This brief interpretation is in line with his teaching.
"The land belongs to us all."
"What is necessary is food, water, and a place that we may dwell and build a home. "
Where might that place be, to build a home, when you don't own the land to put it on? Where can you grow your food without a place to do it? Where do you get your water without a place to put a well?
RVs and water bottles it is, wilderness! We can live near all the Kroger Markets and Food Kings and hunt and gather there…. but if farmers give up their land… who would supply Kroger with vegetables and pre-ripe fruit… they would no longer even need their distribution buildings and delivery trucks … Okay get out your bow and arrow and hand out baskets to your children and grandchildren..(because your grown children want to be near you in their RV, all of the sudden… ) and start the quest for deer and berries… That might be good...
Do we leave it up to each family then, when is the best time to go out and hunt with arrows or traps? What kind of society are we suggesting? Because I imagine the same won't like anyone telling others when to hunt and the like? Why wouldn't the same reasoning apply, if I get an arrow in my thigh when picking berries, that the person that shot that arrow wouldn't be attempting murder or murdering, if it went in my heart? Aye yai yai!
Many of you treat this as a joke. But when it is a member of your family lying dead in the street, I assure you it will not seem so amusing. Most of you have no solutions because you have been so beaten down that you are too tired, or too afraid to try and make a difference. You will simply go to the ballot box, put some money in the collection plate, and then cross your fingers and hope someone else can fix it.
The old idiom, " You can't fight city hall" exists for a very good reason. Most people interpret the expression literally. But this is not so. The idiom exists as a smoke screen . It's purpose is similar to the "Beware of Dog" sign that many people post on their front window; those who don't even own a dog. The truth is, you can not only fight city hall, but if necessary, you can tar and feather the miscreants, and then run them out of town if you see fit. But they do not want the citizens to know that collectively they have absolute power and control, for obvious reasons.
Until anarchists give an actual remedy, not just pointing out obvious defects per usual,
the ACTUAL remedy for human nature, for greed, for callousness, for love of power, for arrogance...
all they say IS a JOKE.
and no, Its not funny.
So, what is the society they speak of ???
If there can be no such vision just say so, "We will all just play it by ear!"
Some souls who are very tricky will always be born into the mix. There will always be crafty sorts …
and arrogant young colts feeling their power and strength and wanting to use it somehow!
Its been going on since Abel and Cain.
Paradise perhaps.... I think its wanting it all, and right now. How nice that would be. A perfect world, of someone's imagining. So elaborate, up in arms ideas being strewn about, including put downs of everyone that disagrees. I am not so inclined to listen, but you bring up excellent points and I would think over any idea.
As for ideas, all can be put upon a table for consideration. Ideas don't fly by force, ideas have merit in themselves or not. When the ideas break down or things don't logically follow, or more harm is done than with a current system, they get removed from said, "table."
PS (As you and wB have both alluded to, Jesus is the answer, so we are actually all on the same page, but we just don't quite know how to implement it.) In the US the *individual* is valued and has freedom within appropriate boundaries… really!… but the government can't GO OVERBOARD!
We can't follow precepts which foster throwing babies out with the bathwater… we are the Babies! Society is the bathwater. Our Constitution guarantees a pretty good tub... for now.
First hard winter and it would be a Donner Party of one billion. Robin Hood world fails because its naive, simplistic and assumes too many things: Robin Hood is good. The sheriff is bad. Poor people are always good and the rich are always evil. Society is evil? Yet we use the internet, from our computer, we wear clothes from Wally World and as soon as someone kicks down our door or steals our car, we are the first ones to call 911 and order a whambulance.
A remedy has already been proposed many times over. But it appears from your responses that many of you don't read my entire comments, and even less actually try to comprehend what I am saying. I call it the "Lee Greenwood Syndrome".
I will paraphrase and embellish a comment I made earlier in this thread: " The American people must explore alternative forms of government that offer a more equitable distribution of land and resources, as well as more personal freedoms. The abolition of the real estate "industry" would alone bring an end to much of the poverty, crime, and civil strife we witness today. The wealth of Anarchist literature that is available on the internet is a good place to start. The public must stop relying on the clergy, the politicians, and killer cops to solve their problems. Voting, town hall meetings, or violence will not bring about any significant change. Education must come first. I suggest that many of you should start post-haste".
Actually, I do know the power is with the people. I think of it often. I wonder why more don't march on Washington, and I am not sure a lot of what has happened in recent years isn't just such a test to see how far government can go before people do. Sometimes, the ones that seem to care most sometimes, would have to quit or lose jobs to travel to Washington, but man some want to make a change or leaving young or aging family members. Lots to lose. Please, don't assume so much.
Please, don't assume I find it amusing, and suggest I wouldn't take any of this seriously until its my loved one in the street. Your way of dodging all the legitimate issues again! I actually LOVE the idea of freedom, in a free land, where big and growing bigger government isn't over me! I hate that, especially now. So do not misunderstand, purposely or accidentally. If the later, be corrected. I fight bad ideas wherever I see them. Don't assume I don't when I am going after some of yours in particular. You want to frame this particular ways which insults others, well I have shown how that fails already in prior posts.
Edit: All of this talk is also why I see government taking more from all to give to all, including those that don't pay in or earn it. Getting people to take handouts, right or wrong, lends to the idea that you "don't want to bite the hand that feeds you", which is an excellent way to get people to defend VERY bad ideas, just when you need it most. Those in power know they need votes on very bad ideas, to make true corruption happen, because moral and sane intelligent people that care would never go for it. Thus, a LOT of what we see.
Your question illustrates the degree of deception that has seeped into the collective American consciousness. The land is all around you! And you are wrong. You already own it, as well as I, or any other man. You grow your food and conduct your business on the land that you possess.The evil of "real estate" "highways" and "supermarkets" has confused you. God "owns" the land. Our birthright is not to hoard the land, or deny access to the land through imaginary proprietorship's, but only to "possess" what is needed that we may survive. Turn left at the next intersection and travel for about 9 miles. You'll see it there on your right.
"For a man to lay claim and hoard the land that God provided for us all is one of the greatest evils"
"You already own it, as well as I, or any other man. You grow your food and conduct your business on the land that you possess."
"God "owns" the land."
I'm sorry, but your comments are totally contradictory. Either we own land or we don't. Either we control access to our home (on the land) or we don't. Either a mythical god owns it or we do; not both.
So turn left at the next light a go 9 miles to the farmer. Ask him why he has more than he needs to survive and explain that you want some for your new home. THEN, explain how that farmer will still feed himself and you.
Possession and ownership are not the same thing. Furthermore, the current system doesn't work with a magic pill. There are procedures that must be followed. An alternative system would also have procedures in place. The difference being a more equitable outcome for all. The problem here is that no one wants to admit that the United States is, and always has been on par with Nazi Germany. Not just because I say so, but because the historical record indicates this to be true. Denial does nothing to improve the situation. In fact the genocide committed here by Colonialists left over 100 million dead as opposed to 6 million Jews at the hands of the Nazis. Overall, it can be seen that the Colonialists actually exceeded the level of Nazi brutality by over 90 million!
I have missed which countries are thriving using this method of government you are proposing. This is an absolute must, to show you aren't just coverin for wanting things to be different from what Europeans brought about here in the USA and elsewhere.
If you answered those questuons my apologies. Could you repeat here?
The American Indians used it. It worked fairly well, too, as long as they could keep the other tribes from taking the resources from it and as long as the population density was sparse to say the least.
Of course it also limits the living standard to conditions few would accept today...
Yeah, I know. Americans killed all the "indigenous" people in the new world. Just as they killed their own predecessors here. We know.
So go tell that farmer you wish to "possess" the land he is farming, because he doesn't need it to feed himself. Then explain how he can still feed not only himself but 100 more with only a small portion of the land he used to "possess".
But what ridicule have I and others delivered, WrenchBisquit? Challenging your very obviously wrong and harsh judgements of police officers in the USA? A view that you can't possibly be right about, that defies logic?
I have seen this other tactic by you as well, though not as often as the slander card, or its perhaps a version of it. That is, that you claim others in these forums that disagree with you, must be "for" some of the things you are against, but list things like, rape, murder, and abuse by police. Here is the very hard truth that you must wrestle with and answer for if you are any kind of honest soul.(Which I am sure you are, just not expressing it as much here in this forum) That is, that I and others here likely, are actually ALSO against rape, murder, and abuse by police when it happens!!! Seriously, how DARE you?! You present here a faux case once again. That you are simply on the side of being against such things, so those opposing you must be for them????!!!! Unbelievable.
So what would explain that to me, is that you are simply not willing to consider my points could possibly be valid. Which points to yet another thing that would explain THAT thing. Possibly the very thing you are accusing of others. Possible brainwashing, possible wrong beliefs? Keep in mind, its good for all of us to consider when accusing something like that has happened, that it MIGHT have happened with us (you, in this case.) Yes, that is bold to say, but you won't begin to consider what anyone else is saying. ANY other kind of put down of them, seems preferable to you. Do you see what i am saying?
The people that think you speak the truth, I would also disagree with, and I wouldn't assume they think so harshly about all police as you, even WITH the abuse or death of loved ones. This could just another version of responding to violence, with violence, but in this case its violence in a thought process. Beliefs about others, that isn't true. This hurts, doesn't help. Yes God loves you, I am sure of it. I believe he wants better for you, he is a clear thinking God, and all about the justice, and says let vengeance be His.
The proof of an urn or funeral box is that evil exists, and that some choose it, and abuse power, as some always have, in all eras, in all places of this world. THAT is a truth. I am sorry if this takes away any possible reasoning or backing behind what you want to be true. The point is, we don't have the same slavery as in John Browns Day, and you aren't the savior of the world, taking the sins of all on your shoulders, being perfect all the while, like Jesus Christ. Slave to certain kinds of thinking however, can be had by any of us. I am challenging that possibility in your own mind and thoughts, that causes unneeded division and more hurt. This is a goal of evil in general (not saying you there). Make it tougher for evil to use you for its purposes in hurting you and judging others, possibly. Kick evil in the ***, legitimately. If that is what you claim to want to do. The two you mentioned, did want to do that, at least Jesus did, and he got it done and had the credentials to do it. I think you could be making a difference, but are a bit misguided. We all want any possible corrupt police off the streets, and judges off their seats, etc. I recommend Jesus..... It will be much more satisfying and legit, I am pretty confident of it. If you want to go for some "mark" of evil, stop aiming all willy nilly at incorrect targets. I am not denying the evil exists, and that we might want to truly fight it.
Don't ever remotely say I am ridiculing you for anything like what those guys got ridiculed for. I understand what you mean by that by the way, as I am a true hater of evil and its destructive tendencies onto the human race in its many forms. I have had heat directed at me too. I am not blind to the battle. To confuse true ridicule with what I am doing, is to only miss the point purposely, and not have to show how anything I am saying is wrong if it is.
OS, Basically, we are defending all we have. He is tearing down what we have built and what is the result of centuries of evolutional experimentation… (with no better explanatory term.)
wB, you have an off with your head type of attitude. It is just not sitting right.
It puts us on the defense.
...and you have not yet supplied a workable alternative.
Could you please?
"... it is one thing to say no one should own land. It is quite another to implement such an ideal."
Its like some revolution is being desired, without some goal to be achieved, that God hasn't already secured through his son Jesus. (my beliefs come in here, admittedly)
So its a patience game, from my point of view, until all the "wrongs are righted." In the meantime, why give up what seems to be the best of all the fallible views in a very fallen world? The answer to this has not been forthcoming as I see it. In the meantime, people are getting severely judged, and that isn't good just for them, I don't think its good for the judger in those cases.
Its not logical to create and be up in arms against a foe that isn't exactly there, not in the way described. What is seen is a fallen world, and this human "disease" if you will, HAS been addressed, and DOES have a solution. Its about turning from those ways. We can't put that into a theocracy, even Jesus knew it wasn't time for anything like that, despite what people accuse of. Anyway, its all too "cuckoo for co co puffs" for me!
"Schopenhauer used the word "will" as a human's most familiar designation for the concept that can also be signified by other words such as "desire," "striving," "wanting," "effort," and "urging." Schopenhauer's philosophy holds that all nature, including man, is the expression of an insatiable will to life. It is through the will that mankind finds all their suffering. Desire for more is what causes this suffering." (Arthur Schopenhauer.)
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_ … esentation
(1788–1860), German philosopher. According to his philosophy, as expressed in The World as Will and Idea (1818), the will is identified with ultimate reality and happiness is only achieved by abnegating the will (as desire).
You just can't change human nature.
This is our best hope:
"The ideas of benevolence, utility, and justice arouse our deepest and most pervasive feelings, he (David Hume) maintained, and these feelings in turn motivate us toward actions of moral worth. I offer assistance to those in need because it makes me feel good to do so, and I am fair in my dealings with others because it would make me feel bad if I were not. All of morality rests firmly upon the natural human inclination to seek pleasure and avoid pain."
How would You feel after you KILLED another human being?
Once, as a lifeguard at the Y, where I worked in my early twenties, a child slipped under water on my watch. I did not see the child struggle on the surface. A boy pulled her up and alerted me, "What's this?" He had found her floating underwater. She was unconscious.
After rescue attempts by myself and the paramedics, she never regained consciousness.
I cried for three straight days.
I will never get over it, (as she never came out of the coma.) My youthful arrogance ceased abruptly. I could not bring myself to lifeguard for some time after that, but when I did resume lifeguarding, I was EXTREMELY proactive. To say the least.
Talk about pain.
And one more for the road:
"According to Schopenhauer, the deep truth of the matter is that in cases of the over-affirmation of the will – that is, cases where one individual exerts his will not only for its own fulfillment but for the improper domination of others – he is unaware that he is really identical with the person he is harming, so that the Will in fact constantly harms itself, and justice is done in the moment in which the crime is committed, since the same metaphysical individual is both the perpetrator and the victim."
It would be enlightening to hear from cops here, wouldn't it?
PS There is nothing wrong with wB's Hot Tip #1.
...other meandering thoughts... Maybe officers of the peace should be encouraged to be just that... and not quota busters. In other words, human beings should not be seen as revenue contributors (in giving out traffic tickets) and statistics suppliers (in catching as many "criminals" as possible.) Let's hold the Police Chiefs accountable… Maybe?
Or the non percolating economy, the President? (Officers and police chiefs are desperate to keep their jobs now more than ever.)
Or our political/economic policies overseas? We train our young men / women in the military how to be violent, (through "serving" the country in war.) After returning to civilian life, becoming a police office is what they have the best training for, after all.
Lets just defend our borders.
Land is good. Protect it I say. And loose the greed.
We have enough right here.
Thanks for this freedom of speech.
How do we avoid chaos? Governments, laws = Order= Peace
Education= equals survival abilities within a very workable system.
You need to get that reality show going, wB... on Mars.
Just remember the cameras. I've got to see it!
Call it "Mars: FOR FREE!"
Admitted rant warning.
How cliche this is going to sound!! I think Jesus is the answer, lol. Sorry, I really really do.
I think what is being described is a desire for good to prevail and badness to diminish, and be hurt, removed, etc. So here is my little rant on things, that actually, truly makes sense of some of the sides being presented here, but in a more realistic and workable form. I mean, reflective of what is really going on.
I believe we are made in the image of our creator. I believe he is good, and made humanity good in the beginning. Along with that daring and risky venture, free will must have been introduced and maintained, because its opposite is just another form of evil. (Or it could be said, to force only good on everyone, with choice in the matter.) Thus, why I choose the views I do, because it makes the most sense of everything I have ever seen or experienced or read about in humanity, more than all other things. TWISI, to borrow from Katherine, lol....
So we DESIRE good, freedom for all, love above all, peace, etc etc etc. We hate evil, badness, and the things that steal our freedoms. I think sin did this first and foremost, and we are all sinners, and thus in the world that comes with that, UNTIL its righted again. Which it will be. THIS to me, explains the desires we really have for a good and perfect society as we can imagine it, but cannot ever really attain to our satisfaction. Thus the goodness we have in the best of the systems designed by HUMANS, to this day, in which I think USA has got it right, considering all the ways of man that need to be kept in line.
It will of course feel wrong at times, seems wrong. Even Jesus when here said we need to render unto Caesar what is his........ Its not time for "Revolution for Perfection", because we are on this side of things still. Its not that it can't or won't exist, but not now. It would be like wanting to have it all, but when things are very very broken. They just are. Cause and effect. Its still very good to do the very best we can for now. So, what is better, for our imperfect time? We don't get to be imperfect, and demand perfection now. Death is still here, decay is still here, and the best remedy for bad guys choices in all levels of society, is to repent of those things! THIS brings true change. Short of that and a society that esteems good and tries their best, and we vote in the best we can and fight the corruption, what else can we do? I am on board with fighting corruption, and am disgusted just about every day with something in the news or even in myself when any ugliness rears its head.
I think the frustration we very much feel with the imperfect in all of its varied and ugly forms, is partly meant to point us to what is truly perfect. We are a stubborn bunch, and need to hurt ourselves before we take anyone at their word for anything sometimes.
Not a lot can defeat evil. God can and did, but for now it says this is satan's playground, for all practical purposes. This shouldn't be surprised. If we try to institute a land of perfection how long until someone wants and acts on things they shouldn't act on? Sure, we can all not ought to want land, or more land for ourselves, but how do you govern people before they plant trees instead of a putting up a fence to show what is "theirs", then you need guess what, police, to police the situations. Back to square one.
Ok, done with my rant.
According to the New York Daily news the average American watches 5 hours of TV daily.
Here are the top 3 shows in 2014 and the stats:
1."The Big Bang Theory" ( comedy) 23.1 million
2. NCIS ( cop drama) 22.4 million
3. Sunday Night Football ( sports) 21.7 million
Here some more tips: Instead of spending so much time watching "whodunnit", grown men rolling around on the ground with each other, or a not so funny comedy with canned laughter, try reading a book; study alternative forms of government; give the homeless tambourines, disco whistles, various musical instruments, and party hats, and teach them the art of busking. Disarm the police and give them free coffee and donuts instead. Make all drugs legal with a high sin tax to pay for education, rehabilitation, and burial expenses. I will provide more details as time permits.
I'm sure your question is rhetorical, but I will answer anyway. Capitalism has a strangled hold on the world , and has for a very long time. I don't know of any countries that are using a similar system to what I have proposed. I am sure the United States would certainly create obstacles for any nation that got serious about it. It is no secret of how they tried to stop the spread of communism. As far as bias against the European is concerned, I must remind you again that you should read my posts before responding. All of the Anarchist literature I suggested earlier was either written by a European or Euro-American.I would think that the fact that I admire certain European thinkers and philosophers would tell you that I am not biased against Europeans, especially since I also have European blood. Furthermore, the entire European population did not cross the ocean to rape, pillage, and steal. They stayed in their own countries, and minded their own business.
You must also understand that your arrogance has shone through again, as nothing was "brought about here in the USA " by Europeans. This is more than a matter of semantics,since the USA did not exist prior to the European Invasion. It would have been far more accurate, and less offensive to say" brought about here on this continent. Many Americans are so arrogant and caught up in a white-supremacist mentality that they have,in their imagination, laid claim this continent before the European even arrived!
Good grief. Yes it is a semantics issue that you care to call me arrogant over, and yet could have asked first. To be clear, I wasn't aware their ideas of government existed here prior to them. That is how you would show me I am wrong on that. Perhaps I am, but not in the way you say. I don't mind you calling me names. You do it to all police officers everywhere that don't deserve it and don't apologize for it. There are surely at least a few decent ones in that group.
So to be clear on my supposed arrogance, yes I did think that a group that wasn't here prior, DID bring their own ideas with them, lol. They came about, to fruition, here. What is your point again, or was it to just get in a dig?
And yes, I am glad to you distance from so many of your even quoted prior statements about those that supposedly came here in 1492. That is a move in the right direction I truly believe. At least the ones that didn't come over, don't get blamed. I never took that to be the case anyway. Its the descendants of some, though we know very well that the king and queen of Spain at that time, likely had descendants that perhaps never came over. What of them?
Capitalism isn't supposed to be a cure all for all the moral woes and greed on the planet, btw. Its what works however, even with its frailties. I maintain, you are desiring a utopia, a paradise, that isn't in place for reasons that are far better explained than are being alluded to here, at least not very often.
I think my views of the the most innocent version of your own, actually explain your being so possibly disgruntled/agitated by the current state of affairs and since 1492 (and of all time for most of us), while also explaining the reason for your desiring so much better. The assumptions that go along with how it would change the deeper issues of man that aren't explained, are also explained by my views. This is why I think views matter so much. They can reflect the reality we see, or not so much. My tone has been harsh at times, because I actually care very much about goodness, and badness, and murder, rape, etc. I actually don't assume the worst about some, and find some issues with your beliefs, but I am about ready to be done, as I don't know it will have any effect. I hope simply to have challenged you to think a little more about it all. I also think that with the right ideas, you could enact a great deal of good, help promote it. I don't see how it can be done when so much hostility in belief about groups of people of certain employment, can render great outcomes. Like where there is smoke, there's often fire, kind of thing. Its a bad base, platform to work out of, or with.
I can't help but think that we would see some countries employ what you are suggesting and showing how it could work, if it could be done. That it can't be done,or hasn't, MIGHT not be because of the strangle hold capitalism has, nor any other preferred reason to explain it. It could be that it is wrought with all its own issues, and is simply unworkable, unenforceable, with so many untested possibilities that can go wrong. Its not just the mentalities that dominates the minds like the cops of America, I am sure.
First of all it is your reading comprehension that must be called into question. I haven't distanced myself from any quotes I made about 1492, or the miscreant treasure hunters, rapists, and murderers who came with, and after Columbus. It is you that continue to insist in all or nothing. I have never claimed any one group or race as being perfect , or above reproach. I do not harbor such childish notions as many have represented here.
You comment that capitalism works because you have chosen to ignore the evil of the inner cities that capitalism has created. You have chosen to ignore that Americans who have lived in the suburbs, paid taxes, and worked hard all of their lives are foreclosed and thrown out into the streets. You have chosen to ignore the evil of a "for profit" prison system; the evil of the Imperialist policies of the United States that destroyed the Chagossians of Diego Gracia; the killing of Palestinian children with American tax dollars through an evil alliance with a Zionist State that even Orthodox Jews have condemned. You have chosen to ignore the reality of over 50,000 homeless veterans sleeping on the streets. You say capitalism works because you have chosen to ignore the genocide of 100 million innocents, and an institution of slavery that provided it's foundation. However, you are correct in saying that capitalism is not supposed to be a cure, for capitalism is most certainly the "disease"!
You commented: " I can't help but think that we would see some countries employ what you are suggesting and showing how it could work, if it could be done." Huh? Are you serious? There are other examples of why anarchy is not prevalent throughout the world, but I will give you one:
The teachings of Jesus are in many ways similar to Anarchist ideology. In spite of whether Jesus was real or imaginary, the teachings of Jesus are sound. Yet, there are few countries throughout the world where a majority have ever truly practiced Christianity. Even in the United States, which claims to be a nation founded on Christian principles, the historical record reveals that the teachings of Jesus were never taken very seriously here in the United States. These teachings have not become universally accepted because a majority made up of selfish, greedy, materialistic people, could not realize their true nature in a Christian society. Jesus spoke of the "narrow road", and that it would be"easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into heaven!" Here we can substitute "American" for "rich man".
Finally, you commented," I also think that with the right ideas, you could enact a great deal of good, help promote it. " It is my hope that your comment was meant to be condescending. Otherwise, I am forced to believe that you are serious. You know nothing of my life; what I am doing, or what I have already accomplished. There are a lot of supposed "do-gooders" who speak politely and utilize the proper social etiquette for any, and all occasions. But still, the world continues to collapse around us as they chase their prostitutes, do their backroom deals, cultivate war, and continue to steal the inheritance of the American people. Of all the sophisticated electronic technology available today that can be used by the state as tools of oppression, some of the most effective weapons used by the state against the common man are still the friendly smile, the handshake, and a kind word. I dare not be mistaken for that which I abhor.
You have made some excellent points on this thread. In fact, your synopsis have inspired me to create a thread re: the racial condition in America- http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127249
We DO have plenty to be thankful for in this great country. I happen to LOVE America madly! I just said that Mr. Wrenchbiscuit made a solid synopsis. He is an impassionated thinker. Me- I applaud wealth and capitalism-if we did not have capitalism, we would be enmeshed in poverty.
It did seem you were maybe distancing yourself, my mistake. I applauded that as a positive step, but notice you dig your heels in more. Thanks for clarifying your position, I can only try. People have quoted you, and any one of us can go back and get quotes for the all or nothing comments about the police, etc. The reason people had to bring up other cultures and races and times as doing the same thing, was to point out how you are very much picking and choosing, when it isn't warranted. Not that I have been able to see. It shows other intent, than what you simply say it is.
As for childish notions as you call them, don't you see the point in bringing up what logically follows, or what would logically explain what is happening in a thought process, when the "given" reason doesn't allow for the logic to flow through in a reasonable manner? This was to help make the points, not to put down. Surely not for me if I am one of the people you are referring to. I think its logic and deduction, and people have given their reasoning.
Speaking of all or nothing, you use some of that tactic here when you describe the downsides to capitalism, are you not? Do they really get foreclosed on that truly work hard their whole lives and truly pay their taxes. It is how it is presented, that you suggest I am ignoring. Is there more to the story possibly? Is the system truly rigged against the poor and minorities? More emotional pleading it seems to me. You seem to easily find fault with a system, and use your reasoning to defend it by pointing out certain failures and even tragedies that may or may not be tied. You haven't given success stories for your own views, and there can be reasons that would explain that. Its assuming the negative so much with one, and seeing only the positive in another, that I can see so far. Anyone can do that, when really just picking a side. I am interested in facts and reasoning.
I was the one that admitted all systems have their downsides and are not perfect, and I gave the reasoning behind I think its something far simpler, yet greater and more powerful that is your and my and every person's true enemy. I really don't care to argue with you, I cared to show a better reasoning to explain the same problem you see, and blame it on something far more logical, that actually makes sense to me. For whatever reason, you are set on this path, and esteem yourself as higher on at least a few levels I have seen. I don't think you want to see your own possible thoughts and where they might break down. I have tried though. Things are not perfect, and Sue made some good points also as many others. Its not all rainbows and lollipops, but we try, I think she said. Its true.
We disagree on the what the disease is. I actually get the passion, because I see evil too. I don't get the emphasis on what I think is a misdiagnosis by you, but in case you are right, we asked and asked.
As for Jesus, he spoke on paying taxes, rendering unto Caesar, and the bible speaks of God placing rulers in their place. This isn't the time that you are wishing for, but I get what you want, I think. Its part of the draw to God. Jesus even didn't make things perfect when he could. He was encouraged and expected to do so, for a while before people turned on him! The Jews thought, "finally! He is here, lets get it done....." only to find he wasn't going to do what they hoped and expected! Then to turn on him. A crucified, convicted Messiah was not their cup of tea, and oh how quickly fickle we become when our hopes are dashed, no? Yet it was for a greater freedom for all he maintained and went to his death for! Taking the heat, and knowing in time, having patience will give way to the fulfillment of all of our hearts desires. Jesus gets it! Why not read it all, read the rest too? Its going to happen WrenchBisquit, it will! This great country is still the greatest at last for a while longer hopefully, DUE to the ideas of many publicly proclaimed Christians.
Kathryn and I and I think others have touched on this idea. Its not time now for the perfection, if only! How many would be hurt or die in the trying? I haven't studied this philosophy clearly, as much as you, and yet I feel like I am more realistic of just how unpractical and nearly impossible it would be to even begin to try, WITHOUT any guarantee of success anyway. Its that, vs suspicion really, a forcing of viewing of the glass half empty on certain things and people, and the same with glass half full with others like minorities. Not all 100% warranted, that I have seen, not at all.
Rich men aren't automatically bad, and not saying that is a quote from you. There were rich people in Jesus' day. He did esteem the poor, and esteemed hard work, etc. Getting into heaven by the narrow path, or learning to rely on God more because we have less than a rich man aren't necessarily ideas that support your views here I don't think. You would need a true force of police, to enact and force these new laws. All societies need police, and that is because if we don't, then tyranny and terror wins by default. The good guys lose to them for sure. Criminals aren't always stupid and will use what they can, when they can.
This is not perfect, but we could make things worse for sure. You would have a lot of people up in arms in Satan's world, if you tried to force Jesus ideas onto them. Jesus didn't even do that. He kicked the dust off his feet. He let people choose. He lets them still, an what comes with those decisions.
I admit I am not well versed in your philosophy. I can't get past the few ideas I have seen you express, so how could I ever trust your words, when you seem to incredibly unfair to me about very common, and obvious things. I hope this simple point if nothing else will sink in and make sense to you. You go after the materialism in others, but I bet you appreciate the material things you have and worked hard to get and secure for you and your family. Perhaps you trust too much in your fellow man, that they would truly work as hard as you would for the good of all. These ideas have been played out, and some ideas have been tested and totally failed.
I am not sure you need to have a full blown revolution to fight for good. I believe very firmly, that we all need to fight for good as we can, and fight for the truth. I think truth is dying, and even in small ways and in discussions like on these forums, we need to try to illuminate, not add to problems. If you truly never saw my points even until now, I do give up and will consider it a good try on my part. I don't know what else to do. I feel bad for the good policemen. I don't think they get paid enough for the **** they get in real life, then adding to that the blame of others that don't or couldn't begin to know. Even if 90% are corrupt, what you have said isn't fair to the 10, but that isn't probably the case at all. Just an example. Imagine if you had killed someone, and not murdered them, were labeled a murderer before your trial could even take place. Can't you see the error, simply by trying to walk in someone else's shoes? I would bet I could even get on board with some of your basic ideas, but I can't and won't because of the alarms that go off with what I do see.
I am sure you have been a promoter of good, I will trust you have been, and thought you said you served before. I thank you for your sacrifice and service, and wonder if you regret what you stood for though almost, because of your views here. I hope you don't feel ashamed for defending or training to defend or fight for our country. Its a good country with some really dark parts, that I at least don't deny. I am sad about the giving up on all the good that is here, lumping people like I see is actually heartbreaking. I am lumped, totally. You also don't know me, not one bit, Wrenchbiscuit. I actually care very much, and talked to my boys a lot about this since this came up, because I wanted to verify what I thought they had learned in school. My high schooler said, "yeah Mom, more were killed on the continent, than died in the holocaust." I didn't prompt it or anything, just asked him if he had heard about the bad done to the Indians.... Oldest one agreed, it wasn't just about some hero Europeans. We aren't bad people, and I am not saying you said any of that verbatim, but you sure said a lot that my family is lumped in with, or could be.
I was serious. I was speaking about your passion for good. I can boil it down to that. I have to, to believe the best. I think there is some exaggerations, some possible other things. I can only guess to the deeper reasons. If you don't want to back up on some of the comments, then the stage is set on a falsehood, or many of them. I have no real stake in disagreeing with you for some sake of it or something. I believe in good, but also see the bad and how people are literally living now, off the backs of others very hard work. Many of us can observe what they and their kids have vs our own families. My older son works two jobs (one is full time) and sees a lot for himself. He can't believe how hard he works to cover the slack of those that don't want to, because he wants to do a good job. I work hard, my husband does too as do I.
I'm pretty simple really. Here is my simplified view on things. I think the best ideas win, where the greatest freedoms for all able to be had. Our system of checks and balances is a good idea, our constitution and laws are meant to look out for all. Knowing people fail and miserably so, they have other things in place. True racism is still dying, sure, but we need to fight it when and where we see it. I grew up "color blind" myself, and was shocked to find there are still some. There are ways of fighting it. If ideas are winning ideas, they win on their own without effort, because truth is awesome and it works like that! Views that need a lot of doctoring and spinning, and putting others down, are usually ones that have a red flag waving, a warning.
Those of us that seek good, are still not perfect. For the lack of perfection, there seems to be judgement connected to that. When in all reality, we would see similar frailties come out in any government we put onto the people. (Or even if the people peacefully adopt it. We have seen how these don't work, because of human nature like laziness and greed, stubborness, etc. We need to look to the true perfection for guidance on these things, to help us in detecting the true disease. (God, the creator of it all.) I can only encourage you to start with verifying all the beliefs I have seen espoused, against facts. It is in this you find any disconnect with me. I hold no ill will, and I truly wish you the best. I am being sincere, if you doubt it. Sorry for my tone, that MLK quote and picture, set me off because I know it full well, and know myself and where I stand on so much. It hit me wrong, because of the implications, and what you said. If I have been in true error about you, I apologize. I don't want conflict. Perhaps if nothing else, the best thing we can encourage is the golden rule. If we can agree on anything, I hope it would be that. I am sorry you could never see or accept my simple points as valid. They still are or aren't, on their own merits. Each has to decide. I never got to respond to all the points in all your posts, because I wanted to flesh out the one idea of your accusations about certain people, and we never got past that. You also didn't respond to a lot of mine, so perhaps that pans out.
"When once free from the restrictions of extraneous authority, men will enter into free relations; spontaneous organizations will spring up in all parts of the world, and every one will contribute to his and the common welfare as much labor as he or she is capable of, and consume according to their needs. All modern technical inventions and discoveries will be employed to make work easy and pleasant, and science, culture, and art will be freely used to perfect and elevate the human race, while woman will be coequal with man.
From Metropolitan Magazine, vol. IV, No. 3; October 1896. Anarchy Defended by Anarchists by John Most and Emma Goldman,
Playing it by ear may work out in a society of perfected beings on a path toward perfection.
it would be nice….
Not all Americans are "rich men"… most I know live on miracles. Every month is another miracle of survival, of paying bills we never thought we could pay, of keeping our houses out of foreclosure, of going to church on Sunday and working on Monday. Its like that for most of us, I would imagine.
What were we thankful for on Thanksgiving? A day to rest. What did we do …? We worked, we cooked, we gathered and we smiled. We might not have felt like it in today's world but we did.
Why? because we keep on trucking. That is your so called Rich American…we'll be fine.
And on Christmas day, we'll wonder why Jesus was born and we'll wonder at the true significance of his birth…even though we pretty much know exactly what it is when we see our own children, hear them laugh and help them learn. And we put up the tree and put the star on top… because on some level we understand a thing or two. Really, you need to give us a break.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California As of 2010, "California's Native American population of 362,801 was the most of any state. It also has the most Native American tribes, indigenous to the state or not, but the majority of known Californian Indian tribes became extinct in the late 19th century. The U.S. Census includes Latin American Indian, especially immigrants who belonged to indigenous peoples or who have Amerindian heritage from North and South America.
The Cherokee Nation is the largest tribe in the state with a population of 110,000, although the number of Cherokee descendants may surpass 600,000 according to demographers. They are often descendants of Dust Bowl refugees in the 1930s and 1940s who migrated to the state's farming counties and urban areas for jobs. The largest urban American Indian communities are Los Angeles/Long Beach, San Francisco/Oakland, Sacramento, and San Diego areas.
California also has significant populations of the Apache, Choctaw, Creek, Hopi, Zuni, Navajo, Blackfeet, Shoshone, Paiute, Pueblos, Cahuilla and Chumash tribes. The Cahuilla in the Coachella Valley have profited from real estate land leases, and much of Indio and Palm Springs are tribal-owned lands under legal tribal jurisdiction."
Things have come full circle for me, after engaging at length in discussion here with the author of the OP and others. After all the explaining, etc, we can look back to just the first two sentences, and see them with even more clarity, in my opinion. They are, "12 year old Tamir Rice was murdered by police this weekend in Cleveland Ohio. He was executed for the crime of playing with a toy gun on a playground."
I am convinced now, that these kinds of comments aren't borne of a honest observer of an officer in a real life situation before all facts are known. We have seen explained in some detail, the idea and philosophy of WrenchBisquit, that he holds with great gusto. I think what has happened, is the opening and subsequent comments reveal more about his held philosophy and view of how certain people MUST be, and therefore how events like this MUST be viewed. WB's ideas he is wanting to push, DEPEND on them being true as he asserts them to be. In other words, it seems that his harsh judgements on police and many since 1492 in particular, MUST be what events like this actually be. In this case, judging that it was MURDER, and EXECUTION of a child for playing with a toy on the playground. For most, this gives great pause to see, like "wait a minute!" And rightly so.
The "thing" driving this "bus" is the philosophy, not the fair facts, sad and awful as they are of what we do know for sure. Something else is also evidence of this, that being, that no amount of encouragement to be more fair and less harsh on police everywhere, has helped to sway him. Not even though normally he might actually care about overly exaggerated judgements onto people that don't necessarily deserve it. What explains this?! It could be that the views aren't as strong in the truth and morals on their own, or else they would carry their own load, their own weight.
This is one way I think an idea or philosophy fails itself and the person holding it. People can live a whole life, and never see this. If truth is not on your side, yet you want your views to be true nonetheless, then you will be frustrated and not at peace. No amount of passion in trying to explain the incongruence as one thing, will ever MAKE it that other thing, unless it truly is. This is why I think we see the rhetoric. These beliefs in turn likely creates more "feeling" of injustice that must be answered for. I share it, not to judge, but to help see the possible futility.
Generations can live and die, and until someone along the line is strong enough to stand up against an idea that is failing them, it will likely be perpetuated. The possible generating more abhorrence, does no one any good, and not because I or anyone says so. It seems to have to be anything else. For example, when a philosophy is esteemed over people (or other things), it must be the other person's lack of reading comprehension skills, arrogance, ignorance, lack of education or whatever else one is more comfortable to accept, than that a view could be failing the person holding it.
I wish I was better at explaining myself in a way that doesn't come across the way I worry it might sometimes. This is something I need to work on. I am trying to help, all of us, not cause harm.
Here is a fact: the Department of Justice have just stated in a 59 page report that Cleveland Police Department uses excessive force.
It concludes that CPD "too often use unnecessary and unreasonable force in violation of the Constitution" and that "[s]upervisors tolerate this behavior and, in some cases, endorse it."
It points to a "pattern or practice of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment" including "unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force" (my emphasis) and "[e]xcessive force against persons who are mentally ill or in crisis."
Can we stop pretending there isn't a problem now.
The militarizing of the police is evident. But who is behind it?
I suspect it's the result of lots of different factors, but it's it's interesting that you say "who?" Do you have a someone in mind?
It seems things are changing. Its really something to keep an eye on. I can't help but wonder if some in leadership aren't trying to help add to this division also, like so many other forms of it we see, that haven't been the case for a very long time.
"some in leadership". Like who?
"like so many other forms of it we see". What other forms?
We have a president who is breaking laws and elected representatives who are going along with it.
A. Police Brutality is one form.
B. Racism is another. (There are plenty of media sound bites to prove Obama is instigating both of these forms.)
C. Oh, PLEASE! Fine me for not having Health Insurance… Yeah, I voted for that.
D. Talk about bugs invading our homes! Oh, just come on in/stay in…
Here, want some cheese (jobs)?
I don't think so...when I hardly have enough for my self and my family, (our own citizens.)
E. Invasion of Islam radicals is being allowed (promoted?) with our very porous borders.
I'm not sure I follow.
Are you saying that police brutality and racial bias against black people is being caused deliberately by the President, who is himself a black person? Are you, in effect, blaming racism from white people against black people, on a black person? Or have I completely misunderstood what you are saying? If so, then I apologise in advance for accusing you of saying something so ridiculous.
He is trying to cause a race divide and has brought it back by pinpointing and commenting on the incidents the way he does. It is causing racism to be WIDESPREAD, like never before. He is purposefully promoting the ruin of America. He hates America, just like Mr. wrenchB does.
Do you also hate America?
What force is behind anarchism and radical Islam?
The New World Order. Lets face it.
If they have Obama on puppet strings. The least he could do is cut them.
But, he knows he's getting out of office soon, Its not worth dying over.
Sorry, my brain is being particularly slow today. Is this some form of satire/ sarcasm; A caricature of some sort? Are you trying to highlight how ridiculous some views are by spouting similarly ridiculous views? If so, I admit you almost had me. But what gave it away was the "New World Order" part. That was over egging it; too over the top. Good effort though. Just the type of dry humor I like. What was the point you were hoping to make with it?
You didn't answer MY question.
Repeating: "Do you also hate America?"
( FYI According to Mr. wrench you have to answer the other's question first... in the order presented.)
Of course you would see it as dry humor. Reality escapes those who hate America.
We already know the answer to each others questions, anyway...
Oh, sorry. I wasn't aware there were 'rules'. Okay . . .
No I don't hate America.
And yes I thought you were being sarcastic. You didn't strike me as being someone who was 'far out there' so to speak, with all the conspiracy people. Well now I know. . .
Oh and the way you referred to people fleeing to the US because they want a better life as 'bugs invading our homes' - classy.
You have revealed a side of you I was unaware of. Thank you for enlightening me.
You probably are all for porous borders… Let anyone in who wants to… come on in... more the merrier.
Let them come in legally. That is fine. I have to say that, don't I?
Oh come on Kathryn, being concerned about illegal immigration is one thing, referring to men, women and children as 'bugs' is quite another. There's no call for that. Dehumanising people is the beginning of a slippery slope that we really don't want to go down.
KH, I don't know how you can say that Obama is promoting racism, sorry, the people that say that had a problem with a President of color in the first place. You don't want to be included among those, certainly not. A black president was the catalyst, believe me racism has always been here. But the president's admonitions to the troubled communities have been to maintain calm. I wished that he would be a bit more careful about getting too involved in law enforcement matters that are better dealt with by local officials. Creating a 'racial divide'? That is strong. He cannot create something that has always been with us to a certain extent. I like America, despite of her faults. I have no indication that the current occupant of the oval office is purposely promoting the ruin of America, if you want to speak on this go back to Ronald Reagan.
What force is behind anarchism and radical Islam? Does Obama have anything to do with the rise of these forces? The seeds for these ideas predate the Obama administration, and anarchism predates Obama, himself.
The New World Order. Lets face it.
If they have Obama on puppet strings. then all modern era American Chief Executives have been on similar strings. The least he could do is cut them and if it were that easy, it would have been done long ago. The power of the military industrial complex is immense and is an eternal part of American governance. In the face of this, Presidents come and go.
Let me ask you, who would replace Obama with that could do the job more to your liking?
I have often said I hate evil, and all that it entails. It is you who have falsely accused that , " I Hate America". Such a fiction is commonly used to create resentment, and to switch the focus of a conversation. This is a common diversionary tactic. Of course, I am not accusing you of being a racist Kathryn, since I would never be so presumptuous. However, it is known that racists have commonly resorted to such tactics as shifting the blame to the social activist, or the citizen who stands against a particular evil, and then painting them down as the devil.
Al Sharpton , a man of African descent, has always been a popular target of racists, especially after the famous Tawana Brawley incident in which a New York State grand jury claimed that Brawley made up the entire story of being gang raped . However, Brawley and her family still maintain that the incident actually happened. The problem with this case was that the United States courts have historically been so biased against people of African descent, as well as female rape victims in general, that even if the grand jury was right, this was still a classic case of "crying wolf". For so many years the African community has been so conditioned to injustice, it was difficult for many to imagine that this wasn't simply more of the same. Many have used this incident as a means of destroying Sharpton's credibility; even accusing Sharpton of being a racist himself, a "race baiter" or an opportunist.
On the other hand, Harry Truman, a man of European descent, ordered the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki . On August 6, 1945, 70,000 Japanese died immediately from the explosion, and another 70,000 died from radiation within five years. Three days later 90,000 died in Nagasaki. Some experts have agreed that these are conservative numbers. The casualties were primarily civilian, the vast majority women and children. Except from a racist ,and a barbaric point of view, Truman and his unholy cabal are nothing less than war criminals. To decide the outcome of a war that many historians agree would have soon ended anyway, Truman ordered the murder of over 230,000 human beings. It is well understood that this crime against humanity was committed as much to chasten Russia, and the perceived communist threat, as to end the war with Japan.
This comparison is relevant because it illustrates the mindset of the American mainstream. A mindset that has it's roots in the 15th century; a mindset which holds that the ends justifies the means, whatever the cost in human life. In other words: "Manifest Destiny". It is ironic that Al Sharpton, a black civil rights activist, who may or may not have had a lapse in judgement, which may have temporarily tarnished the "reputations" of several upstanding citizens, is considered to be more hated by the conservative mainstream than a mass murderer who caused the needless deaths of nearly a quarter of a million human beings! I am not surprised that there are those on this thread that persist in focusing on my irreverence toward the"American Dream", instead of the killing of innocent children by the police. All throughout the historical record, as I have briefly illustrated in this thread, a majority of American's have shown a blatant disregard for human life.
It follows that if a single individual can be diagnosed as a psychopath, that an entire nation could also be defined in the same fashion. Here, I am breaking new ground, as there is no such term to designate such a condition. Although the familiar term "group psychosis" may be used, I suggest a more specific term that can designate this condition at a national level. I have coined the term "MASSPATRIOPSYCHOSIS". I believe that this term is useful because patriotic fervor has been known to lead to the commission of many atrocities throughout the historical record. If we look at the definition of psychosis, we can see that the current definition can easily be applied at a national level; especially when we consider that each part of the following definition not only applies to the American mainstream in 1945, but to the general mindset of Americans for the last 500 years.
• a person with a psychopathic personality, which manifests as amoral and antisocial behavior ( Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Diego Garcia etc.)
• lack of ability to love or establish meaningful personal relationships ( Genocide of 100 million Indigenous)
• extreme egocentricity (white supremacy)
• failure to learn from experience ( War after War after War etc.)
Contrary to the simplistic interpretation that has been offered by some concerning my previous posts. My analysis is not meant to be derogatory in the least; no more than the intention of a dentist is to cause excruciating physical pain. Sometimes, in this topsy turvey world we live in, it is the the best remedy that may sometines hurt the most.
I recall you (or someone) sharing this before.
I don't pretend any such thing.
Please see my posts I don't claim 100% innocence by police or that there is no problem. I could know that with the same amount of accuracy as WB knows what he claims. That is something I'm against.
Sorry you take issue with what i say, but even with your report facts, the truth is it doesn't mean the two first sentences of the op are true. Back to square one.
Btw, I don't defend that cops behavior, as stated before. Defending until we know more , against statements like WB made about murder and executing children for playing with toys is always a good thing.
The wider context is something that you don't seem to be factoring into your opinion, but I haven't read all your comments on this thread, so maybe I've missed something. You're right, this report still doesn't tell us for certain what was in the police officer's mind. We can't ever be certain of that. However, knowing that there is a culture of excessive force and unlawful violence in Cleveland PD against members of the public (including those who are "mentally ill or in crisis") makes it more of a possibility that this child's death was caused by gross negligence and incompetence at best, or a murderous gung-ho attitude at worse. So I it's important to know the background.
I think the type of language used in the OP is inevitable, especially when the loss of a child is involved. It's an extremely emotive subject. I would not expect or want the people charged with investigating this incident to use such emotive language, but I doubt very much whether anyone commenting in this thread will be involved in that investigation, so I don't think it particularly matters. This incident combined with the other recent cases of what appears to be excessive use of force by this and various police departments around the country, is causing people to say "enough is enough". The OP is an example of that sentiment, which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing.
((( Whispering to oceansunsets...its like trying to solve a mystery isn't it! Kind of fascinating… even to the point of telling us how tall and handsome he is! Add to that: he doesn't mind ugly women! So sweet, isn't it? and he recommended this, don't forget:
<"give the homeless tambourines, disco whistles, various musical instruments, and party hats, and teach them the art of busking. Disarm the police and give them free coffee and donuts instead. Make all drugs legal with a high sin tax to pay for education, rehabilitation, and burial expenses">
( busking: play music or otherwise perform for voluntary donations in the street or in subways.)
...curiouser and curiouser. I would definitely buy his book!)))
Oh my goodness.... lol
I didn't know what to say then, and still don't know what to say to all of that. (me, at a loss for words!) I missed the tall part, but remember the rest. I imagine that I am probably on some naughty list for speaking out like I have, and probably won't even be handed a disco whistle when it comes time to disarm the police and hand out all the other goodies in the new society. All the newly legalized drugs and the burials... I am clearly out of the loop on all that is involved! Very confusing for people like myself. I am sure I have that all wrong though.....
((( Here is the whole quote, sed-me, in case you missed it:
"I have many talents, it is true. I am also physically attractive, and so I have known and enjoyed many beautiful women, as well as those who might be considered quite ugly, since I respect all of God's creation." I was wrong about the tall part. I guess my imagination went a little wild.
You kind Katherine, and your friends Oceans and Sed, have much more patience than I to deal with the drivel of WB and the fact that he has chosen the tragic death of a 12 yr old boy to raise up his soapbox on unrelated matters.
I dwell in the 21st century and do not pander to those who choose to scratch at centuries old wounds and then say we made them bleed. Nor those who try to link them to current events that are grounded in 21st century problems.
These things do nothing to offer any solution nor move forward any meaningful discussion.
Unfollowing the thread now but wanted to say, patience of saints the lot of you!
When a man or a woman has been raised up in an abusive and impoverished environment; an environment of sexual and physical abuse, it is not unusual, nor unexpected that his or her present may be adversely affected by the past. So too , it is not surprising that a society can also be adversely affected as the result of an abusive and violent past. America was conceived of violence, and we can see in the wars, the Imperialist aggression that continues abroad, and the police brutality that continues here at home, that America continues to be plagued by it's violent past.
America cannot heal itself without first dealing with the past and accepting the truth, as opposed to the present state of denial that has persisted for centuries. Most professionals in the fields of mental health and drug rehabilitation agree that for an individual to fully recover from an addiction or trauma, part of the process is necessarily to face the past, and to deal with the issues that are at the root of the problem. This can be clearly seen in the "12 Steps Program".
As summarized by the American Psychological Association, the 12 step process of recovery involves the following:
•admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion;
•recognizing a higher power that can give strength;
•examining past errors with the help of a sponsor (experienced member);
•making amends for these errors;
•learning to live a new life with a new code of behavior;
•helping others who suffer from the same addictions or compulsions.
This summary, and the 12 steps process, when applied to the current system in the United States, can help to prevent police brutality and the killing of innocent children by the police. It follows that what has worked for many individuals over the years can also work for an entire nation: neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city, county by county, and state by state. The health care professionals who are already trained and involved in the process can be instructed in how to translate the process. This is a social technology that needs to be taken seriously, and then funded and developed.
To begin , I suggest changing the national anthem from the "Star Spangled Banner" to John Coltrane's "Giant Steps" which more aptly symbolizes a brighter future, and the steps that must be taken to rid ourselves of the stain of 500 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30FTr6G53VU
I could probably be more patient, but thank you Thanks for your words, you make a lot of sense.
Adolf Hitler made a lot of sense to the Nazi Party. I guess it just depends on how you feel about murdering innocent people, or killing in general.
Its really hopefully no mystery to you, how I feel about murdering innocent people or killing in general. In case you really aren't sure or don't know, I will say that I am against murdering of innocents or anyone. I hate death and killing. As for Sassy Sue, she turns out to not be just Sassy, but rather smart, imo. Many times over in this thread, actually. I don't think I even ever got around to responding to her posts before, for time reasons. Perhaps I will revisit them.
So in fairness to you, I feel the need to expound upon my +1 comment to her final post here, and of making sense, so you understand it in a light other than how you respond there about the Nazi's also thinking Hitler made sense. (And you, don't want to really come across how you really come across.)
I agree with Sue, that I dwell in the 21st century, and I will add that I still love to learn more history as time allows. I don't think there will ever be enough time in this lifetime to study all I want to of it.
She is smart, to not pander to those that CHOOSE (key word) to scratch at centuries old wounds, and then say OTHER are still making them bleed. This was insightful of her. I kind of applaud her for not having the patience to keep at this. Some do have a lot more patience, just to think that this kind of bull headed thinking can be broken through, or maybe its a little foolish.
She was right, that doing such things, doesn't really move us forward to a meaningful discussion. This is evidenced when a person agreeing, is responded to with comments about Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and murdering innocents. Rather, its more of the same emotional appeals, without making any kind of proper connection that could be done through an argument being made with good premises. You don't bother though. Warfare with words, against people that don't make sense to be fighting in the first place. I think its misplaced.
If she unfollows this thread, she can spend more time trying to make a difference for good, through her ideas perhaps, with people that want even listen. She seems bright enough to understand what, if any possible arguments you might have made, and been able to give some great back and forth. Throwing words around like you do, doesn't necessitate good discussion, meaningful discussion. It exhibits something though. Bottom line, I think you get upset, when people actually get what you are saying, and the reasons you are saying and relay that back, because you don't want it to look like what it looks and sounds like. You can't have it all, WB. You can't have poor arguments, and then win those arguments without actually winning them. You win arguments with people by making GOOD and true arguments. If you want to win without your ideas being tested, then perhaps discuss with those that will just take you at your words, just for the saying of them. Have people listen to them, that won't challenge you at all, just take your arguments because they believe you for some other reason. Sounding passionate and like you know what you are talking about, with some doses of history and a knack for the "twist", well MANY will just believe and follow you very likely! There are perhaps a lot of American's that would, because I truly believe that people think less and less and reason less and less. Here though, some do actually care VERY VERY much about the same things you say you do.
Like me, I actually care about kids getting murdered that just want to play with toys on playgrounds, I care about the holocaust, and true racism against groups. I also care about good and bad ideas, and on this site, others do too I think. Its a test of sorts. You want your ideas to "go through", to win on their own merits. Tweak them, see if you are wrong anywhere, as surely you don't think you are perfect or infallible. Just saying you want the raping, murdering and pillaging or whatever, to end, and blazing a trail hoping people will follow, will only get you so far. If they fall off to the sides or begin to run for the hills, it COULD just be you don't have a good argument. Make them. Don't fashion a "rhetorical word club", and bash people over the head with it. (All rhetorically speaking), and then wonder that they say "hey, you just did that, and I am outa here!" At what point do you revisit your beliefs and arguments? Do you esteem them so high, that they can't possibly be in error at some point along their way? This is all stemming from something, and that it is trying to just be passed off as caring about the wrongfully killed, dead and dying innocents since 1492. We all care about that. If its so hard to face that thing, that you would rather think people are truly brainwashed, and all sorts of crazy stuff, then its just heartbreaking. You may be underestimating the power over a person, some thoughts can have. You can't make one thing, BE true righteous indignation for awful deeds of the past, IF it is not. This is what I see people patiently trying to point out to you. You have placed on your own shoulders an insurmountable task of having to prove all the points you have made directly and indirectly, and don't seem to even see how its going to be an insurmountable task to make all your cases. (Which you ought to want to do, for moral reasons at least, if not for intellectually honest reasons, etc.) When it gets to this point it doesn't seem passionate, or clever at that point, it seems more like a possible serious nursing of a grudge that runs so deep, a different kind of healing will be needed. You won't achieve, I don't think, what you more deeply are desiring. Not through this means. And will continually wonder at the near insanity and or uneducated, and immoral nature of everyone around you. What is wrong with everyone!? Right? Or could something else be going on.
This is reality:
A. The people have control through the voting process.
B. We must support Israel as an ally.
C. Military aid overseas is in the name of proactive protection for the U.S.
D. Police Brutality is a myth.
E. Racism is a Myth
The only thing going on is lying.
Don't be fooled
And don't even worry about anything that does not line up with what you KNOW to be true!
(((oceans, I kept laughing at school today about your disco whistle comment. Have you ever seen one? I haven't !!!)))
Sue, We are not necessarily patient, its more like we will gladly take any comic relief we can…or wB is driving us batty.
Proceed with caution, I say.
Why was he mentioning Palestinian issues in conjunction with 1492 issues???
But, of course, it should be obvious ... after all, I am adult with the writing and thinking skills of an adult and not the writing and thinking skills of an eighth grader who knows only video games and American TV. Nor do I have my head in the sand all hours of the day and night. I just need to contemplate it a little longer than most...probably due to my lowish IQ.
You are either kidding, or as I have mentioned before, you only give my posts a cursory glance before commenting. Of course 1492 and American colonialism is related to the Palestinian issue! The Palestinian conflict is only a continuation of the European Imperialist aggression that began here in 1492. The fact that the United States supports the Zionist state of Israel with billions of dollars in military aid only further proves my point.
What is the (given) reason we are supporting Zionism?
The "given" reason varies, but usually centers around the notion that Israel is amidst a sea of hostile Muslims, and must be protected at all costs. This is only a grand fiction that has cost the lives of both innocent Jews and Palestinians. It is the Zionists who seek control, while many of the Orthodox Jews do not support Zionist policies of aggression. http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
And yet...the Jews were driven from Israel in 135 CE by the Romans. Is this like the older tribes in the west - we just ignore the older history in favor of more current? Pretend the Arabs always occupied the area like we do with the current "indigenous" tribes of the Americas?
Well, this begs the question: I assume you presently occupy a home / land that was previously occupied by someone else, as most people do. This being the case, would it be OK with you if a redneck and his family overpowered you, hit you in the neck with some buckshot, spat tobacco in your face, ran you off and took up residence? Would you feel the police should get involved? Would you feel that your land should be returned to you? These are questions that the entire world is waiting for you to answer.
And you...do you feel the police should come and take your land, your home, and give it to someone that had ancestors that lived in that spot hundreds of years ago? Because you have obviously "stolen" it from them?
You don't get to do that here. I asked you a question. Answer my question and I will answer yours.
Yes, I think Wilderness does get to do that here. We all do.
WB, how you frame a lot of your arguments, I don't think really "flies." One of the reasons you gave was something to do with the fact they are still in power. (Still causing problems, to put it mildly.) Well no, this government hasn't been "toppled" like so many others in the past or in different countries. That, and that we still see some greed, corruption, and anything else negative among all the good. Well you always have that, we all will always struggle with that until its gone. That is a human struggle that started long before. Same with the toppling of other systems that were in place when they were.
Rapes, murder, displacing people, matters now as much as it mattered the very first time it happened. You can't put this morality gauge onto things like we see, (or I see at least). It was all, always wrong! It was never ok. If the American Indians from 1492 till now, didn't have anyone take them over, then what THEY did to the prior occupants would still be as wrong, by your own standards. It appears you would have liked things to remain as they were, and not changed by Europeans. That is what you are judging others by here and now, for their changing things. We haven't been toppled, or things ought to be made right, or do something different, etc. Do you see? do you not see this? For the very manner you are judging a group, yours gets judged also by the default you put upon it in your comments and reasoning.
EVERY group was in power, until they weren't. Was every group AS guilty UNTIL they were overturned? No morality/actions changed.
Cain murdered Abel in cold blood. It was AS bad then, as it is now. I don't want to see, "this is too elementary and obvious a point to make" kind of response either. It actually does need to be stated so simply, because it is this simple to defeat some arguments, for glossing over the obvious or trying to force one thing, while not accepting the same reasoning to apply. Unfair. It can't all hinge either, that we can point out areas of injustice or corruption in our current system. No matter how up in arms we can get about just watching the news today for all the "junk" we see, we are still not applying for extended visas overseas usually to go and move their to better countries, or looking become citizens elsewhere. For a reason, or lots actually.
Good and fair question, considering the response and everything else.
Very carefully chosen words, like "occupy" (not own), to later in the same comment, "your land returned to you." While the American Indians didn't want anyone to come and own the land they were on, nor be displaced, am I wrong in thinking they didn't think they owned it either? A completely different mindset. Just making the distinction and noting I observed your choice of vocabulary to make the case.
Also, you are using a 21st century mindset (police getting involved, etc.) to judge Wilderness when talking about a scenario when it wasn't in place. This matters because you frame the questions to have such an obvious answer, as if it makes another case. The answer is of course, to your questions, so its a trap. Just pointing it out.
I was responding to a comment Wilderness made about the changing hands of occupation in the Middle East since the Roman Empire. His point was that various tribes and nations have displaced each other since the beginning of time. Such arguments are commonly used by apologists to justify Manifest Destiny, here and abroad.
Your comment is also a common argument. Your position is that since there was no "law" here at the time of Columbus, or prior to 1776, that essentially " anything goes". But such a viewpoint is Eurocentric, and totally false. First of all, there "were " laws here on this continent prior to 1492. The individual tribes had their own laws and codes of conduct. There were also various tribes who shared common laws with other tribes, and certain treaties. The popular fiction is that Columbus found a bunch of savages who were killing each other, and constantly warring amongst themselves. Such foolishness, and historical revisionism, is part and parcel of the white supremacist legacy of genocide on this continent. If you ever took the time to really study American history, you would understand that much of what mainstream America knows about American History, especially concerning the Indigenous Nations, is only make believe.
Furthermore, along with disrespecting tribal law and sovereignty, the Europeans had the law of Jesus and the Prophets, which they also ignored and disrespected. But this evil has continued unto this day, so it is not just 1492 or 1776, but we are dealing with a system of evil that has continued to ignore God's law, tribal law, and even the laws of the United States. Many Americans have the mindset that this is some kind of a game, and that "Day One" begins on the day that the European gained complete control of the continent, which would be the late 19th century. Accordingly, everything that has gone before doesn't count. This type of mindset helps to sanitize the past, especially for so-called Christians.
But as I said, my comment was in response to a comment made about Israel. In 1948 the Zionists disrespected the sovereignty, and the human rights of the Palestinian people, not so unlike the European Invasion that started here in 1492. Wilderness thinks that's OK, because historically, nations have dispossessed each other. If we follow his logic, then the United States had no reason to respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and a rapist should not ever be prosecuted. In either case, such attacks have been happening since the beginning of time, just as nations have been dispossessing each other since the beginning of time. If we use "Wilderness Logic", then we cannot reasonably distinguish between any of these evils. Consequently they must all remain unreconciled, and unpunished.
The absurdity of the apologist viewpoint is remarkable. Of course, Wilderness could not answer my question, because there are only two ways to answer such a question: Yes or No. Just like Wilderness, I see you cannot provide a simple answer to a simple question. Rather, you question the validity of my question based on a Eurocentric perspective of "Day One". You want to convince yourself, and the world, that what happened up unto the beginning of the 20th century does not count. But you would do well to avoid the issue of Palestine altogether, since 1948 is not yet "ancient history". Here is a link with more info: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html
I like Chopin. I liked reading Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz. I like Dutch Golden Age art. From Bach to Michelangelo, Rembrandt to Mozart. There is a reason for Eurocentric. There is a reason you write in English. Cultures with written languages, propagated written history, it should go without saying. Cultures that had written languages wrote books, and all that entails, composed symphonies etc.
It appears that your response has nothing to do with the comment I made. You are completely out in left field. I was not commenting about art. Reading comprehension seems to be a problem throughout these forums. You might as well have been talking about the price of artichokes. You should read a post before commenting.
Yes, with all the talk of "those Europeans", we can't forget the awesome heritage we do have from them. No one is perfect. I am thankful for all the good. Those things you mention are awesome, a rich set of gifts from the past. In my saying this, I am not excluding anyone else, just agreeing those are awesome things. We benefit from them.
With respect, my argument is not that there was no law, for my argument doesn't depend upon that, but something else. It depends on what I said, the same things occurring, that you are condemning. It is right of me to point out how you don't want what you are doing, to look like just what it is. That you are pointing out certain things only, done by certain people only, and at certain times only, but don't want it to be seen as that, and even have chastised people for reminding of it.
To me, you are defending what you believe to be true, what you want to be true, and have given your reasons and I have responded to them. Wilderness brings up a fair point about the people before, but you seem to be put off by this and even tell him he can't ask you certain things. I see it as you don't want to answer, because the ANSWER to your question, WAS within his question back to you. Its a bit of a gamble to put it back on him, that you will answer once he does, knowing he can't without giving you what you want first.
As for my view to be Eurocentric OVER just being logical and reasonable, well I am open to you making a case for that, then I could consider it. I don't see how you could beyond what you have done, which is simple asserting and reasserting your held views. So between you saying its about no "law" and without making a case that its Eurocentric we have to go with that my points still stand, so does Wilderness' points. See, I agree with you there were probably laws prior to 1492. I believe the tribes has their own codes of conduct, laws and treaties. This is in keeping with what i was saying all along.
I don't believe in the white supremacist legacy that you said many believe in. I was never taught that in school, nor were my children. What you describe of the tribes back then makes sense to me, it seems logical and a means to survival and attempting peace with others. I have no time nor interest in make believe.
And wow, most of the Christians I know care and respect the history going back further than what you say there, about day one and all the rest. I don't disagree that many of all races here think about and practice evil of all kinds. The evil that continues to this day, MEANS something very different to you than it does to me, and I don't deny its existence. I don't take and apply it to anything particular, OTHER than who is doing those things. I will stick with that, I can't conceive of a better way.
I did see the comment about Israel. I don't think anyone said it was OK to dispose of anyone's sovereignty, BECAUSE others did it. I haven't seen anyone make that argument. The argument seems to be disabusing you of the idea that its not a universal and for all human time, problem. THAT fact doesn't keep being presented to act like its ok. Its alarming it keeps on being taken that way. Its to open the eyes, to take off the firmly held blinders. It would disabuse you of this "European" problem. Its a human problem.
This doesn't eat up people, not because they don't care about evil and real history. I think it could eat you up though, long term, for the held views that aren't fair to hold against one group. You won't find the answers in the way you are seeking.
I think the kind of thing that can truly fix the problems you observe in and throughout all of humanity, can only be fixed by the things that can truly be able to fix them. The best governments to date haven't been able to fix them. In the mean time, many of us are trying out best, assume the best, and forgive and move on despite all kinds of things too.
There is a true discrepancy over the land with the Palestinians that goes way back to ancient history. I am not sure why you take sides as you do, or is it just with the current "winners" of the battles for land? Am I mistaken in thinking that if the American Indians COULD have fought off and kept the Europeans away, or made them run back home to Europe, that you wouldn't think that was a good thing? You DO think it would be a good thing, no? When there are disputes, and more than one person wants the land and is willing to fight and lose life on both sides for it, is this about sticking up for the underdog in these cases? Because if power COULD have been exerted, to make the Europeans submit and stop trying, don't you think the American Indians would have done that? That is a whole new part of the argument, and not critical to my other. Its an attempt to get you to see that what you are condemning, I think you are actually FOR in other cases. If you think the Palestinians deserve the land they and the Israelis fight over, then how are you any different than any of the people you are criticizing? You are simply picking a side, and engaging in belief like the rest.
The question you asked isn't answered, but its the wrong question, in light of actual, real and complete history. His answer in question form, contained an answer you didn't or don't want to see, I think. You can't attack the idea of what Europeans have done, without also fairly asking why your own people did it if and when they did it. (The non European side of you.) If you don't, this is pointing out that this IS indeed, about race, while demanding that it is not. Its still right there though. If its about the current "winners", whether by might or money, power, whatever, then we ask the same thing of all in history, why did you do that to those others?! Some people just like to fight for the underdogs in life, perhaps rightly so, because they care SO much about fairness, and its not really seeming fair to "win" for the very reasons people or groups "win." I highly doubt that if anyone thinks that, that any of us would really disagree with that. Its not fair. Many have fought to their death to show how unfair they think that is. I think that only makes the unfair people, win all the more.
I suggest siding with what can win over all of that, with the good that can actually conquer very evil powers that be and have been over others. Trusting that one day all will be made right, while we do what we can now. Not a whole lot on this planet, ACTUALLY can fight the kind of evil I am really against. So I don't want to let evil win even more, by distracting me in what this fight is really about, and making me get eaten up over things until I am dead, because I wouldn't listen....
On another note, the "day one" thing, and Eurocentric......go back to whatever day one you want, from any point of view. My point remains. I used Cain and Abel to make a point. Whoever did it first, it was as bad as when Columbus did it. It doesn't excuse any slaves he took, or anything. Its to point out the wrong focus, as the SOLE focus, which distorts and twists from the greater true evil. Everyone could benefit from the 12 steps..... From the beginning.
Edit: Also, in all I have said, I am not suggesting glossing over anything from Europeans, or forgetting... I am suggesting that if its problematic, that the most powerful thing that can be done, ESPECIALLY if there were grievous evils done, is to forgive. And not to sound just cliche or like I am avoiding something. I am being very sincere. God says, "Vengeance is mine....." He will repay if there is repaying, and no need to be so eaten up in what little precious life we have now to live. I hope that makes sense. (Yes, I understand I am sharing some of my own personal views here, but I really think they are true.)
Yes, ignore those please. Those and others are not, well, personal. (Perhaps.) Sure I could be wrong. Don't mind me, I am just looking for things that would explain at this point, when all else fails to explain.
Edit: When one can't just look at the 21st century, and the link cannot be let go of, and back to a very particular date, we really don't have many options. We have to go with the workable ones, in hopes of illuminating what might be hard to see. Its logical, to look to what explains all we have seen.
(((Kathryn))) thanks. Well, your comment about the disco whistle brought a huge smile to my face, because I think its hilarious as an idea. If I let my mind wander just a little bit, I crack myself up at the idea of doing something with drums and a disco whistle on the street, in hopes of getting some donations for my talents! No, I have not seen one, but I googled them and I laughed more at the images. It sounds like a great ball of fun, doesn't it? I almost said so many different things in that post, and that was the final draft, I don't know what to say to half of that stuff, lol.
(((PhoenixV: He is isolating the difficulty, "The system of evil," as far as I understand.
Check it: If a child is murdered, one who is only brandishing a toy gun, it is pretty bad when you consider the commandment, "Thou shalt not Kill," which is quite easy to agree with.
The problem is, he makes what is obvious, not so obvious, by attacking all we hold dear.
I believe this is his guilty pleasure.
Halos do have a tendency to slip off here, on earth.)))
Evil, like money, doesn't grow on trees. Where do you think it comes from Kathryn? It serves no immediate purpose to move into the realm of metaphysics, as it is not necessary for the average person to confirm whether or not there is a devil, or a host of Reptilians lurking somewhere in the shadows. The common man only needs to free himself from the system that has enslaved him.
This is all elementary, but a majority of Americans have yet to figure this out. If the government spent as much time preventing rape and murder, as it does arresting and prosecuting criminals, we would be living in a much better world. But prevention is not as lucrative, and so we can see that capitalism, greed , and the current methods of law enforcement breed violence while keeping a balance, in order for those hooked in to the gravy train to make a profit, along with other more sinister reasons. It makes more sense to significantly reduce violent crime by eliminating the root cause of a majority of violent crime in this country. Bringing a killer or rapist to justice is far less desirable than preventing crime in the first place. In the case of a murder, a 100 year sentence won't bring back the victim. It's simply stupid not to pull up a weed by it's roots .This should be easy to figure out. But many of you are more interested in shooting the piano player. I guess that's more fun that taking the time to think outside the box.
What I hold dear is a human life. There is no nation on Earth; no flag; no patriotic song; no religion; and no document that is more important than one human life. No man has the authority to defile or destroy the image of God. Anyone who disagrees must necessarily stay on the Sufferbus and ride.
<...If the government spent as much time preventing rape and murder…>
You mentioned legalizing all drugs and using sin taxes to take care of "education, rehabilitation and burials." Also "disarming the police." What would you recommend the government do to prevent rapes and murders?
PS Isn't the human skull a beautiful structure? I liked this picture much better than the one of the teeth. Couldn't you have spared us that one?
Apparently, there are individuals on this thread who seem to require that every statement I make concerning right and wrong, or good vs evil, must have a yin attached to the yang. Aren't most of us adults here? Hubpages, I assumed, was a site primarily designed to attract writers. I also assumed that writers would have a certain amount of training, or that they at least completed Jr. High. Many of the comments I have received lead me to believe that I have assumed wrong. If I comment that "Evil Europeans Invaded This Continent", but don't follow with "But All Europeans Weren't Bad People", then someone will invariably accuse me of saying "All Europeans Are Bad People". In the same manner, if I say " Killer Cops Murdered A 12 Year Old Kid", but don't follow with, " But All Cops Aren't Bad People" someone will invariably accuse me of saying that all cops are bad people. SERIOUSLY FOLKS! Do I really need to hold your hand and say, "Everything's gonna be alright Lenny, just look straight ahead while I stand behind and tell you about the rabbits?" To clarify my position for those of you who need extra attention:
1. I do not hate white people,my mother was white, my best friend is white, most of my girlfriends have been white. (By default, this also means I don't hate Europeans)
2. I don't hate everybody. I only hate evil liars,murders, rapists, and thieves, and all of the stupid people that believe in them, which most likely constitutes over 85% of the total world population. Did I leave anybody out?
3. I don't hate all cops. I only hate the ones who kill innocent people. Cops are very important: We need them to protect us from the other 85%.
Here are some excerpts from a book originally published in 1857, entitled: "SLAVERY ORDAINED OF GOD" by the Rev.Fred A. Ross who was pastor of the Presbyterian Church, Huntsville Alabama.
These particular excerpts were taken from a speech that Ross gave in Buffalo New York,May,1853.This book is an excellent example of American apologist rhetoric of the 19th century. Here Ross justifies southern slavery and the subjugation of the wife by the husband through the "word of God". During his speech he reminds the audience on more than one occasion, the moral, and intellectual superiority of the European over the African.
Although I have not read the entire book, I am sure that if he mentions the "Indian Removal Act of 1830", which legalized the theft of 20 million acres for white settlement, that he has a good reason why God approved of this criminal act as well. This apologist rhetoric reminds me of some of the comments made on this thread by those who are more concerned with my choice of words, and the "feelings" and reputation of the murderous Cleveland police officers, than the 12 year old victim Tamir Rice and his family. When I compare these excerpts with many of the derogatory comments and justifications I have received on this thread, I am reminded of the old Carpenters song "Yesterday Once More . The entire book can be read and downloaded here: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=m … =1up;seq=1
"...Let us then, North and South, bring our minds to comprehend two ideas, and submit to their irresistible power. Let the Northern philanthropist learn from the Bible that the relation of master and slave is not sin per se. Let him learn that God says nowhere it is sin. Let him learn that sin is the transgression of the law; and where there is no law there is no sin, and that the Golden Rule may exist in the relations of slavery. Let him learn that slavery is simply an evil in certain circumstances. Let him learn that equality is only the highest form of social life; that subjection to authority, even slavery, may, in given conditions, be for a time better than freedom to,the slave of any complexion. Let him learn that slavery, like all evils, has its corresponding and greater good ; that the Southern slave, though degraded compared with his master, is elevated and ennobled compared with his brethren in Africa..."
"...Man fell and was cursed. The law of the control of the superior over the inferior is now to begin, and is to go on in the depraved conditions of the fallen and cursed race. And, FIRST, God said to the woman, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall ‘rule over thee.” There,in that law, is the beginning of government ordained of God. There is the beginning of the rule of the superior over the inferior, bound to obey. There, in the family of Adam, is the germ of the rule in the tribe,--the state. Adam, in his right, from God, to rule over his wife and his children, had all the authority afterwards expanded in the patriarch and the king..."
"...Why, sir, the wife everywhere, except where Christianity has given her elevation, is the slave. And, sir, I say, without fear of saying too strongly, that for every sigh, every groan, every tear, every agony of stripe or death, which has gone up to God from the relation of master and slave, there have been more sighs, more groans, more tears, and more agony in the rule of the husband over the wife. Sir, I have admitted, and do again admit, without qualiﬁcation, that every fact in Uncle Tom’s Cabin has occurred in the South. But, in reply, I say deliberately, what one of your ﬁrst men told me, that he who will make the horrid examination will discover in New York City, in any number of years past, more cruelty from husband to wife, parent to child, than in all the South from master to slave in the same time. I dare the investigation..."
"...Do you say, The slave is held to involuntary service? So is the wife. Her relation to her husband, in the immense majority of cases, is made for her, and not by her. And when she makes it for herself, how often, and how soon, does it become involuntary ! How often, and how soon, would she throw off the yoke if she could!..."
"... Nevertheless, he has authority, from God, to rule over you (the wife). You are under service
to him. You are bound to obey him in all things. Your service is very, very, very often involuntary from the first, and, if voluntary at first, becomes hopeless necessity afterwards..."
"...Why, sir, if a man can hold three slaves, with a right heart and the approbation of God, he may hold thirty,three hundred, three thousand, or thirty thousand. It is a mere question of heart, and capacity to govern.The Emperor of Russia holds sixty millions of slaves: and is there a man in this house so much of a fool as to say that God regards the Emperor of Russia a sinner because he is the master of sixty millions of slaves? Sir, that Emperor has certainly a high and awful responsibility upon him. But, if he is good as he is great, he is a god of benevolence on earth.And so is every Southern master. His obligation is high, and great, and glorious. It is the same obligation, in kind, he is under to his wife and children, and in some respects immensely higher...
Thank you for your response to my post there, even if you don't want to defend the two sentences of the OP I quoted. I recall you taking issue with 1492 comments also, then someone took the time to go dig those up. I don't expect you to believe me at this point, but I did take care in what I said. I say a lot sometimes, but I try to not be careless. Since its a complete mystery who the above comments were for referring to HP attracting supposed writers, with a certain amount of training, that at least completed Jr. High, or need hand holding, I won't assume they were for me. In case they were though, I hope at least you did read the post that was in response to, and I mean really read it. Feelings don't matter so much, truth does though. My intent is actually good.
As for ideas, I believe that ideas matter. Ideas absolutely have consequences. They always have, and that is why philosophy matters so much more than some realize. I believe good ideas help humanity, and bad ideas hurt. When I see an incongruity in play, imo anyway, I can't not speak up. I am sure you don't mind that, being so bold with the ideas? In a forum format such as this, I think people are inviting comments.
I appreciate the points of clarification, and as for only hating ones that kill innocent people, well we all probably feel that same way. So don't you wonder where I came up with the things I said, whatever prompted that, and the other things? As for racism, there have been racist people that slept with or had relationships with people of the race they are against, going way back. That may or may not mean anything. In your #2, you do kind of admit, by your own measuring there, that you hate over 85% of the worlds population, if we count your "most likelies".. So you see my conundrum of sorts? You say a lot, and say it bold and proud, but then get mad when I ask about things of concern, etc. Its not all as simple as you say it is at any one point. I AM going by what you have been saying. Again though, ty for the clarification.
I am against slavery. I think we are all enslaved, but to what Jesus said enslaves us as a human race. The remedy is simple, yet difficult because of our natures. In the mean time, non theocratic societies full of sinful and selfish people must get along and go for the best and or better ideas to live and let live, in the most freedom loving societies possible.
Can you share what posting some excerpts from the 1800's has to do with all of this? We know some have always tried to defend slavery in those days, and before, justifying it with the bible, and we know of people like William Wilberforce later on that used the same Christian bible and beliefs to help shut slavery down. It can be distorted and used for evil as we have always seen, or for the good it intends. Every man is worth something, endowed by their creator, our worth comes from our creator, I believe.
I do not, nor ever have denied, we see certain people in history and probably now, trying to justify what they want to be true, over what is likely moral and true. I hope if nothing else, you can tell this is what I am all about trying to help shed light on. I could be wrong, and like to be shown how. I know those comments might not have been for me, but in case they were, they aren't so helpful in showing how, what I said was wrong, if it was. I will operate within this new 15% and 85% distinction you seemed to make.
George was a hero. At the tender age of seven, I understood the meaning and I wept. I knew it wasn't really George who pulled the trigger. It was the angry American mob.
"An insult is an expression, statement (or sometimes behavior) which is disrespectful or scornful. Insults (sometimes called "cracks" "remarks" or one-liners) may be intentional or accidental. An insult may be factual, but at the same time pejorative, such as the word "inbred".
"speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse."
"abuse, be rude to, slight, disparage, discredit, libel, slander, malign, defame, denigrate, cast aspersions on, call someone names, put someone down; offend, affront, hurt, humiliate, wound; badmouth, dis; derogate, calumniate; asperse. ANTONYMS compliment."
Online definitions are good enough for that word.
<"Jesus spoke of the "narrow road", and that it would be"easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter into heaven!" Here we can substitute "American" for "rich man".">
<"The problem here is that no one wants to admit that the United States is, and always has been on par with Nazi Germany.">
Thanks. How can we not take these statements personally? I ask incredulously!
...and now you say,
<"I also assumed that writers would have a certain amount of training, or that they at least completed Jr. High.">
Here is a boundary for those who don't want to offend others,
Its one way to respond, when the other options are less attractive. This is what I have seen at times when people debate points they care about. The things said are true or not. So its of no consequence. I guess I am not scoring any points with some.
Edit: Using such words in response to someone in particular, knowing someone will say something, then turning things around, and say no one was singled out. Doing something absolutely, while claiming innocence.
Things said that have merit inherent within them, won't need to be responded to in such a manner.
Nothing, I said should be taken as an insult, as I did not single anyone out. I live in America, and so technically I would be considered by a foreigner to be an American also. If a foreigner said that Americans were subsidizing the killing of Palestinian children I would have to agree, as I am aware that since 1962, American military aid to Israel has amounted to nearly $100 billion.
One can hardly believe that all that money has been used to buy coffee and donuts for the troops. The money doesn't just fall out of the sky. The money that is used to buy bombs, bullets, rockets, and land mines comes from U.S. taxpayers. And by the way, for those who have suggested that I am stuck in 1492: Ask a Palestinian if it feels like 1492 when the bombs begin to fall , and afterwards they bury their children. No I would not be offended by such a statement, and neither would many Orthodox Jews who are adamantly opposed to Zionism. Read here: http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
What are you suggesting Kathryn? Censorship?
I can't speak for Kathryn, but i am suggesting just keeping to the points instead. No need for censorship. Suggesting a better way, that is all I am about.
No, you are more than free to insult at will, and like all of us, get what comes with that. When people are allowed to "let it all hang out", we see things more clearly. The confusing or foggy stuff, becomes suddenly much more clear. I suspect even Jr. Highers can see it, or any non adult.
No, carry on. You have explained that we should not take what you say subjectively. You mean the government and what it does with American tax dollars.
PS I thought coffee and donuts were to be reserved for the police forces in America. I would HOPE they are not being sent overseas!
by Mommiegee 8 years ago
What are your feelings on one hub of the day having a child holding a gun for the picture?
by wilbury4 10 years ago
It has been revealed that some children under 10 years old in the UK now possess shotgun licenses, in my opinion some 10 year olds aren't safe with a pencil!Although the UK has one of the toughest gun laws, there is no minimum age requirement to possess a shotgun license.I personally have a very...
by Credence2 4 years ago
I thought that this article, attached, was most revealing. It might just show that this problem is not just a figment of left's imagination. A politically conservative Black man from a politically Conservative state, South Carolina, explains the points that I have trying to make for some...
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
Even though the system, as currently configured, worked in the case of the Orlando Terrorist, if one of the more popular gun regulations had not been stopped by the NRA & friends, how many people, now dead, would have been alive? One of the more sensible and less intrusive regulations...
by Mike Russo 4 years ago
It's because of the "Use of Force Model" that has been adopted by law enforcement from the military Many cops across the country have been trained in this use of force model. It works like this. A cop approaches a suspect and gives the suspect some type of order. If the...
by Celeste Wilson 8 years ago
At what age will you let your child go into a public restroom alone?I am a mother of a 12 year old son and I am very nervous about mall safety. I don't allow him to go to the bathroom on his own. When he is in there on his own, I have no idea what is happening.
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|