A black Baltimore man recently died while in police custody, and it is widely suspected that his death resulted from police misconduct and brutality.
Well, I say, regardless of all that, thousands of blacks should NOT be out in the streets rioting. In my opinion, their rioting is nothing but a case of the natives getting restless.
This is true. There is such a thing as intelligent protest; however, this never occurs. From the death o Dr. King to this present day, rioters are out to cause havoc and destroy.......They also destroy the very communities they reside in. What is the point of that, really? That is futile and foolish if you ask me.
Rioting and looting doesn't prove anything except the rioters are violent thieves. Nothing more.
I just did a little fact checking, and according to Baltimore Sun reports, during the past five days, 7 blacks were shot and killed by other blacks, a little two-year-old black girl was bludgeoned to death by a family member and a black woman's body was found stuffed into a trash incinerator.
Now where in the hell is the anger for those revolting situations?
I'll tell why there is no anger. The way that a great many blacks see things is, when a black kills another black, that does not really count. The only time it counts is when the WHITE BOSSES kill blacks.
Yes, but surely we have to be able to expect more from police officers than from people who stuff women into incinerators.
For a start police officers are paid to enforce the law. And they are given the authority to detain and arrest a citizen using force if necessary. In Baltimore officers swear to wield that authority ". . . to the best of my skill and judgement, diligently and faithfully, without partiality or prejudice" (BPD Police officer Oath). They also undertake months of training and instruction, then get on-the-job supervision to ensure they do their job in a way that optimises the safety of the public, their colleagues and themselves. Essentially police officers are highly trained individuals who are required as part of their job to act calmly and rationally in difficult and stressful circumstances.
So perhaps that's why people expect more of police officers. After all, if we can't expect a higher standard from the people who are paid to police our communities, then we're in big trouble. That doesn't mean people don't care about violence in general. It just means that maybe people have an expectation that the 'good' guys should actually be good.
Look into the stand down order. The police were told to stand down while the CIA did their tricks. The FOX is a crafty trickster, but the lamb is on the way. Christ is awakening in the billions. That crafty little trickster is about to be stuck in a cleverly built hole for the next 1,000 years.
gm, not only is it futile and foolish, it is savage, crude and barbaric.
Feenix, the case of this young man's death needs to be properly investigated and if there was wrong doing those responsible be held accountable.
Why are we the only group that responds with self destructive riots? I deplore people who lack self control. So, I have problems with people who cannot control their passions, when the energy in their anger could be channeled in more constructive ways. So what is accomplished by tearing things apart in your own community?
Credence, way back in the day when I was 19 years old and living in Los Angeles, the 1965 Watts riots broke out. And I remember that my home boys and home girls and me saw the turbulence as an opportunity for us to go out and get a lot of free stuff by looting. In fact, I ended up stealing a whole new wardrobe for myself.
And what happened among my friends and me in 1965, is the same thing that is fueling the riot in Baltimore, and that fueled the one in Ferguson, MO, too.
For a very long time now, black society has been plagued by the "thug mentality" that exists among many of its youngsters.
First of all we don't see riots in upscale neighborhoods like Uniondale: an affluent, predominantly black suburb in New York City. The average annual income is approx.$77,000.00. Riots are commonly the province of the poor and the dispossessed. Race has nothing to do with it.
Of course there are many who participate in riots simply because they are caught up in the moment; they are there for the excitement, or to get some free merchandise during all of the confusion. But there are also many who participate because they are filled with anger and hopelessness; emotions which have fueled their aggression, and funded their need to lash out at a gentrified proletariat that sits behind the walls of gated communities, self-righteously passing judgement upon a slave class not far removed from their own. These are the modern day Uncle Toms, and they come in all colors.
What we are seeing in Baltimore is predominantly poor people, who happen to be black, who happen to live under a system of white supremacy, where racism has been institutionalized for over 500 years. There are no groups of impoverished and oppressed people anywhere in the world who would behave any differently, regardless of race. We can especially see this when we look at what has been happening in Ireland for centuries. But the historical record has shown that it is not only the victims of oppression who occasionally fill the streets with malice and mayhem.
The New York City draft riots of 1863 are a horrific reminder of how ugly things can get when a certain group simply doesn't get their way. In 1863 working class whites rioted in protest of the draft. 119 people were killed, mostly innocent black people. Numerous blacks were beaten and tortured . One man was attacked by a crowd of 400 with clubs and paving stones, then lynched, hanged from a tree,and set on fire! These working class whites were not an oppressed minority. They simply didn't want to be drafted. The mob took out their anger and frustration on every innocent black person they could find.
But it only gets better: The Colored Orphan Asylum on 44th Street provided shelter for 233 black children. The orphanage was attacked by a mob of "several thousand" whites, including many women and children. The white mob looted the building of its food and supplies. Thankfully, the orphans were able to escape.
The people who seriously commiserate about the riots in Watts, Ferguson, or Baltimore, and want to use these incidents as "proof" that black people have some kind of a defect, or are natural born criminals with overly-aggressive tendencies, are simply wasting valuable real estate, oxygen, dead animal parts, and drinking water! We can clearly see that the cows, the pigs, the ducks, and the chickens are all dying in vain! There has been no predominantly black riot in U.S. history that has resulted in the deaths of as many white people, nor have any black mobs beaten,tortured, lynched, and set fire to a white person during a riot. Racist's don't like history, because history doesn't jive with the beautiful lie that they keep wanting to tell. There has been a lot of ugliness, rioting, looting, raping, and killing going on in this country for over 200 years; on this continent for over 500. In either case,the historical record clearly shows that those responsible for a great majority of the violence, did not have black, brown,red, or yellow faces.
Thank you, for bringing up this point. And furthermore I think it is a shame that we are so quick to get caught up in "race" that we are overlooking to core problems. Yes, the people should not have rioted, but the whole set of tragic events was avoidable. There should not have been, never should have been or ever be again, any kind of police brutality, racial profiling etc. The issues involved here go far beyond race and riots, to our society itself. It is the poor, the minority, the weak who are most often abused and downtrodden, and far to frequently those who are supposed to protect us and be most trusted start the cycle of abuse...I hope and pray that, before it is too late, we can start looking at one another as human beings, instead of a label. A person instead of their ethnic roots, gender, sexual preference, etc. It is easy to sit at home and watch the news and cry out in outrage. It's not so easy to try and make a positive change.
Yes. There is a huge difference between peaceful protesting and starting a violent riot. Not called for.
But there usually isn't (a difference). Not anymore; violence will always bring the camera crews, peace won't, and those orchestrating the demonstration know this very well. Standing on a podium screaming (literally screaming) for justice does not promote peace, and those people know that. (On the news last night, as the pastor at the funeral, in the split screen, quietly asked for peace)
The people initially involved in starting the riot and looting looks to be high school students. It started a mobilization of others who snowballed it into a full scale riot. There is no excuse for it as the rioting turned into out and out looting and theft of the local mall business's while the bulk of the police were attending to the violence. There has been so much unrest in the area for so long this was bound to happen.
Protester Danielle Williams said this when interviewed by MSNBC in Baltimore:
"My question to you is, when we were out here protesting all last week for six days straight peacefully, there were no news cameras, there were no helicopters, there was no riot gear, and nobody heard us. So now that we've burned down buildings and set businesses on fire and looted buildings, now all of the sudden everybody wants to hear us. Why does it take a catastrophe like this in order for America to hear our cry?"
In the spirit of Danielle Williams' question to the media, my question to you is: where is your forum discussion about the death of Freddie Gray? You said it yourself that "it is widely suspected his death resulted from police misconduct and brutality". So why does the title of this thread focus on riots? Do you deem the riots to be more worthy of discussion than the suspected misconduct and brutality of police officers? If so, why is that?
Any comment to share on the lawlessness of the officers following the State's attorney's conclusion that: "Lt. Rice, Officer Miller and Officer Nero failed to establish probable cause for Mr. Gray’s arrest as no crime had been committed by Mr. Gray. Accordingly Lt. Rice, Officer MIller and Officer Nero illegally arrested Mr. Gray"? So in other words they had no right to lay their hands on him, no right to detain him, no right to arrest him or impede him in any way, and no right to transport him anywhere against his will. That also means Gray's constitutional rights (4th amendment) were violated. Any comment on that also? Does your criticism only extend as far as those who commit property damage?
Look at the big red bird everyone. Don't look at the trucks rolling in and the Walmarts closing.....
Wow, Fake pictures about Baltimore being in flames! It's not true people in Baltimore are stunned. Baltimore is not burning. Fake Fox News about Baltimore as per usual.
Do you know Fox news retracted photo's and a fake shooting about a man shot in the back, it did not happen. Non-Violence is still prevailing for now, just do not buy the hype Baltimore is far from burning, people are uniting as one!
The mainstream lie is not holding, everyone knows mainstream media is faking news about Baltimore, my friends in Baltimore are scared people might believe this crap, but they still have faith.
The truth according to the Brother John Birch Society is that black people just want to live in the ghetto, collect food stamps, and have a riot just for the heck of it every now and again. According to Brother John, and his sister Pollyanna, the good white folk have been trying to motivate people of color to be productive citizens for over 500 years.
"Non-Violence is still prevailing for now, just do not buy the hype Baltimore is far from burning, people are uniting as one!" steve8miller
Maybe he knows something we don't.
Non-violence is what Dr. M.L. King stood for. Baltimore would love to have him there right now. The protests that he led were the most peaceful ever. I don't think King was overrated at all. Those rioters are out of control. King would not have stood for it. No other black leader has stepped up since King. That is what should be promoted instead of trying to down King. The riots are a disgrace. Leave King's name alone and deal with the rioters at hand.
word, back in August, 1965, during the Watts riots in Los Angeles, Martin Luther King, Jr. came to the city in an effort to bring an end to the violence.
Well, all of the young black rioters showed nothing but disrespect for King, by shouting insults at him and hurling objects his way. It was not a pretty sight and things quickly reached the point where King had to take cover and be whisked away in an automobile heavily escorted by police cruisers.
I know all about that, because I was there.
They start throwing things at random people, for absolutely no reason. Shameful.
I can agree with you here feeinix. The same hate happens here in Chicago unfortunately. When the weather breaks warm, so do the black on black gunslingers. Blacks look for any excuse to act out niger-ish.
"What we are seeing in Baltimore is predominantly poor people, who happen to be black, who happen to live under a system of white supremacy"
Of course it is untrue, but forgive the speaker. Racists of all colors will always need to denigrate and degrade others in a futile effort to raise themselves, and the reasoning behind it very seldom has even a single grain of truth.
You are famous for these veiled insults. But now I must insist that you explain your little soundbyte. Since you have made the statement, perhaps you can tell me who I have denigrated or degraded. It is no secret that the United States is based on white supremacy. But you are suggesting that the mere statement of a fact is racist.
It would only follow that if I express the fact that most of the great Blues singers who lived and performed between the years 1910 and 1950 were black, that I am racist against black people. And of course, your logic suggests that if I should express that a majority of those incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Japanese, I must also be racist against the Japanese. Believe it or not, there are many white Euro-Americans who speak out against this government. Father Daniel Berrigan comes to mind, and his brother Philip. There are, and were many Germans who spoke against the Nazis, and there are many Orthodox Jews who are against Zionism. Besides, I am white, and European.. Are you suggesting I am racist against myself? How can that be possible?
You speak of grains of truth. How many grains of truth do you need? I would think that over 200 years worth should be enough. I once knew a man who had an IQ of 125, and even he could see what's going on here.
You have made the statement, now please, backup your statement. If they are not living under a system of white supremacy, then whose system are they living under? The Haitians? The Puerto Ricans? The Apache, Mapuche, Yaqui, Aniyunwiya? Perhaps the Filipino's? I would love to hear your answer.
They are living under the AMERICAN system.
Who's Commander in Chief is Black I might add.
Are you serious? You say they are living under the American system. If you are suggesting that the American system is not based on white supremacy, then why were all of the slave owners white, and why were all of the slaves black, or native people? If this country was not founded on white supremacy, then how did all of the native people end up either dead, or living on reservations? Are you suggesting the slaves enslaved themselves, and that the Indigenous people willingly left their homelands, along with all of the rich mineral deposits and natural resources, to go live on impoverished reservations? Have you not heard of Manifest Destiny? And why do you think that there is such a disparity between whites and blacks even today? This did not happen by accident. It has been proven over, and over, again that black people are just as hard working, intelligent, and honorable as anyone else. Yet the disparity continues to exist, and it exists because we are living under the rule of white supremacy.
Concerning Obama, he is the first and only non-white president in over 200 years. Doesn't that kinda give you a clue to what's been going on here? And haven't you noticed that his presidency hasn't prevented white cops from using black men for target practice?
You are right in your view, wrenchBiscuit. Most people here haven't got the faintest idea who controls the capitalistic system. Obama is just a puppet on a string. There are no equal chances in America, it's a fata morgana. Most people aren't intelligent enough to see through it. And when they are, they are too programmed to see through the veils.
Wow, you went way back on this thread to find that old post. That's OK, but later posts show that the first black slaveholder in America was a black man and he wasn't the only black man to hold slaves. Also, many black slaves were owned by American Indians.
But this thread is about the riots and the riots are a result of the discrepancy in the lifestyles American blacks choose for themselves, like their 72% illegitimate birth rate and the high dropout rate in schools which are free to everyone in America.
Other black Americans make better choices. "If black Americans were a nation, they would be the sixteenth richest on earth. Some of the richest, and most famous, people in the world are black Americans."
http://www.commdiginews.com/life/studie … kS31zom.99
Everyone has opportunities in America. Opportunities are only as good as what an individual makes of them.
Way to go Baltimore , one of the most affluent cities in America , the best jobs , close to the bennies of Uncle Sam , Yet , we gonna burn it down ! That works every time , Not!
feenix how many people must die before property damage is a acceptable response?
You're implying that it is currently justified? How is it the fault of store owners and other property owners that other people in the community are upset? Why should their property be looted, damaged, or destroyed?
How is breaking the law and hurting people within one's own community bringing about any change? Improving the community?
What if it were your home or business? Would you be cool with a bunch of angry rioters breaking your store windows? Looting you merchandise? Sabotaging your livelihood? Plundering your home? Would you just brush it off and say it's fine?
Only an idiot could support taking away someone's rights to (and to the protections of) life, liberty, and property in the name of his own right to protest. That's not how rights work; they're not mutually exclusive, and they don't "trump" one another based on how important the concerned parties view their rights to be.
Rights are coexistent. Therefore, it doesn't matter what injustice getting people worked up to the point of anarchy. They still don't have the right to trample other peoples' legal protections.
Black people don't riot for no reason.
Seems white people do though. Nobody hears about it or calls it "savage" because. ..well I don't know.
My brother feenix recently admitted to the gun violence of those in his family, yet it was mostly in reference to shooting those (low-life) blacks who deserved it.................
Uh...the POLICE killing black people for whatever reason is the largest sting.
Thugs will be thugs... but police are not around fa thuggin'.
They have no business killing ANYONE who is not a danger. In jail they take yo shoestring.
You can melt you a plastic spoon tho...make it pierce flesh. But that does not seem like a reason for killing. The police get too fuckn brutal for nothing (besides the fact that they're dealing with disposable humans). They kill their own in cold blood NO other race will shoot their own... it's a FACT I checked
We must thow our anger where it belongs.
Riots are the result of injustices (well for blacks; whites riot for sport-or sports)
Black people learned brutality from her boss... her boss gave her step-by-step instruction on how to tear up some shit.
Most rioting blacks are angry. They have a right. I can talk about beat my (sister) all effen day fn long!!! But YOU bet' not... you'll have a problem there...
No police officer is ever concerned about the backlash FIRST... he just shoots when a nigga is on the other end... why not???
These are adults. They should be able to control their anger.
ok... your excuses will be our little secret.
You're the one making excuses for bad behavior, not me.
Janesix has replied: "These are adults. They should be able to control their anger." and also "Stop making excuses for bad behavior".
These are typical responses. Yet Americans celebrate the 4th of July each year! They celebrate the fact that the greedy landowners like George Washington didn't try to control their anger over British rule. I assure the reader that sticking a sword into the belly of a young 15 year old British soldier, or firing a musket ball into his skull, can easily be construed as bad behavior. Americans celebrate war and accept violence when it appears to be in their best interest. It was also bad behavior to slaughter 100 million of my people in order to steal the wealth of this continent. It is funny how the Big Pot insists on calling the Little Kettle black.
How is rioting a looting a good idea? What problem does it solve? How is burning down your own city a good idea? What problem does it solve?
You are asking the wrong questions. You should be asking: Why does a man who is set on fire jump around and start screaming? Or you should ask: When a man accidentally smashes his finger with a hammer , why does he curse and yell out? We all know that screaming will not make the fire hurt any less, or the broken finger feel any better.
You should also ask: Why will a dog who has been repeatedly beaten, also bite the stranger who attempts to show him kindness?
These are all elementary questions. If you can answer these questions, then you will understand what is happening in Baltimore.
No, I am asking the right questions. Which you are refusing to answer.
Once I saw a show on TV about employees who steal in motels and hotels. One cleaning lady was caught dead to rights on video. The video showed her stealing money from a purse that was purposely left in the motel room. They even confronted the cleaning lady with the video evidence. But to my amazement, she still denied that she stole the money! LOL Your response reminded me of this.
They're angry. They do not have a city... they have homeless people and a slew of vacant houses...
"They're angry" yeah, I got that. Adults know how to control their anger.
So the police are not adults???
Oh!!! Why didn't someone tell me??? All they need to do is hire adults... put this sh*t to rest...
I'm not talking about the police. I'm talking about the rioters.
Everyone is talking about the rioters...
No one is talking about police. It's typical... that's why brutality and death KEEPS occurring at the hands of police. No consequence. A lil riot allows cops to exercise their military muscles... i really dont think they mind. Why arent police pepper spraying the stupid cops who started this mess???.
If there is a problem with police, you organize an investigation into the problem. Who has done that? No one that I know of. All I see is mayhem. How does mayhem solve any problems?
Why aren't black leaders investigating the problem, if there IS one?
Break out your psyche book. Pretend they're white...
Please don't be cryptic. I don't know what you mean.
You have psychological reasons for whites who riot when there is no reason. I'm sure you can come up with something for these people.
You already said they are "angry" Which I then said "anger is no excuse for rioting" There is no excuse for it for any race. Not here. There are other ways of solving problems in the United States.
YOU are saying it's ok for people to riot because they are pissed off.
I never said it was ok for white people to riot because they lost a soccer game.
Do you see the difference here?
They are all immature idiots in MY book.
Please show me where I said it was ok...
I understand, is what I'm saying. Just like you understand the others...
I do not feel that violence is the answer but I'd like to paraphrase something I heard Tupac say today (yes, he's dead from gun violence now)
I dont know how to change it (inequalities) but I'm gonna keep talking about it until someone hears me.
He was such an intellectual and talented thug...you should go listen to his interviews. He had a lot of good things to say...
Well I apologize then. It seemed to me you were supporting and excusing the behavior of the rioters.
People have been "investigating" this for over 500 years! The NAACP have been investigating it since 1909. But most importantly, how do you or anyone else think that a capitalist Ponzi Scheme could actually work out for everybody? Do you know what a Ponzi Scheme is? They even have a pyramid on the back of the dollar bill; flaunting it right in our faces! The real thugs, and criminals are on Wall Street, and at the Federal Reserve. Woodrow Wilson even admitted that the future of the American people had been stolen by bankers.
And your conspiracy theory nonsense has WHAT to do with the problem at hand?
It is a fact that many of the greatest musical artists of the 20th century were black people, or of mixed blood. There have also been many great writers, scientists, etc. who were also black. Black people are just as motivated, and intelligent as anyone else.
Nobody wants to live in a ghetto. A disproportionate amount of black people have purposely been "herded" into ghettos and housing projects all across America. The mechanism through which this has been done is called institutionalized racism. The reason it has been done is to maintain the status quo of white supremacy.
Your refusal to accept reality is what often leads to war at a national level. The miscreant slave-owners of the South could not accept that their free lunch was over. And so, their racist bodies were necessarily riddled with bullets, and many of their wives, daughters, sisters , and mothers were forced into prostitution in order to survive. It would be very wise for Americans to start learning the lessons of the past. The past is the only thing that can save us from our future misery.
"It is a fact that many of the greatest musical artists of the 20th century were black people, or of mixed blood. There have also been many great writers, scientists, etc. who were also black. Black people are just as motivated, and intelligent as anyone else."
>> Who's disputing that fact?
"Nobody wants to live in a ghetto. A disproportionate amount of black people have purposely been "herded" into ghettos and housing projects all across America. The mechanism through which this has been done is called institutionalized racism. The reason it has been done is to maintain the status quo of white supremacy."
>> Please. What BS. PROVE IT. More conspiracy theories.
What does that mean??? That they did no study on hungry rats piled atop of one another and discovered that they began killing eachother before they put hungry blacks in big metal and mortar buildings.???
It's a conspiracy theory that black people are "purposefully herded" into ghettos.
That's not "common knowledge".
You have to prove something like THAT.
I don't believe it for a second.
Over 40% of blacks are middle class or higher. About the norm for the rest of the population.
There are other inequities. They are not killing anyone at the same rates.
And their crime rates are MUCH higher. What do you expect? Where are the cops? In high crime rate areas. Where you'd expect them to be.
I think that was a statement that I should back away from... I'm shaking. Forming fu s colorfully. ..
That's fine. A lot of things you say piss me off, too.
We been twins before.
It seems that any logical thinking human would realize that, since the data is incomplete, its invalid to make the claim you're making about blacks as a whole.
All scientists know that we cannot get an accurate picture with partial info... we must guess...
I aint guessing that blacks commit more violence. I know too many...
Seems that cops kill people proportionally to the crime rates. So I don't see the statistics as surprising.
Black people were constrained to specific areas within urban centres as a result of deliberate discriminatory practices. This was after white people started to move out of racially mixed urban centres into the 'whiter' suburbs. "White flight" is a well documented phenomenon. While it's true that ghettoisation also happened because of deindustrialization in some cities, leaving behind an underemployed black population, it's also true that discriminatory economic policies (see the practice of redlining), housing policy, and discrimination in employment kept lots of those people there.
One of the effects of all this can be seen in the fact that proportionally more black people live in poverty than white people. It can also be seen in statistics relating to the number of people who own their own home, broken down by race. Another effect is the fact that the wealth tied up in a home is not inherited by children in many black families because their parent's did not own their own home in the first place.
And yes, before you say it, there is an element of personal responsibility that everyone has for their own circumstances, but that does not change the fact that poor people who happen to be black, are starting life at more of a disadvantage than poor people who happen to be white. And no, the fact that some poor people who are black become financially successful, doesn't mean there is no race issue. Those people become successful despite the disadvantage not because of an absence of one. So being poor is a disadvantage. Being poor and black is even more of a disadvantage. Being poor and black and a woman . . . . .
Moreover, being poor and black also apparently means you have no right to expect to be safe while in police custody, no right to complain about injustice, no right to feel hurt, angry and frustrated and no right to react to police violence with violence.
What deliberate discriminatory practices?
I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just don't know.
Then no offense intended, but I suggest you do some reading on the subject.
Here are Google searches on
And here is a policy breif from the National Poverty Centre that looks at why racial differences continue to result in socio-economic disadvantages in the 21st century
Race and Poverty,
And here is an article in The Atlantic about racism and housing policy:
The Racist Housing Policy That Made Your Neighborhood
There is a lot of information out there, but these links might be a good start.
It looks like there is some truth to what your saying. Although I'm not convinced it's an issue of racism. It could easily just be an issue of normal capitalistic greed.
http://realty.com/housing-news/redlinin … ent-today/
I have been. Doesn't look much like it has to do with race at all. More often, it has to do with bad credit, and no assets. Realtors are in the money making business. Also, looks like the subprime loans were forced on the banks through legislation by the democrats.
Black people did have some wealth in small numbers. No matter how much...you were NOT moving past this line.
I'm watching the Jackie Robinson story. Lol... you should watch.
She said: "Doesn't look much like it has to do with race at all. More often, it has to do with bad credit, and no assets."
This is quite fascinating. People look right at the problem but cannot see it. Of course she didn't stop to wonder "why" a lot of black people have bad credit and no assets. Many whites, Toms, and vendidos, always look at the symptoms of a problem but not the root cause. Of course, many racists who actually can think are well aware of what's been going on and that's the way they want it to stay. It is ironic that many whites, and "house people'", feel that they are getting ahead in a capitalist system. But their lives have also been marginalized by the ruling elite, they just don't realize it. They are like an animal that has been mesmerized by a shiny object.
People have bad credit because they don't pay their bills on time.
Yes. Many generations of polls and studies and regulatory pettiness to ensure these few people remain in their places.
We are ALL the same. They've been conditioned, otherwise.
Absolutely. Racial bias is NOT always deliberate. It can be assumptions within systems that cause the problem. That's why this type of discrimination is called systemic racism, and it's a real problem. Take this extract from the article you linked to:
"Worst case lending patterns frequently involve exclusion of neighborhoods in which minorities comprise 50 percent or more of the population, but in some situations a lender may not begin to exclude neighborhoods until the minority concentration level reaches 75%".
Just let that sink in. If you are in one of these neighbourhoods, you could be refused a loan, NOT because you have a bad credit history, NOT because you can't afford repayments, but because you live in an area where a certain percentage of black people live. And that's not from a left-leaning political blog, or news outlet, it's from a website about real estate.
So imagine you are someone who DOES take personal responsibility, and DOES want to work hard to achieve your goals, and DOES want to better your situation and you have a great idea for a business. Nope! No business loan for you because of where you happen to live. Let's say you already got a good job, and decide you want to buy a place. Nope! No home loan for you because of where you happen to live.
How does that impact an area? What SHOULD happen is as people move up the social ladder, those who stay bring more wealth to an area, which in turn brings business interest and investment, which in turn brings improvements to the area in general. Instead, the go-getters, the people with a drive to succeed, the best and the brightest, are FORCED to move OUT of these areas in order to progress. And those who do stay, find their social mobility hampered. The result is no middle class, or a very weakened middle class. Why is that significant? Because a strong middle class serves as a realistic aspiration for those from poorer backgrounds (making a comfortable living is achievable), but also serves as a springboard for the high flyers, the technology innovators, the business leaders, the academics of tomorrow. So such policies rob areas of their lifeblood and the opportunity of rejuvenation.
But note how this is not about white people deliberately setting out to harm black people. It's a repercussion of baking assumptions about race into an economic policy. The assumptions are racially biased in a negative way, so the system becomes racially biased in a negative way. Hence the term 'systemic' racial bias.
I hope you can see that although I agree personal responsibility is an important factor in people improving their situation, there also exists real systemic problems that help keep black people locked in a cycle of poverty. These issues are not something an individual alone can address. They are societal problems that need to be addressed at a societal level.
The proof is evident in every major city in the United States. In every inner city you will see a disproportionate amount of black faces. If not for a system based on white supremacy, how then do you explain this? How did they get there? I would really like to read your answer. You are good at delivering little sound bytes, but can you clearly express your idea using more than 8 or 9 words?
Because they CHOOSE To live there? Who is forcing black people to live in inner city ghettos? Why don't they leave? Is anyone forcing them to stay?
If white people are racist, how do you explain affirmative action? How do you explain the quotas for minorities to get into colleges? How do you explain the trillions spent to uplift poor black people from the ghettos? Why do you keep blaming white people for black people being poor? What more are they supposed to DO?
JaneSix says: "Because they CHOOSE To live there? Who is forcing black people to live in inner city ghettos? Why don't they leave? Is anyone forcing them to stay?" LOL This just keeps getting better and better. Where do you think these people are going to go? Most of the people in the ghetto were born in the ghetto. How do you propose they can get out with no money? And how are they going to get the money without a job? And if they have a job, how far do you think they'll get on minimum wage?
I can see that you know very little of the real world. You've probably always had a car, a bank account, a family, a job etc.. And if you are white , even starting from scratch without all of the above, you still stand a better chance to succeed than a black person born in the ghetto.
But you also say: "If white people are racist, how do you explain affirmative action?" Obviously, since you posted this, you are not aware of how "unique" such a statement truly is. I don't even think David Duke , or Rush Limbaugh, would dare make such a comment. I won't waste my time on this one.
What? They can't go to college and get better than minimum wage jobs?
There is the same proportion of poor whites to poor blacks, but somehow, black people are "oppressed".
It's clearly obvious that you are posting nonsensical comments simply to keep the thread going. Goodbye!
Odd, but my son was born when we lived in a trailer park. He will graduate next week with an MBA, and without a single dime from me - he did it all himself. My sole contribution to his success was a place to live for 2 of his 7 years of college.
But of course that's impossible for others to do, isn't it?
I didn't know your son was black, but I figured you lived in a trailer park.
The government provides grants and loans to ALMOST everyone here. Now if he didn't get THAT "help" it IS an amazing feat. But... you did say trailer park.
No grants and only one small loan for a few thousand. He worked for his school, as odd as that is today.
Good. You taught him well... I gues what they say about people who live in trailer parks aint true.
I wonder if any other stereotypical info cou... Nevermind...
Turning down a free grant, which could be worth a few thousand, to get a loan sounds a little weird but...
Depends on who it is living in that trailer park. And if they're willing to work hard to get out or happy to exist on handouts.
That's fascinating. You said earlier that you moved. What trailer park are you living in now?
wrenchBiscuit, the content of your opening paragraph is very patronizing towards black people.
And the remainder of your comment is a perfect example of just how ineffective today's educational system is, especially in the area of US history.
How do you figure that telling the truth about black people is patronizing? I don't seek anyone's approval, in my writing or my comments. My comment had a purpose, which is to address the fiction that many black people living in the ghetto are lazy, uneducated , criminals. This is what the racists try to imply. Obviously you have an agenda, and it has nothing to do with my comments. Furthermore, how foolish of you to question the historical accuracy of my statement simply because you haven't been properly schooled. It is an historical fact that many poor white southern women had to resort to prostitution during the Civil War. Not only is it documented, but common sense should tell you this also. In every major war that has ever been, women have been forced into prostitution in order to survive. What perfect world have you been living in?
You mean they make their money ILLEGALLY to survive when their backs are forced against the wall???? Surely you jest!!! Only BLACKS do THAT!!!
This is interesting, and it wouldn't be the first time someone has used the profile pic of a black person to give their racist views more impact. My suspicions were raised when I was attacked, not only from one, but from two different directions.
• I say something positive about black people, I am accused of being patronizing.
• I relate a well known, historical fact that a racist might find offensive, and I am accused of being uneducated!
We must ask ourselves: from whence does this animosity spring?
LOL! This looks very suspicious.
Please do not worry your pretty little head one second about it. There is such thing in America as the "self-proclaimed" house negro... he defends his master to his death. He, being good enough for house services, is automatically a tad better than the rest...
He watches, reports the idle, takes the whip if necessary, and licks the boots of his master in an effort to stay in his good graces. Because in reality, he's still just a disposable nigger... he knows it, and his master knows too..
Did you see the pic of trees in the white neighborhoods of Baltimore??? If this is accurate, they've strung up what looks like at least 50 stuffed black plastic bags, just hanging from trees...
wrenchBiscuit, writing about how good blacks can sing and dance is patronizing. In fact, it is downright racist. It sounds like what a lot of whites used to say about blacks back in the 1950s and before.
And when it comes to being educated, I am really glad that I am not you, because on a few occasions, I have had nightmares about my suddenly becoming dumb and misinformed.
According to you Feenix, but you make too many assumptions. I am a professional musician/songwriter. That's what I live and breath. This is what I have been doing for a lifetime. Of course, if I am considering any race, or group of people, I first look at their artistic achievements, as art is what I am most interested in. Hello? Can You Hear Me? Furthermore, your comment conveniently leaves out the fact that I mentioned other walks of life as well. But it is a nice little spin. I'll give you a C+.
I am not surprised that you have resorted to throwing insults in such a pedestrian fashion. If you are going to behave this way online, it would be more entertaining , and interesting, if you could be more creative with your insults. People commonly insult others in these forums when they have no way to counter an argument. Here you have painted yourself in a corner because there are numerous sites online that verify my assertion concerning prostitution during the Civil War. I have provided links below!!!
But contrary to what you say, I detect a hint of jealousy. Anyone who has studied psychology knows that you would not have said "I am really glad that I am not you" unless that is what you actually desire. Especially since the topic at hand has nothing to do with me personally. Perhaps you are not happy with the way you look, and prefer my physical characteristics, or perhaps you are envious of how I write. I can only guess at the reason why you would feel the need to insult me, but you obviously have shown signs of jealousy. I,on the other-hand, am attracted to people who are smarter than me, and clearly above my station. Feenix, the best way to learn is to have a little humility, and start listening. In time, a person will start to get better, and more interesting ideas as a result.
I have provided links to backup my claim. Most notably a lecture by Professor Sharita J.Thompson, who happens to be ... a very intelligent black woman! Now please show me the links that back up your claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. The whole world is watching!
You can fast forward to loc. 47:22 to hear verification from there forward.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?299007-1/p … -civil-war
Sharita J. Thompson
Assistant Professor Gettysburg College->Civil War Era Studies
http://civilwarrx.blogspot.com/2015/04/ … l-war.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_in_the … _Civil_War
wrenchBiscuit, you wrote, "...I detect a hint of jealousy..."
Hell, I could never be jealous of someone who goes by the name "wrenchBiscuit."
I realize "feenix" is a much better name, but as you know, that name was already taken. But you are evading the issue with more childish insults. Where is your proof that I don't know what I am talking about concerning the Civil War and prostitution. You made the accusation, now back it up.
I am here to remind you that you have accused me of being "dumb and misinformed". You are the one who stepped out into this deep water. And you are the one who so loudly proclaimed to the world, that not only does Ronnie wrenchBiscuit have a stupid name. But you have suggested that Ronnie wrenchBiscuit doesn't know what Ronnie wrenchBiscuit is talking about. And so, you have not so subtly implied that Ronnie wrenchBiscuit is a fool!
I am here now, as I was the day before, and I am seeking either proof of your outrageous fiction, or an apology. And if you choose to apologize, it must not be a token gesture, but a heartfelt apology. These are not the games that we should be playing.
wrenchBiscuit, I learned a long time ago that people who are really smart do not ever have the need to proclaim they are smart.
And I also learned that people who have low self-esteem are on a desperate, never-ending journey to prove to others that they are "somebody."
That's nice. Sticks and Stones. Now where is your proof. I see you keep evading the issue. You are making me appear very intelligent, because instead of calling you insulting names, and trying to degrade you, I have simply demanded proof of the accusation that you made. Where is it?
Well, I've personally seen MANY people here drive out how GREAT (impeccable) they are... surprisingly, I haven't gotten that impression from wrenchBiscuit.
Well, C, maybe I'm seeing things the wrong way. I don't know.
Maaaannn... I don't know WHAT you're seeing.
The things you express seem quite naive. It's like you want to clearly express that your people are inferior. Now I know that you've seen a lot of unrest inside city streets at the hands of the the misguided, but there's much more there...
I was in high school 86-90. Though I did run into a lot of delinquency, I saw many more good black people who were on their way somewhere. The few fools don't outweigh the many upstanding in any race.
I love you for sure, but I wanna get my belt...
I want to ask you a serious question: Do you think that bad blacks weigh more than good blacks???
My answer is HELLLLLL NO.
You have seen the others act crazy with your own eyes up close. Clonking people upside the head because they want rights. Treating good citizens like trash.
Some of you babies who saw that, really were affected for life... having babies...
We get our mindstuffs from our parents first...
Many many parents of your era were mentally flawed. Not because it is innate. They saw some stuff... Full-blooded black people are some of the smartest. Us mixed up crew is smartly too.
Now, the issue at hand; no issue... just quit fn wit boys in the hood... be around when they start shooting instead of 20 min after their done... stop being so brutal. This aint the wild wild West! Po dudes mostly get in trouble. Not just black dudes. Black people do not deserve the harassment they receive in their so-called own neighborhoods. If the sh*t was working, would there still be so much crime in black areas??? They been wielding their batons upside brown skulls since... well I guess they've always wielded them. Violent or NO violence. Bonk!!! It's time to stop that...
In every black neighborhood, there's a beauty supply owned by whom? A gas station owned by whom? A grocery store owned by whom? A liquor store or four, owned by...
Black people cannot get them either. Zoning laws...
When Oprah was ready to open up a school for girls... where did she go??? Why?
Something is going on...
I never heard why the cop pursued Freddy in the first place. Do you know?
I'm not sure anyone thinks that rioting is a good idea, and I don't actually think it's intended to solve a problem. Violence is a natural response to violence. I have been criticised for writing about racial bias, called a "race baiter" etc. It's frustrating. That frustration is nothing compared to the frustration and anger of people seeing police officers causing deaths in their communities, under questionable circumstances, without punishment. And to add insult to injury they themselves are then criticised for complaining about it. Add to that the historical context of violence against black people (see the picture wrenchBiscuit posted) and you have a perfect storm of deeply felt hurt, anger, resentment, powerlessness and frustration. So although we may not excuse the violence, surely we can understand where these people are coming from.
The thing about it, is I've been the ONLY one in these threads to advocate actually looking into the problem, investigating it etc. When I suggested a place to start, I was told "that's not my problem". I"M the one who pointed out where the problem lies, in that the shootings aren't bein g reported in a meaningful, systematic way. Then they ignore it.
Don, do you really think that burning down their own community had anything to do with cops killing someone?
It's not their community. That's probably most of the problem. There is a great deal of black face in the place, but mostly white department?!?
Mostly white business. Abandoned buildings where many homeless reside. Black people poor and without work because all the business is, again, not black, not looking to hire them. Now murderous police.
His 200-plus film credits notwithstanding, the spry, spirited Rooney will be best remembered for playing the impetuous title character in MGM's beloved Andy Hardy movies.
Rooney, 93, who died Sunday surrounded by family at his North Hollywood home, leaves behind a colorful Hollywood legacy that spanned 80 years and a couple of hundred films, including Boys Town and The Black Stallion.
I have included the text above because it makes as much sense as your outrageous suggestion that the black youth of Baltimore were just looking for any 'ol excuse to set the city on fire.
Amen. Or whatever the Original American phrase for, "...and it is so."
My thing is, NO leader is cleaning stupidity out of police departments. It's business as usual for them.
Get the guns and the gas. "Show we MEAN that we can do what we want, and YOU sit down! And shut up!!!"
I saw a pic today, the caption was, "A racist system doesn't care if you are for violence (right under Malcolm X's open casket) or nonviolence (right under MLK's open casket)
It's been many many many years, and we have yet to overcome systemic violence!!!! The "good" kind...
It is going to be a hard black and white sell with the police commissioner and the Mayor both being black. The police in Baltimore are a tough bunch and I know a few who have retired and they are very prejudiced towards the blacks. Both the Mayor and police commissioner were very careful not to reproduce what Ferguson did with a military like response. Some criticize the Mayor for not acting sooner with preparations but this was bound to happen anyway. Can you imagine the outrage if any school kids were shot? The issue coming out more and more is the lack of opportunity and the hopeless conditions where these people live. Frustration breeds contempt just waiting for an outlet. I know many people from Baltimore as I live a short distance from it and the prejudice between blacks and whites is horrendous. When in the city I feel the tension myself as I look like any other middle aged white cracker out there. I find once the ice is broken with a greeting you can tell how it will go. Sometimes a glare but mostly a smile will greet me in return.
The president is black... that's not stopping the police from shooting and killing black people!!! People are people. A darned RAT will attack you if you push him into a corner.
Do we blame the darned rat?????
"The issue coming out more and more is the lack of opportunity and the hopeless conditions where these people live. Frustration breeds contempt just waiting for an outlet. I know many people from Baltimore as I live a short distance from it and the prejudice between blacks and whites is horrendous"
Are they blaming whites for their problems? If so, why?
I don't know if the reason is specifically the blacks blaming the whites for their problems but the clash between the white cops and black population is a real issue. As far as blaming the whites for lost opportunity it would have some validation as there are more white owned businesses but a black mayor has not improved their lot by much.
rhamson, actually, it is not up to a mayor (even a black one) to do things that would generate more black-owned businesses. It is entirely up to blacks themselves to establish a greater number of black-owned business enterprises.
As I have frequently wrote here on HubPages and in other venues, it is time for blacks to start carrying out a bold new movement based entirely on unlimited black enterprise, capitalism, self-reliance and self-determination.
Feenix, your 2nd paragraph is really the only answer. We can continue to raise a tantrum whenever something happens to one of our own, but nobody will care, because no one has cared. They never will unless we up our game. It will be as it has been before, a few pallative words that will suffice until the next crisis.
You are never going to succeed as long as you remain a victim. You having experienced Watts know that the moment any of the rioters there moved into a white community (Westwood), the event would have gone from a police action to a massacre.
We all have to be smarter than this, you don't have to be a sell out to develop a more shrewd and effective way to deal with an adversary outside putting yourself in jail or 6 feet under, who wins then? We are group of people historically known for our endurance and strength, not toddlers that throw their toys around. The "man" is going to kick you when you are down, he always have, so why are we expecting an olive branch in the form of compassion and humanity? The man has the guns and the power of law. Dr. King acknowledged the advantage of non-violence, when he said a gun in the struggle is no good when they have so much more of them.
Strenthening your self and your people is not selling out. We don't do the struggle on the terms of our adversary, but instead plan carefully, finding the soft underbelly.......
The city of Baltimore since Schaefer has wooed and brought big money into Baltimore through tax breaks and moratoriums. Even the buildings were built from construction companies outside the state. The jobs generated were not those that were open to the ghetto population other than maintenance and maids jobs. Many of the people working in the high-risers have degrees and many live outside the city. The decay and degradation of the area is a result of a forgotten group of workers of which many have have turned to drugs and crime as a survival mechanism. Notice I use the word MANY and not all. Gone is the steel mill and the GM car plant and other blue collar jobs vacated to overseas labor. It is the part of globalization where we have traded the Baltimore poor jobs for a standard of living commensurate with China and Vietnam's poor. The race to the bottom is most clearly evidenced by their plight. Relax and do nothing they are coming for and in many cases have taken your middle class existence. Just look at how big your debt is as proof.
How true based upon an economic system designed to enrich the few at the expense of the many. The forces that contribute to the impoverished condition of that part of Baltimore is working on us all from the bottom up. You are a correct when you indicate that Middle class- no distinction for race, are just as vulnerable and will probably soon find themselves not much better off than the poor denizens of Baltimore. Beware for whom the bells tolls......
We have spoken of a system that transcends politics and political parties. Your point of view is vindicated in many ways as the current system is intractable, the folks at the top of the pyramid will use whatever method, fair or foul, to maintain their advantage.The ghetto phenomenon will be explained away as it always has but let the symptoms of that phenomenon creep into the world of soccer moms and Volvos, then people recognize that there is an enemy (not just a figment of the Black man's imagination) that has to be fought if they are to maintain any viability into the future.
I'm so glad you said that. It makes no difference when black officials run the area. Racism is much bigger than a mayor. We may elect who we want, but they better follow the rules in place. or else...
That says a lot when a white person is honest to acknowledge what most of us already see and experience. Youre being at ground zero, you have the opportunity to provide an interesting perspective.
Property can be replaced...
Call me when they start strangin folks up!!!
I wonder what would happen if all police departments are IMMEDIATELY given "emergency" respect for all citizens training; take a test and PASS, beFORE they are allowed to keep their jobs... i have heard NO ONE say, "We need to tame, and educate our police officers, this is happening too much!!!".
Why aren't city leaders OUTRAGED at the conduct of their officers???
Cops kill white people too. Why aren't you in an uproar over that?
Police kill twice as many whites as they do blacks.
"Over the span of more than a decade, 2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks. In that respect, Medved is correct."
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st … es-blacks/
I'm not making excuses for anyone. I'm the one looking at the big picture.
I am. I dont think police should have the ability to shoot and kill unarmed people for running, resisting, or color.
They need to be checked.
I can see now, the riot that would occur if white thugs are shot and killed by black officers without recourse repeatedly...
White prople have historically been known to do much more damage over simple suspicion.
See Black Wall Street, Nat Turner uprising, (almost any hockey game ).
"I dont think police should have the ability to shoot and kill unarmed people for running, resisting, or color.
They need to be checked. "
Sounds nice, but isn't very practical. Consider that shooting at cops is "resisting". So is charging with a knife or other weapon. Using a car as a weapon is "resisting". Can't speak for others in this thread, but I don't expect cops to be murdered before they can use a weapon.
Perhaps, but that is not the case in the death of the young man in Baltimore, the subject of the thread. It wasn't applicable for the shooting in North Charleston either. We are not talking about armed suspects, but about police shooting unarmed people based on some excuse or specious justification.
One man's big picture... another man's excuse... perspective...
The real problem I see is why is there such a disproportionate number of black violent crimes?
Because not all enforcement agencies enter their data into the system... remember? We do not have all the facts. And I'm SURE I know why.
These riots are not about racial issues. Baltimore has a black mayor, a black city council president, a black police chief, a black top prosecutor and half of the Baltimore police force is black.
What you are witnessing in Baltimore is a neighborhood with the highest concentration of heroin addicts in America.
I don't know what happened to Gray while he was in police custody, but a look at his past arrest record is revealing:
http://clashdaily.com/2015/04/freddy-gr … ore-over/#
Writer Fox, your comment is a very good contribution to this forum. Thank you for posting it.
This is what should be done with the people rioting in Baltimore:
The "Angry Mom" video is exactly how racists want a serious issue of police brutality and institutionalized racism to be portrayed. If this is not a staged event, it is certainly a shameless racist exploitation of an insignificant, domestic drama. Obviously this was meant to trivialize the protest, and to give the impression that the protesters are just a bunch of delinquents who need a good dose of tough love! It's disgusting how the media panders to the Archie Bunker mentality that still pervades mainstream America. The link I provided here has far more substance, and portrays a less sensational, and more realistic aspect of what is going on in Baltimore. Of course the "Angry Mom" video has over 3 million views. This video has under 800,000. I know what should be done with the racists who have created this situation, but I'll leave you and Harry Truman to read between the lines.
The mayor of Baltimore, who is black, applauded the woman in the video and so has the nation. Perhaps you don't realize that the kid was hanging around with a heroin-crazed mob when his Mom saw him on TV throwing rocks at policemen. (Half of the city's policemen are black!) The Mom is a hero: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/ … riots-mom/
The black Baltimore mayor does not have control of his police force. Maybe he should take a lesson from the angry mom and line them up for their beating.
Psychologists (the one on MSNBC) stated that it is that kind of thing that teaches violence to black males as the way to get what you want. Mom WAS angry. That was not discipline nor was it the first time. What kinda adult will he be???
First of all , what you are suggesting sounds racist itself. The fact that someone is "Black", doesn't mean that they are always 100% correct in their thinking or actions. There have always been Uncle Toms, or Vendidos among the African communities. This is nothing new. Furthermore, the number of black police isn't remarkable either. We are living under a system of white supremacy. Consequently, the black community,black politicians, and the black police are all under the ultimate direction of a white supremacist authority.
But let us imagine for a moment that the major is not an Uncle Tom, but an upstanding,forward thinking black person who has the people's best interest at heart: What else could he say? The media shoved the video in his face amidst all of the turmoil. Of course he had to put a positive spin on it , and then move on to more important matters.
The "Angry Mom" video is reminiscent of the Police video, (can't remember where) that was released either during or after the Ferguson uprising. In the video, the police were shown stopping motorists and giving them Christmas presents! It was so heartwarming I had to leave my desk and throw up! These are both equally disgusting examples of how mentally challenged the American public truly is. And how easily public sentiment can be influenced and manipulated. I can only wonder how many traffic tickets they have issued, and how many thousands of dollars in fines have been collected (stolen) from motorists since that "kind" and magnanimous gesture!
Finally, I am not impressed with your heroin crazed mob fiction either. Have you ever been around people who are on heroin, or opium? Obviously not. People who shoot heroin don't hang out at protest marches and riots. It would be next to physically impossible for someone high on heroin to be running around ,throwing rocks, and wreaking havoc throughout the city. Junkies are like "The Walking Dead". They move real slow, and they sleep a lot, or just lay down and stare at the ceiling. I understand that many of those who have expressed their opinions here live in the real world ... but unfortunately for the next victim of police brutality, and racial injustice, it's the real world of Ozzie and Harriet!
"We are living under a system of white supremacy. Consequently, the black community,black politicians, and the black police are all under the ultimate direction of a white supremacist authority."
Why are you trying to spread lies?
"We are living under a system of white supremacy. Consequently, the black community,black politicians, and the black police are all under the ultimate direction of a white supremacist authority."
Truth is truth...
I am spreading only the truth. If you step outside the box a little, turn off Fox News, and read a little bit you'll see that what I'm telling you, is for many, "old news".
Here is a link to a Neely Fuller Jr interview that might give you better insight. Fuller explains that any so-called black leader, anywhere in the world, including Africa, is answerable to white supremacy :
Last I heard, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. is black. So, what is that? Sounds like America is living under the ultimate authority of Black supremacy. Or, is he just an 'Uncle Tom' kowtowing to white American voters?
Gray's arrest on March 20th was for dealing cocaine. Do you know anything about the systems of people high on cocaine? According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health:
"Cocaine is an addictive drug that produces numerous psychiatric symptoms, syndromes, and disorders. The symptoms include agitation, paranoia, hallucinations, delusions, violence, as well as suicidal and homicidal thinking. They can be primary to the drug's effect or secondary to exacerbation of comorbid psychiatric disorders. The use of cocaine in the “crack” form is often associated with more frequent and intense symptoms. Paranoia occurs in 68% to 84% of patients using cocaine. Cocaine-related violent behaviors occur in as many as 55% of patients with cocaine-induced psychiatric symptoms. Homicide has also been associated with cocaine use in as many as 31% of homicide victims.
"Cocaine has numerous effects on many important neurotransmitters in the brain; however, the most dramatic effect is on the increase as well as the release of dopamine. Dopamine is thought to be the primary neurotransmitter involved in the pleasure centers of the brain.. Excessive dopamine levels have also been hypothesized to be associated with anger, aggressiveness, hallucinations, delusions, and other psychotic symptoms. Cocaine also initially increases levels of norepinephrine and serotonin, 2 other essential neurotransmitters. Norepinephrine is responsible for alertness, activation, increase in heart rate and blood pressure, and preparing the body for emergencies, such as 'fight-or-flight' situations."
Gray was also previously arrested for 'manufacturing narcotics', which would indicate crack cocaine, which is even worse.
When Gray was taken into custody, there was no police officer in the back of the van, but there was another prisoner in the police van. Whatever transpired will eventually come out. The medical examiner's full autopsy hasn't even been completed yet. Only idiots jump to conclusions until all the facts are known and that is exactly what those rioters are. Are you actually reading anything about what is happening in Baltimore? The fact that you think the mayor is a man leads me to believe you aren't really following developments in Baltimore.
Commentator Ebola Jenkins said: "Remember in 1992 when South Central Los Angeles was mad at some cops for beating a crack-addict trying to assault them, so in 'revenge' they burned down the neighboring Koreatown full of first-generation immigrants who couldn't afford business insurance and struggled with the English language? Their young Korean-American children almost ended up starving in the streets while still wearing diapers. However, today, 23 years later, those children became doctors, lawyers, dentists, scientists, and business-owners. Koreatown is in the middle of constructing the tallest skyscraper (in North AND South America) west of the Mississippi River. For some reason, neighboring South Central still looks EXACTLY like it did 23 years ago! So press on, Baltimore, make that place resemble the artsy historical-districts we call Ferguson and South Central LA."
I don't know why you brought the 1950s sitcom 'Ozzie and Harriet' into the picture, but have a picture of Ricky Nelson, their son, who was also on the show. He was a cocaine addict and cocaine, marijuana, and the painkiller Darvon were found in his blood stream when he died at the age of 45:
Having seen my past commentary, you should realize that any feeble attempt to "spin" my comments is only a waste of your time. Many have challenged me here, and all of them have failed. It is a simple rule I learned a long time ago. Never challenge, or insult someone in a public forum who is smarter than you. You have nothing to gain but humility. And it only makes them look smarter than they really are. Just sayin. But back to the matter at hand:
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
Writer Fox has himself commented," ... Perhaps you don't realize that the kid was hanging around with a heroin-crazed mob when his Mom saw him on TV throwing rocks at policemen..."
This is what you posted Writer Fox, and that is what I responded to. I didn't even mention cocaine! Your long-winded rant about cocaine is simply a not so clever smoke-screen that you have used in order to avoid addressing the fact that your comment about heroin made no sense whatsoever. Concerning my use of Ozzie and Harriet: I think the joke was pretty obvious. How do you like me now?
White Supremacy explained: https://youtu.be/FALm1hX3oQQ
"Many have challenged me here, and all of them have failed. It is a simple rule I learned a long time ago. Never challenge, or insult someone in a public forum who is smarter than you. You have nothing to gain but humility"
Repetition doesn't make you win an argument, or appear smart. You can SAY something repeatedly, and that doesn't make it true. You need to prove America is run by white supremacists, and you've of course failed to do that so far.
A bear may appear to be cute, and harmless, but then he will turn and eat you alive! What you see or do not see in me is of no consequence. I am not Jesus, and so I cannot make a blind man see, or a deaf man hear.
The system of white supremacy and racism began in earnest in the 15th century with Pope Nicholas V. And so, it was proven long before I was born. But I see you did not follow the link. You did not follow the link because there is a man much smarter than me at the other end of that link; a man who will deliver the truth that you so desperately do not want to hear.
Your posts just get curiouser and curiouser. Now the riots in Baltimore have something to do with a 15th century Pope? I don't buy it. I don't think those rioters know anything about the Pope in the 15th century. That's the funniest explanation I've heard so far.
And as for your link, do you think anyone is going to listen to an hour long explanation that was made before these riots even occurred?
You still haven't given a coherent account of why you think rioting in the streets, attacking policeman and damaging and stealing the property of others is an appropriate response for a perceived injustice. And, the injustice is indeed just 'perceived' at this point, because all of the facts are not known, the investigation is still underway and the autopsy report has not been completed.
I guess that's because it is kind of hard for him to prove that Obama is a white supremacist!
From your comments on this thread, it doesn't look to me like you have gained any humility. And, if you actually read all of the other posts here, perhaps you didn't understand this one: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/130240? … ost2730016
That's where I noted that Baltimore has the highest use of heroin in the U.S. and also where I posted the link to Gray's history of arrests for cocaine use and selling drugs. And, if you would take the time to actually study what is happening now in Baltimore, how could you possibly miss seeing the interviews with gang leaders who were so out-of-it that they could hardly keep their eyes open?
Yes, of course, I and others realize you have trouble making sense about what people post on this forum. Your continued focus on 'white supremacy' as an excuse for riots, attacking police officers and destroying property is indicative of a gross inferiority complex, a victim mentality which demands an apology for perceived affronts and the constant need to insult people who have more logical, educated opinions. The only 'long-winded rants' I have seen on this thread have been posted by you.
Writer Fox has himself commented," ... Perhaps you don't realize that the kid was hanging around with a heroin-crazed mob when his Mom saw him on TV throwing rocks at policemen..."
You still did not address the issue. Do you have a crystal ball. How do you know the mob was "heroin crazed". It is a very simple question, that begs a simple answer. The fact that any authority may have suspected that a number of the protesters were high on drugs is beside the point. You can suspect that a number of Wal-Mart shoppers are high on drugs. Or any number of people at a Motley Crue concert are high on drugs. But do you really know that for sure? Could you possibly know that for sure? And on top of that, do you really expect that a rational person would ever believe that you, or anyone else, without first hand knowledge, can actually say how many people were high, and what they were using? No, it's completely absurd.
And so, I'll ask you again in a different way. Please,tell me how you know the mob was heroin crazed?
I read the interviews with people who were eyewitnesses. Reading about what about what happened is something I suggest that you do.
OK. And how do you suppose those eyewitnesses knew this this was a "heroin crazed" mob. Are they the ones with the crystal balls, or did they watch the mob "inject the goodness" before striking their militant activist pose?
wrenchBiscuit, you just be onto something. If the ones in the mob had been high on "smack," they would not have had the will to raise hell. All they would have wanted to do was go someplace and chill and nod off.
So, undoubtedly, most of them were high on "crack" and other illegal stimulants.
I think I'd have to take it with a grain of salt when the bloods or crips declare they're all about getting kids to go to school and get jobs. It was also a little disturbing when they say they're not about gangs now, but all about blacks; a little reminiscent of the KKK's stance now, wouldn't you say?
On the other hand, the photo from facebook has something to say, backed up by actions:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … mp;theater
You know if that boy had called "the people" she'd be investigated for child abuse. So many stipid people watch and laugh. White and blacks alike are delighted. But they made corporal punishment an infraction of the law, YEARS ago...
I guess if it is done according to the country's liking it's ok.
I watched MSNBC almost all day yesterday. I saw the thug truce video twice and the crazy momma about 8 times.
Thank you for pointing that out. They make what they're doing so obvious. Black people scorners (even black ones) will hopefully come to themselves once the light stops flickering off the spoon. We must meet people where they are... none of them are on a soapy pedestal.
They have too many black people singing the black people aint shit (except me in all my loveliness) song.
I strongly question that list of offenses unless the charges listed were dropped prior to him going to court. You list 5 instances of distribution within 2 months. Considering the amount of time it takes for a defendant to go to trial your website claims that he had multiple counts of distribution while continuing to sell drugs. I don't think any judge would allow a defendant with so many drug arrest to continue out on bond.
Every time a black man is gunned down or in this case thrown down to his neck twisted into a pretzel, by police, we want to check his record. As if to say well see!!! He deserved to be dead... I do not care what felonious charge we come up with... he'll never get his RIGHT to a jury trial...
There are methods for dealing with complaints against the police and his relatives can bring a lawsuit. In fact, the family has already hired an attorney. Also, the incident is being investigated right now, not ignored.
A complaint against police actions is not an excuse for breaking into stores and robbing them, for destroying a neighborhood and attacking people. And I think that it is significant that the guy was a major drug dealer in this neighborhood and his last arrest was just a month ago. The fact that he was arrested 22 times before and was never a victim of police brutality is also a sign that the police in that area do not single out black people to kill. Half of Baltimore's police force is black!
Dealing with people crazed out on cocaine or heroin often requires police to use force to restrain them and, in this case, the guy resisted arrest and tried to run away. The truth will come out but, whatever the truth is, it is not an excuse for lawlessness.
http://heavy.com/news/2015/04/freddie-g … est-video/
I'm guessing that you also intended to highlight Baltimore PD's previous record of losing court cases for brutality and civil rights violations, resulting in $5.7 million in damages being paid to victims since 2011, but you just forgot. Don't worry, I've got you covered. Here's a link to the Baltimore Sun with a story all about it: http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/
That's OK feenix. I know ... that you know ... that you can't back up your accusation. It would be like trying to prove that Monica never gave Bill an erection.
wrenchbiscuit- if you're a musician/songwriter then you need to stick to what you know because you specifically have twisted this entire thread into complete nonsense. A simple comment on your opinion is all that's necessary without all the random dribble that you just continue with. The fact of the matter that you're missing here is that shit that happened 500 years ago should not still be brought up consistently in present day. History is just that-history. If you want something better you fight for something better you don't make excuses that 500 years ago so and so oppressed so and so. The color of peoples skin should have absolutely nothing to do with brutality or violence. This whole situation is being taken ridiculously out of hand by people who are stuck in the past. Police brutality/violence should not be tolerated regardless of the skin color. People want to immediately pull out the race card in these situations when race itself shouldn't even be taken into account...a young man died in police custody should make headline news without regard to his skin color. Is the fact that someone died in police custody not enough of an issue? The situation needs to be investigated regardless of the skin color and the family needs answers regardless of their skin color; they deserve that much.
adams, thank you for gracing this forum with your thoughtful comment. I really do like your style.
This discussion seemed to have been rooted in the riot part.
The 500 year ago thing has stretched to this very day.
Just 60 years ago the vote was allowed. And what do you think happened all that time in between???
It's almost painful to hear that since theys votin nah. That they are in anyway equal. Now!!! I have known thousands of blacks. Only a handful, are murderous.
The police brutality is the root cause.
Can you name me an era where blacks have not been police gassed? Police murdered on a large scale? Remember Martin peacefully walking over the bridge for their right to vote???
The police bombed the people and seemed to have attacked that peaceful crew from ALL SIDES!!! How many years ago did the guvna send troops to kill a peaceful bunch of walkers???
History made lateral moves.
And since a few blacks made it... with whatever help they got; they get snooty and forget that their entire families and most of their friends struggled...
Not everyone has that in him. We gotta meet people where they are...
Where are most black people???
I apparently know something that you don't! Everything happens for a reason. What you are today is inextricably tied to the past. The language that you speak is only because of the past. It did not just fall out of your mouth today! The world system that exists today only exists because of the positive and negative forces of the past. You think that it is dribble, but if the world would have listened to what Jesus said over 2000 years ago, Ferguson and Baltimore would have never happened. The words of Jesus, and all of the great prophets and philosophers still reach out to us from the past. It is not dribble, but only wisdom. I see that you do not know the difference. But I am sure you would understand a dollar if I placed it in your hand.
As far as simple comments, you seem to be doing very well, but I do not have such a talent for the mediocre. What happened 500 years ago is as important now as it was then. We cannot reconcile the evil of today until the past is first reconciled. The problem in Baltimore, in one respect, is very easy to fix. Yet in another respect, a hopeless situation. If the system of white supremacy, institutionalized racism, the capitalist system, and the government were completely abolished, and then replaced with a system of Anarchy; a system of true freedom and solidarity among the people., all of these problems would evaporate overnight.
There would be no economic disparity, there would be no real estate, there would be no starvation, or riches to fight over. It would be a world of scientists, philosophers,technicians, artisans, and architects, all working together for the betterment of mankind. No , this is not dribble. Baltimore is speaking to the spirit of man, just as Ferguson, Toledo, and South Carolina. Many of you are very quick to judge , but when we look at the state of the world, we see that the current methods have not been working so well. No , it is only arrogance, and jealousy that tells me to shut up, and sing a simple song. But this is not to be. If my intelligence is frightening to you, then I suggest that you should stop looking at my words. Osiyo!
Since black people are only 13% of the population, and they are murdered at such alarming rates, they should be considered endangered. Protected like we do old buildings and paper...
Funded for strengthening their community all the way around with free psychological services to every black person who doesn't own his own home... or have a father.
But you are thinking like a human being ... not a reptile! You are thinking like someone with a heart, mind, and soul. You can see the hatefulness in this world .... and the shallowness in their words. They will only live and die this way. But I can see that your life will never end.
You do realize that black people are mostly murdered by....you guessed it! Black people.
Yeah...that's why the order of psychological services to undo the many generations of, "you ain't spit Boy!!!"
See... I be thinkn.
As white people are mostly murdered by guess who....white people, and Asian people are mostly murdered by guess who....Asian people and Hispanic people are mostly murdered by guess who Hispanic people.
And would somebody tell the world that people on heroin are looking for their next hit, ASLEEP!!! Not running around protesting...
People forget the effects of heroin cuz the news came on???
Anybody listened to Rudy Giuliani talk about "cool down periods " which were allowing rioters to go at it for days before any arrest's? --- He absolutely stopped all rioting and began arresting anyone for anything in these same outbreaks in NYC. , guess what , No more riots ....... Baltimore has , politically speaking , a highly liberal leadership , high percentages of black cops , black police commissioner , , Black mayor , and over sixty percent black by population in the city .
Just saying , A little too much coddling of these rioters ?
I think many people around the world who are watching this thread are starting to understand why these kids are rioting in Baltimore. The following comment is classic Americana:
"...... Baltimore has , politically speaking , a highly liberal leadership , high percentages of black cops , black police commissioner , , Black mayor , and over sixty percent black by population in the city .
Just saying , A little too much coddling of these rioters ? "
Now folks, seems it's not just the black "heroin crazed" thugs who need to be brought under control, but the black leadership is also to blame!
Very smart guy. Honest and also ready for change.
Yet The saddest day in America or anywhere is the rose colored glasses that many people don when the facts are right before their eye's! I have said in other forums , "The numbers don't lie " .
If inner city riots are the result of a people seeking answers ; I wouldn't want to live in one . More like a wild night out on the town --at everyone one else's expense , AS Usual !
We've got racism , poverty , unemployment , high cost's of living , hatred , disrespect , police violence , fatherless homes ---In rural America too , Do we riot ? No. More like something else going on there .
"We've got racism , poverty , unemployment , high cost's of living , hatred , disrespect , police violence , fatherless homes ---In rural America too , Do we riot ? No. More like something else going on there ."
How are you trying to relate here and then compare conditions and the plight? Are you comparing rural America to inner city blight? The only correlation to make is the hopelessness that is overcoming the poor. The poor are way beyond the middle class in the effects of the economy and failed job policies the past several administrations have developed. The move to eliminate manufacturing jobs and replace them with high tech and service jobs has been a disaster. The move is just a sideshow to the investment and business models towards overseas exploitation of labor resources to improve their bottom line. The greed at the top is what spawns these issues. Taking away jobs that provided security and affluence for the poor and middle class were replaced with low paying low skilled jobs that keep these people losing and falling more and more behind every day. Yes Freddy Gray was a drug user and more than likely a dealer but his history is a definition of what the poor and the hopeless conditions they live in provides for these people trapped in these circles of repetitive economic and political failure.
In 1999 after the Denver Broncos won the Superbowl, a riot erupted. Property damage stemming from this riot was estimated at $160,000 according to the Associated Press. But it still wasn't called a riot. Instead, a spokesman for the city's mayor called participants "hell-bent on causing trouble." These were just "good ol' boys" having some fun! The double standard is so apparent that we can all see who's hiding under the sheets here, as well as behind the phony profile pics of black people.
But there's more! After the Montreal Canadians won the Stanley Cup finals in 1993 a riot erupted. According to ESPN, this riot caused "$2.5 million in damages as 168 people were arrested and 115 injured." Of course, I am sure that some racist is going to accuse me of living in the past. After all, that was over 20 years ago!
But there's still more! 2014: San Francisco Giants win the World Series: 40 arrests, two shootings,couches burned, buildings hit with graffiti and businesses vandalized. This was never characterized as a "riot." It appears that when white people riot, the just do it for fun, and it's not really a riot. But when black people riot as the result of over 500 years of oppression, they are dirty, heroin crazed thugs! Right! I can see you under those sheets!
Good points WB, these examples are hard to dispute. Plus these people are not poor or in a community with crime, unemployment etc. These anglos in your example had to express their discontent over the loss of an insignificant sports contest with a riot. Their behavior is a notch up the pole toward being even more inexcusable.
Absolutely! And let's not forget that had a man's spine not been nearly severed, this would not have happened. When young black men are given uniforms and guns, and sent to kill the sons of Afghans and Iraqis, not for freedom, but for the commercial interests of corporations, they are called soldiers and heroes. But when they , in desperation, throw rocks at those who represent their oppressors; those who are killing black men with impunity, they are called thugs, criminals, and drug addicts.
Probably because they are thugs, criminals and, in Baltimore, likely drug addicts.
For the record, black men don't have to do a darned thing in order to be labeled. They came here in chains with a label...nothing has changed there. I just hate we keep forgetting to find a "label" for the savages responsible for their even being here!!! I cannot think of one low enough to fit properly...
The "label for the savages responsible" is Black Africans. These were the first black slave holders and these were the ones who kidnapped other Black Africans and sold them as slaves to markets in the Middle East, Asia, Portugal, England, France, etc. So, is the term "Black Africans" a term "low enough to fit properly" or would you prefer some other term for "Black Africans?"
I heard about that... I'm talking about the lower-level creature who decided to cut out the black African and take up arms... kidnap... tie down... fill and float their boats (throwing the resister over-board in large numbers) and raping many along the way... got anything???
It wasn't called a riot because it wasn't a riot; it was a celebration gone out of control. Most of those arrested were arrested for public drunkenness (a different kind of substance abuse). The people weren't protesting anything; they were celebrating their team's victory albeit in an inappropriate way.
"A riot is a form of civil disorder characterized by a group lashing out in a violent public disturbance against authority, property or people. Riots occur in reaction to an actual or perceived grievance or out of dissent." It's not racism to understand the proper definition of words; rather, it is being educated.
And, blacks have not been oppressed in America for 500 years. The first slave owner in America, by the way, was a black man and he owned the first black slave in 1655. (The first slave holder in Mexico was also a black man.) By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black slaves. By 1860 there were about 3,000 slaves owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.
You must be hallucinating if you saw people under white sheets in the Baltimore riots, because nobody else did. But, there was racism at play. In December, the Baltimore FBI office issued a memo that the Black Guerrilla Family gang was targeting “white cops” in Maryland. On April 27, Baltimore Police Spokesman Capt. Eric Kowalczyk said "Members of various gangs — including the Black Guerrilla Family, the Bloods and the Crips — have entered into a partnership to harm police." These gangs are largely responsible for the distribution of narcotics in Baltimore, scores have been arrested, and they are operating drug rings from prison.
Why don't you try to collect your thoughts in a coherent manner to prove whatever point it is you are trying to make and write a Hub. Here's a nice video you might want to include: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yktyADnCg8
"It wasn't called a riot because it wasn't a riot; it was a celebration gone out of control."
Talk about ur rose-colored glasses. Lmaorotf!!!
Unfortunately, Baltimore has nothing to celebrate. But I guess we'd think of some worse labels if they start that kind of celebration after b-ball...
The guerrillas are being preyed upon...
My thugs are scary, I know....
And I know it is hard for white men to measure up; so scared is smart...
Narcotics distribution??? Yes!!! You see how everyone looks at them... what choice do they have? Mass incarceration ensures that many CANNOT become employed... much less gainfully. You say they don't deserve it??? I say none of us AMERICANS "deserve" anything!!! But it is given... mostly taken by them who think they started this country with all SOMEONE ELSE'S hard work. On SOMEONE ELSE'S land..
Those thieves think that they're good. I often wonder why...
"You see how everyone looks at them... what choice do they have? Mass incarceration ensures that many CANNOT become employed... much less gainfully"
Everyone has the CHOICE to live a decent life and NOT turn to criminality. Everyone.
And the white, war-hoes who lost their big daddies to gunfire???
I am not surprised.
Ask someone. It came up in our conversation recently.
I think it means that this conversation is hopeless.
They are no longer invited to see games in Baltimore. Yesterday, the Baltimore Orioles played a winning game in their final game of the series against the White Socks in front of 46,000 empty seats because management feared certain people in Baltimore would "start that kind of celebration after b-ball."
Read my earlier post for the definition of the word "riot." You obviously don't understand the word and, because of that, people laugh at you, not with you.
Your comments indicate that you tend to view the printed word, or human discourse, in a strictly literal, or utilitarian manner. I noticed in one comment you didn't "get" the point of my posting a picture of Ozzie and Harriet. Here you don't seem to "get" the point of my expression concerning "sheets". I was referring to the people here on Hubpages, not the people in Baltimore! So let me give you a heads up Writer Fox. I do not place unnecessary restrictions on my expression. I include humor, metaphor, sarcasm, simile,drama ... wherever, and whenever I like. I don't feel it's necessary to dumb myself down just in case someone with an IQ of 150 might not get my meaning. Life is too short my friend.
Slavery began on this continent in 1492. My people were the first to be enslaved by the European on this continent. And I am well aware of when the first African supposedly came to North America. What happened in Virginia in the 17th century was only possible because of what came earlier in 1492. And so, when we speak of the enslavement of people on this continent by the European, we start with when it actually began, and that was with the arrival of Columbus in 1492.
But so what? 500,300,200 years? Do you have any idea what it's like to be a slave? Can you imagine what it is like to be a slave for even ten years,5 years, or 1 year? No, you cannot imagine it, and neither can I. I have no reference for such a feeling of bitterness,hopelessness, and despair. But I do know that it would have to be the worst feeling a man could ever experience.
Concerning blacks owning black slaves. I am not familiar with this history. But I do know that black soldiers, the so-called Buffalo Soldiers were sent to kill my people in the west after the Civil War. I also know that there were those among the Aniyunwiya who also owned African slaves. But what is most important to understand is that the so-called Buffalo Soldiers were only doing what they were commanded and forced to do by a system of white supremacy. Concerning the Indigenous who owned African slaves:The Indigenous who owned slaves were just as despicable as the whites, but there was no comparison between the few natives who owned slaves, and the number of slaves owned by white Europeans. Furthermore, it was the European who started the institution of slavery on this continent, and it was the European who maintained it. It was a majority of white,southern, Euro-Americans, who decided to secede from the Union over the issue of slavery. In other words, the information you have presented has little to do with the price of tea in China, or the unrest in Baltimore.
Your semantics notwithstanding, when an innocent bystander encounters a mob of people who are looting, shouting, starting fires, painting graffiti, throwing rocks etc., it looks and feels like a riot. And that's simply because it is.
I don't know why you keep bringing up slavery. It has nothing to do with how people behave today.
Slavery is why we have the disparities we do. It's why people feel the way they do about blacks (including one who stays on the fence about it) it is the reason blacks are economically challenged. When black people try to come up, a mob is dispersed. They have guns and badges and liberty...
"Furthermore, it was the European who started the institution of slavery on this continent"
Did you know that the Aztecs kept slaves in the Americas long before Columbus? The "indigenous", then, were the original slave owners of the Americas, not the "white supremacy".
Drum-roll please! .......................... ---------------*************** Your comment only betrays your level of education. It appears that you and Writer Fox are close relatives, because your comment is also irrelevant. The Aztec Empire fell at the beginning of the 16th century. It is irrelevant because we are not presently under the rule of the Aztec Empire.
Since shortly after the arrival of Columbus in 1492, this continent has progressively been under the rule of white supremacy, which was ordained by Pope Nicholas V in the papal bull: Dum Diversas, and subsequently sanctioned by the Catholic Church. If we are going to concern ourselves with the Aztec Empire, we might just as well consider the role of Genghis Khan in the current system of white supremacy, as it is equally irrelevant.
No, it is irrelevant because it gives a lie to your statement and must thus be ignored. (We aren't under the rule of Europeans, either, or even the "white supremacy" you so espouse as to be blamed for everything.)
You deny what is not only documented, but that which is evident all around us. If we are not under the rule of white supremacy that started with the European, then why are a great majority of Indigenous people on reservations? Are you suggesting they wanted to give up their lands , resources, and wealth, and move to a reservation? And what about the Civil Rights movement. Did we all just imagine that? Perhaps it was a holographic insert. Who do you think the black people were struggling against? I suppose all the presidents prior to Obama were African albinos. Right? Goodbye!
Well, there is documented and there is documented. That you claim there is a white supremacy running the world isn't worth the time it takes to read it. As "documentation" it is a total failure, no different than 100 other conspiracy theories.
The great majority of Indians remain on reservations because they choose to do so. Certainly not because a white supremacy group forces them to.
Also, to echo what Wilderness has mentioned, you're also discounting the fact that the majority of slaves sold to people in the West were sold by other fellow Africans or by the Arabs.
Because of diseases like malaria (which white people had little defense against), white slave traders weren't able to just march across Africa capturing slaves. It was a common practice for African tribes to attack enemy tribes by capturing their men, women, and children and selling them to whites as slaves.
So to make it sound as though whites just up and started the institution of slavery in America is woefully inaccurate. Some whites purchased the slaves, true, but it was almost always other Africans or Arabs who made them slaves in the first place.
White supremacy didn't start slavery. The willingness of the Arabs to treat native Africans as "property" and the willingness of native Africans to capture and sell their own people did.
As usual, "It wasn't me; your people made us do that!" take those people killin', raping, beating, belittling, leaving the children fatherless and motherless!!!
Slavery in America was started/instituted/taught/maintained/controlled/perpetuated by whites; also foreigners in this land.
Africa, I heard, was in on it. But you cannot pay my African History professor to believe it. Hes from Ghana. And he adamantly declares that it never would have happened.
He says it's another lie, written in the books to deflect. I would imagine his role as a history professor allowed him an abundance of information on the subject and he still made that assertion adamantly.
But even if the African was involved, the treatment of real people with real blood on this continent was/is simply savage. This country has REALLY been mean/evil to blacks.
Let's leave the blame where it belongs...
And let's stop the cycle of violence against blacks here; now please
Hey girl , I'm kind of a history buff , and my impression of our social maturity today and for the good of ALL our much needed history lessons, is that a lot of people really need to "Google up" a few historical truths !
Indentured servitude- , for one . Nothing more than a fancy term for legal slavery , but that's for another forum thread , ....... As many as sixty to over eighty percent of original immigrants to early colonies , even before it was America , were in fact "Indentured " to another person or corporations actual ownership . " Want to get on a ship to early America ? Got a lot of money ? NO , okay sign here , you are now a servant to a farmer , a shipyard , a woolen factory , a brick maker , whomever .
African Americans ,........ like the Irish dairy farmers , Like the Scots coal miners , like the Chinese railroad builders , like the Viet-Namese fishermen , like the Hispanic landscapers , like the German crop-growers , need to assimilate into this modern day culture without expectations of "reparations " , without claiming the crutch of poverty .
Hey, Boy, buffing history isn't much like teaching it. I would imagine that his being an African would be significant as well. Their books probably remain untouched by the hand that sailed them from their homes.
Indentured servitude was a practice but THOSE people got paid, and we held the whip(like we do mustard on our hotdogs), held the blood, and noose. We didn't take the entire families of the indentured, to send them across the lake to indent another place... indentured servitude was not something that lasted from generation to generation. You sure you know your history???
Actually I do Know my history , And what I do know is that My ancestors indentured servitude was probably around longer than your ancestors slavery ! Oh yes , ," And they got paid ", right ! Ships full of starving Scots and Irish who would have nothing when they arrived here , IF they actually arrived .
The difference Cgenaea , is that the Irish and the Scot's , the Italians and the Chinese actually outgrew their need for victimhood . I wish that you might look up the history of 'Coffin Ships " from Ireland in the 1800's . Expanding your horizons in a history class might help you to understand your own history better too .
There are a dozen or more ethnicities in America who probably suffered as much or more than African Americans AND who still survived without the need to blame those of a different colored skin. Yet I also understand that if you run to the streets of Baltimore and try to explain REAL history , you might need a body guard .
Comparing the history and struggles of the Irish, the Italians, or any other European nationality, to the struggles of the African on this continent is not only a joke, but it is an an outrage.
I don't recall one of the bloodiest wars in American History being fought to free the Irish, or the Italian, from black slave owners. I don't recall a time during American History when Africans forced millions of Europeans to pick cotton everyday, and then raped their sisters, wives, and daughters every night, with impunity. Please, in your magical book of American History, show me on what page I can find this information.
Your professor is wrong. Obviously he is only a student of African history, not American history. The first slave owner in America was a black man named Anthony Johnson and he owned the first black slave in 1655. Does your African history professor from Ghana know how to use Google?
Also, your statement that this country has "REALLY been mean/evil to blacks" is wrong. Countries are neither mean nor evil; only some people and animals are mean or evil, like some who participated in the riots in Baltimore.
From what I understand, Google only outputs what goes in... maybe someone has misinformed the Google data processors.
People generally hold much more accurate information.
My teacher being an historian from Africa, would probably know. Griots in Africa, are well-trained in history from the time they learn understanding. The history has been passed down from generation to generation.
Not much to debate. I'll take an African who knows his history, over Google any day (no offense Google )
America has a history of African slaughter in massive numbers. America took names, fathers, mothers, history, and freedom from Africans; taught them that they were no importaner than dogs, and gave them rules to live by.
Then America tried her best to destroy anything that black people put their hands to.
America stood back and watched; often joining in on the stupidity with laws to ensure the "people's" position.
I am no blind dummy, Sir. The slaves owned by Africans have NO baring on the hate and degradation we see today. No Africans are shooting people on the back for running (just like they did their slaves a few years back) have you ever heard tge phrase "history repeats..." good, what we see today, is a great indication of our history. No African in jail for shooting black men backed by a badge and hiding his evil hands....
To paraphrase Sling Blade, " It's not funny "Ha,Ha", but it's funny in a queer sort of way". A Nazi is never gonna admit that he's a Nazi.
It is the same here... "what??? That man tried to take my gun!!!" The crowd roars its praise for yet another "bad guy" off the streets.
Officer Scary, lives to confront and be frightened by, yet another piece of trash... and they all lived happily ever after... I guess until we get his scary butt on tape FULLY next time...
You don't know history, or what you are talking about. The concept of white supremacy began with the Catholic Church and the European aristocracy. It is a documented fact, and anyone can verify this by simply doing a search online. It is amazing that people will deny the truth; a truth clearly accepted and documented the world over, simply because it doesn't fit their American Dream (fantasy). You, wilderness, and all the rest can stand around the water cooler, or at the golf club during happy hour and tell each other it just ain't so, but that will never change the truth. Nor will it stop people like me from spreading the truth. My advice to anyone is to stop listening to Archie Bunker and get an education. The system of white supremacy that rules this world is not my opinion, it is simply a fact. Deal with it.
P.S. Your whole argument about Africans selling Africans, and Arabs selling Africans is irrelevant, and absurd. Imagine a sex trafficker on trial trying to use the same excuse. "Yes, your honor,I purchased the women to be used as sex slaves, but I didn't kidnap them in the first place!" I'm sure a judge and jury would accept that! Furthermore you say :"some" white Americans owned slaves, like it was just an insignificant handful. Do you remember the Civil War, one of bloodiest conflicts in American History? It wasn't fought simply because "some" whites owned slaves. Get real.
The highest number of slaves in the modern world are held in Africa by black Africans. The second and third highest numbers of slave holders are found in India and Pakistan. That pretty much discounts your theory that racial problems are a result of white supremacy theories from some Catholic pope. Africa, India and Pakistan are not predominantly Catholic or white.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor … n-the-u-s/
So glad you posted that gigantic picture of an American Indian. It is a reminder that American Indian tribes owned thousands of black slaves, including the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, the Cherokee, the Creek, the Seminole, etc. Ten percent of Cherokee families owned black slaves, which is the same percentage of white slave owners in the antebellum South. Indian enslavement of Blacks often involved physical and sexual abuse at the hands of Native American owners.
Of course, the native American tribes were taking slaves of each other (war captives) long before they encountered Europeans or Africans, so they were just continuing their history of being slave owners. Many Indians also were bounty hunters, capturing escaped black slaves and returning them to their owners for a hefty fee, as any fine student of Indian history would know. Often Indians sold their Indian slaves to Europeans. I guess that's what you might call 'Indian Supremacy.'
And, most people who lived in America during the 1860s never owned slaves: http://civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
All of which has nothing to do with this:
I can handle laughter. I like it lol...
Fearing a sports riot is way different than expecting a hockey one... but nobody shuts those games...
You obviously didn't see the Orioles COO's interview. And for that. Lol...
"Slavery is why we have the disparities we do. It's why people feel the way they do about blacks (including one who stays on the fence about it) it is the reason blacks are economically challenged. When black people try to come up, a mob is dispersed. They have guns and badges and liberty"
I don't buy it. That was aver 150 years ago. No one these days has any idea what it was like.
I'm not sure whether it's genuine ignorance on your part, or a willful non-acceptance of reality. Either way, such silly statements do not help resolve what is very serious social issue. On the contrary, this type of tone-deaf statement is a big part of the problem.
No one is going to rural communities to shoot hillbillies. Rose colored glasses are worn by those who deny the truth about police and their filthy behavior. Poor other dude didn't get a "what we gon say???" conference for many days because he don' got hisself taped!!!
We all know though....
Too often we are burying someone who could have just been left alone.
Trayvon-whatchu doin round here boy???
Michael-get out the damn street boy!!!
I can't breathe! Fuck yo breath...
Looked to me like the fake taser placer dude was glad he ran. Gave no chase... just opened fire and set up the scene like ge KNEW what to do...
These last cops... I have no idea why they pursued that guy and twisted him up on the ground. But I pray they make, "He killed himself" their final answer. That war will probably create the needed change...
I'd like to thank God, my late dog Misty and the establishment.
I only do this for the exercise. The racists, and there are a lot that frequent these forums, are always interested in denigrating minorities, especially black people. It's funny how, because of the forum rules, they have to really work at delivering their insults without using the preferred racial epithets.
Actually, I've seen the racists get away with quite a bit.
You've got 106 Hubs and 138 followers, and you joined 4 years ago. I am quite curious why you don't have any pictures in your Hubs. 0! Why is that? It is a great curiosity.
I am too lazy to find pictures for my hubs. Is that a good enough reason for you?
I've been using Pixabay lately. You can download for free and most images, as far as what I have used, are Public Domain. But I go ahead and attribute anyway. Thanks for clearing that up.
Thanks. I might try that sometime. Mostly it's just been a hassle trying to find good pictures without copyright issues. I have a few pictures on my other HP account, but I took them myself so I don't have to worry about attribution.
Sshhh!!! You know how this panel cuts up lazy AND broke.
Lol!!! We incorporate the "favorite" into our daily speech... 'ts nothin'.
I will take the chance in ass-u-ming that ignorance of truth is deliberate. No number that they could publish will succeed in erasing thier known history before they learned to hide their actions. Better watch out... everyone has a camera.
In the 1920's (the last time blacks were collectively wealthy) a white mob accosted the their town, because of a rumor that started in an elevator... Levelled the entire town in 24 hrs without one jail sentence arrest of whites. Millions of dollars of damage, insurace companies faked on their end. Nothing since. Just 60 years ago, a mob of state "thugs" shot and killed a whole lot of people for walking across a bridge. Black men daily carted off to jail for bs charges, brutalized and killed in large numbers today by police...
I have no idea what you are talking about, but that really doesn't matter. If you don't like living as a minority in America and within American laws and working legally within the American system (which drug-dealing, street rioters do not do), well you are not a slave in the U.S. and you can move any time you wish to a country where blacks are in the majority. Because you don't do that and because other Blacks have no intention of doing that, I do not believe you are that unhappy in America no matter what you say on this forum.
I think you are happy that you were born in America as a free citizen, no matter what your ancestors went through. And, understand, not all Black Americans are descendants of slaves and most have no idea whether they are or not. It's not something they focus on now.
Most people feel discriminated against in one way or another. Women in America are often discriminated against and they make up half the population. There are other ethnic groups and religious groups that feel discriminated against. People are discriminated against because of age, appearance, illness, etc.
What we are dealing with on this thread is drug-dealing gangs leading a riot in Baltimore, attacking police and bystanders, breaking into business, stealing and looting, setting fires, closing schools and sending an entire neighborhood into chaos. There is no excuse for that.
Are you being serious? I can't believe you just invoked the ghost of Merle Haggard!
Love it or Leave it! You must be an American. How about Lee Greenwood? He's got some foot stompin' patriotic songs too.
I never told her to leave America; I said she had options. Go read my post again.
Options? I know you can't be serious. I'm only responding cause I'm waiting for my hamburger to cook. People don't have those kind of options.You can't just pack up and move. The average working class person can't afford to do that. They can't afford to move down the block! And you're suggesting people can simply exercise their right to leave.the country?
Won't be forcing me out of my home. You will respect me in it.
There is no excuse for harassment of police officers on a consistent basis. There is no excuse for becoming murderous because a dude resists the harassment. There is no excuse for there being such a discrepancy in income potential. If these guys had jobs, they wouldn't be as easy to pick off though. Might put some people outta work...
They STILL haven't said what they were chasing him for that I've heard. That's important.
Black Wall Street. Google
The initial police investigation of the death of Freddie Gray is now in the hands of the State Prosecutor. The final autopsy report will not be ready for at least 30 days. The State Prosecutor and the FBI are conducting there own investigations now. Nobody is forgetting this death but, because of the circumstances, all of the facts are not known yet and true justice will take time. All of the police officers involved in the arrest and transport of Gray have been temporarily suspended from the police force until a final conclusion is determined.
Some believe that Gray's injuries might have been caused because the police failed to put a seatbelt on the prisoner. In other parts of the country, handcuffed prisoners in police vans have died because of this. Just today, it was revealed that the police van made a previously undisclosed stop while transporting Gray. Testimony has been taken from the other prisoner who was in the van with Gray. Little by little, all of the facts will come out. There are also private attorneys working on behalf of Gray's family.
It is impossible that this case will be swept under the rug, and that was true even before the riots.
In the meantime, all any of us can do is wait for the investigation to complete.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/ba … estigation
I already know today, that police people are unfortunately nasty to black people. They claim they're scared, but they KEEP walking up on them... just to see what they're doing. Guns drawn. Or a host of simultaneous tacklers with rude hands and knees. Today... that needs to stop!
I know they will not legitimately state that the boy knocked his own windpipe aloose. Even crazy people who do that ro themselves, know their limits; but if they find a way... one more to the long-assed list.
Riots ! -- I am always reminded of all the "protests " in the middle east . So if a few thousand people can get out and burn ,pillage , protest , then they can also get out and work ! And , if you're working , well then there's certainly no time to protest . unless uh - you don't want to , or don't have to work .
Work... we're talking about Baltimore. Aint no work. They escape that way... who wants that? Baltimore and their black leaders have a horrible record. They've been looking the other way so far...
The city has enough cash for police overtime, so it seems... not enough for good schools and industry. Loan some money for all those vacant houses; ensure blacks can get loans for businesses to push out the foreigners with deeds passed down from generation to generation. Blacks should benefit in "their own" neighborhoods not EVERYONE else... Stop zoning laws that bar blacks from commercial endeavors... etc
"Some minority groups are presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged and can qualify for the 8(a) program. These groups include: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans and Subcontinent Asian Americans. Individuals who are not members of one or more of these groups can be considered for the 8(a) program, but they must provide substantial evidence and documentation that demonstrates that they have been subjected to bias or discrimination and are economically disadvantaged. Firms owned by Alaska Native Corporations, Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations and Community Development Corporations can also apply to the program."
I can tell you didn't grow up in the ghetto. And I'm sure you have never lived in the inner city. It's easy to plan your life, and make the right decisions when you're living in a nice safe neighborhood, with a car in the driveway, and money in the bank.
No, I didn't. Although we were poor and my sibs had to use grants/loans to get through school. Big family. We had it relatively easy growing up though.
ahorseback, the quote below is the most intelligent analysis of this type of rioting I have ever seen. It is based on a deep understanding of the issue (not surprising considering who it's from). A bit more intelligent than the OP's suggestion that it's just "natives getting restless" (which is a slightly off choice of phrase in my opinion). Anyway, I hope you get a chance to read, digest, and understand it.
"Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood. Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest. The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights . . . .
When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also demand that the white man abide by law in the ghettos. Day-in and day-out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; and he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions for civic services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them but do not make them any more than a prisoner makes a prison. Let us say boldly that if the violations of law by the white man in the slums over the years were calculated and compared with the law-breaking of a few days of riots, the hardened criminal would be the white man. These are often difficult things to say but I have come to see more and more that it is necessary to utter the truth in order to deal with the great problems that we face in our society." (Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.)
You should see the hits I got when I looked up "African American scolarships". A lot for minorities. Makes me with I was on the Baker rolls....I got a grant Pell grant a few years back, but it wasn't enough for me to use(It was only like a thousand dollars, enough for about a term. School is so expensive!
Yes, I've looked it up too. Seems a lot available for blacks hush-hush like. And IF you stumble across, you must "qualify" and then you must hope nobody beat you to it. Those funds dry up so fast. Worth a try.
I think he thinks that the world would think we were under the rule of President Obama. However, the crap he inherited from the previous regime was atrocious.
The presidents all have one thing in common, America, of which Aztecs, Blacks, Hispanics, and maybe Chinese are not apart. People with melanin are peripheralized and put away. Black neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, Chinese neighborhoods (I mean towns), the reservations ("Here, we'll reserve you a portion of your land. Because we're running out of ammo")
What does slavery have to do with modern day riots?
Nothing. No one is dealing with slavery today in America, and no one is being oppressed.
Boston PD was made to pay $5.7 million in damages to victims of police brutality in the last four years alone, but . . .
". . . no one is being oppressed".
Victims of the brutality are most often African Americans but . . .
". . . no one is being oppressed".
The allegations against the victims (the reason the police arrested them in the first place) were dismissed in almost every single case but . . .
". . . no one is being oppressed".
So you have officers who are given special powers and authority that other citizens do not have, causing serious injury, and violating the constitutional rights of mostly black people who have been found to have committed no crime, but still you insist . . .
". . . no one is being oppressed".
What have the the people experiencing this have to do to get people's attention? Start burning buildings? Oh wait . . .
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" (John F. Kennedy)
"Victims of the brutality are most often African Americans but . . "
Prove it. Twice the number of whites are killed by police than blacks. Do you have the statistics to back up your claim?
Racists, being limited intellectually, just don't have the talent for a good spin. It's too bad I'm not a racist, I would be a real asset to their cause. I could even put a convincing spin on the rogue cop Michael Slager , and distance the good racist American from the coming fallout. Here is my spin:
"This man is not a white man! This is a black man who has had his skin bleached. Anyone should be able to see this. Consequently, this is just another case of black on black violence. White cops don't shoot black people in the back! For god's sake, they took an oath to uphold the law! In fact, there is a record of him signing the document that said he would. I rest my case."
Of course, you don't have the statistics, either. Let's see it.
What? The statistics for how many bleach their skin so they can pose as white cops?
So you think brutality and oppression are just about deaths caused by police? They're not. The definition of oppression is the "exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner". The definition of brutality is "savage physical violence". Death is the most severe outcome, but it's not the only indicator of police brutality or oppression. Being punched in the face by a police officer, or thrown to the ground by a police officer, or kept in a strangle hold by a police officer, or verbally abused by a police officer without just cause, is still brutality even if you don;t die from it. And the fact this is done as a way of exercising state power and authority means it is, by definition, oppression.
But it goes beyond the police. Social oppression is where a particular group or category of people is mistreatment and/or exploited in a way that is supported by social structures. Remember redlining? That's social oppression. The fact people with 'black-sounding' names get 50% less call backs when sending out a CV (yep, studies have been done). That's social oppression. Anything situation where power or authority is unfairly used to hold a person or group of people down. That's social oppression.
In relation to statistics, while available DOJ data (reported voluntarily) give some indication of the number of deaths caused by police, it doesn't give an indicator of how many people were victims of excessive of police brutality (strange how police departments choose not to voluntarily report how many people they have brutalized to the DOJ).
One thing we can see is the number of cases in Baltimore where the police were successfully sued for using excessive force. That's what the Baltimore Sun looked at when they found that since 2011, $5.7 million has been paid in damages for use of excessive force by police. Almost all the allegations against the victims were thrown out of court, and almost all the victims were black.
A thorough exploration of the oppression of African Americans in modern could be as long as a dissertation. Suffice it to say, you are way off the mark if you think
". . . no one is being oppressed"
They are, but not enough people are listening. This thread doesn't exists because the author wanted to talk about the oppression of African Americans. It exists because a group of African Americans set fire to some buildings. Think about what Kennedy said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable". We've got to start listening.
"One thing we can see is the number of cases in Baltimore where the police were successfully sued for using excessive force. That's what the Baltimore Sun looked at when they found that since 2011, $5.7 million has been paid in damages for use of excessive force by police. Almost all the allegations against the victims were thrown out of court, and almost all the victims were black. "
One case out of the tens of thousands of confrontations really doesn't seem like "social oppression". You DID catch that that's what your statement says; that there was just one case that successfully sued?
I can see how it reads that way. It's actually over a hundred cases that make up that total $5.7 million in damages. But the important point is that this only represents cases of police brutality where the victim has successfully sued. Factoring cases of police brutality where the incident is not reported, then of course the total will be much higher. But unfortunately we have no way of knowing about those cases . . . until now. Social media and the internet is playing a big role. Many of the examples seen recently are based on the fact that someone has filmed something. But it does beg the question, if this is what people with smartphones are capturing, purely at random, how much of this is actually going on that doesn't get filmed?
OK - it's up to 101 cases. With a force of 3,000, and assuming one interaction per day per cop (you know there are many more) for four years, that's .00002 of incidents involved brutality. That's not oppression. And yes. it's only the successful laws suits. Does throwing out almost all the suits mean anything except you believe they should not have been? Or does it lend credence to the idea that it really IS only a very small number?
And you're absolutely right that social media and the internet is playing a role (remember the "He's black" from Zimmerman?). How much is going on that isn't filmed? Probably not much - everyone is carrying a cell phone and everyone is more than happy to film a cop. After all, they might get into the news themselves!
The point is that all you've produced is a tiny fraction of a percent that is known to be bad calls, and lots of insinuation that there has to be thousands more. More trying to raise an emotional response, then, instead of producing actual facts.
Don't you know facts are biased? Unless, of course, they back up your theory. Then it's ok to use and acknowledge them.
Your focus is too narrow. I said in my comment to janesix that ". . . it goes beyond the police. Social oppression is where a particular group or category of people is mistreatment and/or exploited in a way that is supported by social structures". You have to look at the issue in it's entirety. Racial bias within the structures of society: economics, politics, justice, employment, education. All of that is part of the social oppression of African Americans because of how it disproportionately impacts that group. What I'm saying is that police brutality is just one part of that bigger picture.
And let's be clear here, the riots in Baltimore are not just about Freddie Gray. If you actually LISTEN to what some of the people on the street there have been saying, you would know that. The underlying socio-economic conditions in Baltimore (and all the things I mentioned that contribute to those conditions) are the issue. The anger and frustration have been simmering for a long time. Freddie Gray's death was just the spark that ignited the whole thing. That anger is not surprising.
You and others for some reason can't even ACKNOWLEDGE or ACCEPT the genuine grievances of African Americans, or that there is even a problem! What happened in Baltimore is what inevitably happens when people who are genuinely suffering injustice (Freddie Gray committed no crime) are ignored, and instead further PUNISHED for complaining about those injustices.
Unfortunately what you don't seem to realise is that this is not just a problem for African Americans. When constitutional rights are violated it's ALL OUR problem, because those rights are what protect us all from oppression and tyranny. If we stand by and watch the rights of others eroded by the police, or by politicians, or by social institutions on the grounds that it's THEIR problem, or because we refuse to even acknowledge the problem, then we are acquiescing to tyranny and oppression. And not the tin foil hat conspiracy kind, but the genuine subtle, creeping police-state kind.
I don't know what to tell you Wilderness I really don't. All the facts and figures that demonstrate African Americans as a group are socially oppressed, are right there at your fingertips. The justice system is out of balance, the economy is out of balance, education and employment are out of balance. I'm sorry but those things are undeniable. I can't make you find the information that demonstrates that, or read it. I can only hope you take the time to look for it, or if not at least acknowledge that the disregard for constitutional rights displayed in this case is in no one's interest, and we should all stand up and oppose such violations which hurt us all.
I have no problem with the idea that racism is alive and well in the US. It's nowhere near what it was, but it still exists.
But that is no reason to grossly exaggerate facts, or to spin them into an emotional case rather than factual. It is certainly no reason to lie about events to increase anger (If Gray committed no crime why was he in custody in the first place?).
And finally, no the riots were not about Gray or any other perceived oppression. They were about thugs destroying and looting, nothing more. A chance to damage without little to no fear of reprisal. To become one of a gang of thugs causing harm to innocent people (and themselves) in a massive display of stupidity.
Wilderness, It was determined by the prosecuting attorney in Baltimore that there was no basis for the arrest in the first place. Gray was carrying a knife and the fact he was carrying it is not crime in itself, not when the rightwinger advocates that everyone should be allowed to take their AK-47's to McDonalds.
So your presumption that he MUST have committed a crime is a false one, assuming that the police is not at all complicit in what happened to Gray. On top of that the prosecutor will using the proper evidence determine if the police mishandled Gray while in their custody and that that mishandling led to his death.
Let justice reign, though the heavens may fall.....
Baltimore has been known for a police department that have been taking liberties with the rights of the people that they are to supposed to have been serving.
I disapprove of rioting as it does not accomplish bringing the problems of the community and those created by the police to a point where they can be acted upon objectively. But people do get angry and it is not just in the black man's DNA. While I dont agree with the community response, I understand it.
So there is a threshold for when injustice becomes oppression? That's news to me. In your world, exactly how many people need to be the victims of injustice for it to be considered oppression? 150? 500? 10,000? Sorry, but I think you've got it wrong. Oppression is "the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner". If you have 101 examples of authority being used in a cruel, or unjust manner, then you have 101 examples of oppression. In other words, oppression is not defined by the QUANTITY of incidents. It is defined by the NATURE of those incidents. Regardless of race, color or creed, the number of incidents where the police exercise authority in a cruel or unjust manner should be: 0. That's the bottom line.
To expect people not to react emotionally to the tragedy of these types of incidents, is to expect people to be inhuman. Of course an emotional case is being made. That's how empathy works. Imagining yourself in someone else's shoes. What is happening to poor people, and poor black people in particular in this country, is heart-wrenchingly painful to see. Even more painful if you have to experience it first hand. And yes that does invoke emotions. But that doesn't make it any less true.
So I'm lying about events because I say that Gray committed no crime? Seriously? Was the State's Attorney also lying when she said: "Lt. Rice, Officer Miller and Officer Nero failed to establish probable cause for Mr. Gray’s arrest as no crime had been committed by Mr. Gray. Accordingly Lt. Rice, Officer MIller and Officer Nero illegally arrested Mr. Gray". If you have evidence that demonstrates that's a lie, I suggest you contact the appropriate authorities at once and present it to them. If you don't, then I suggest you get your facts straight before accusing people of lying.
Your opinion about rioters is just that, your opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to. I'm not dealing in opinions. I'm dealing in facts:
Freddie Gray is dead - Fact
He had committed no crime at the time of his arrest - Fact
He was unlawfully arrested - Fact
He was not placed in a seatbelt while in transit - Fact
He was repeatedly refused medical assistance by the police officers who arrested and transported him him - Fact
He died of injuries sustained while in police custody - Fact
His constitutional rights were violated - Fact
The the police exercised their authority in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner (i.e. were oppressive) - Fact
There are examples where the police have treated other black people similarly (including other suspects being paralysed while in police transit by Baltimore PD) - Fact
Some of those incidents resulted in the city having to pay $5.7 million dollars in damages since 2011 - Fact
So you can stick with your opinions about what rioters might or might not have been thinking, if that's what you think is important. I prefer to stick with the facts. For me that's what's important. I'm just glad the Baltimore State's Attorney seems to share that view. In essence Wilderness, what I'm saying is that no exaggeration is needed. The facts are bad enough.
Sorry, Don, but the term was not "oppression", but "social oppression". Oppression by society as a whole, not .002% of cops. Given that, what would be your own exact number of events? One, by a rogue cop, thug or other person means that society as a whole is oppressing the race of blacks?
And while I hadn't heard of the comment from the state's attorney, I will submit that if a charge includes false arrest, it's going to have to be proven. The attorney can only say they don't think there is sufficient evidence; a jury will make the decision.
Nor do any of your facts have anything to do with social oppression - the subject I thought we were discussing. Certainly not anything that happened to Gray, and not even that there have been "some" incidents of oppression by specific cops.
No that's not what social oppression means. Here is a fuller definition for you: "Social oppression is a concept that describes a relationship of dominance and subordination between categories of people in which one benefits from the systematic abuse, exploitation, and injustice directed toward the other."
So it's not about the number of incidents, it's about a pattern of "dominance and subordination between categories of people". One way social oppression is manifested is through social institutions and systems like law enforcement. Institutional/systemic oppression sits within the wider category of social oppression. The different spheres of oppression can be shown as:
The thoughts, assumptions, attitudes and behaviors of individuals
The representation of groups within art and the media;
(a society's "narrative")
Shared values and norms: what is "right", "good", "attractive" etc.
Specific examples [the Freddie Gray incident sits here]
Economic policies and practices
Education policies and practices
Employment policies and practices
Apologies for this rough sketch. Lots of detail missing, but you get the idea. Ideally this would be drawn as concentric circles with Personal in the center, then Cultural around that, then Systemic/Institutional around that, to denote the overlapping relationship between all three areas of oppression.
What do the facts of this case have to do with oppression? If you look at the wider social context of the incident, instead of narrowly viewing this incident in isolation, you'll see the pattern of dominance and subordination between categories of people that it's part of.
Looking at specific examples both within and outside of law enforcement, we see that a particular category of people (black Americans) repeatedly and consistently treated differently to white Americans in ways that have a negative impact on that group. Whether it be in finance, the court system, education, or employment. In other words, there exists a relationship of dominance and subordination between white Americans and black Americans, in which the former benefits from the systematic abuse, exploitation, and injustice directed toward the latter. That, by definition, is social oppression.
False arrest is not part of the charges, but I imagine it will come up in court. The illegality of the arrest stems from the fact that on the charge sheet for Gray, Officer Miller explicitly states that Gray was carrying/possessing/selling a "spring assisted, one hand operated knife". Evidently that is not the case, and the knife he had was of a different type which is legal. Not only does that make the arrest unlawful. It also means Officer Miller is liable to perjury for making false statements charge sheet. Miller also stated the defendant "suffered a medical emergency, and was immediately transported to shock/trauma via medic". That is demonstrably untrue, as medical assistance was repeatedly refused. Again Miller is liable to perjury for making false statements. It's likely that those charges will be forgone in light of the more serious charges made.
And even if none of that were the case, there is a precedence set by the 4th circuit appeals court on this subject already. In Sorrell v. McGuigan (4th Cir. 2002), a police officer (McGuigan) arrested a man in Maryland for carrying a folding knife with a 3 inch long blade in his pocket. The officer [b]incorrectly[b/] believed the knife to be illegal. Sorrell was never prosecuted because there was no crime committed, and he sued the officer for false arrest. The officer's defense was that it was reasonable for him to believe the knife was illegal and therefore he was covered by the 'qualified immunity' of law enforcement officers. The court disagreed and Sorrell won the case. The officer appealed, but the ruling against him was upheld by the appeals court. So it has been legally established that believing a knife is illegal, does not constitute probable cause, and does not constitute a reasonable good-faith belief that is within the scope of qualified immunity.
Don, this whole mini-thread began with your statement that at least one Baltimore cop used brutality and therefore social oppression of a specific race, and covering the entire country, was a proven fact. It isn't.
Now, if you wish to change the topic to what social oppression is, we can do that. I'll even start with the comment that every segment of our culture oppresses some other segment, with race as a large factor. The whites oppress the blacks, for instance, by withholding good jobs in far too many cases. The blacks oppress the whites by turning inner cities into a war zone with their gangs and demanding that black criminals be allowed to behave as they please without repercussions. Both oppress Hispanics as a result of large numbers of illegal aliens flooding the country. Whites and Hispanics oppress Arabs.
All have some truth, but none have the full story and none addresses the actual causes of that oppression. Nevertheless, a great many people use isolated incidents to "prove" oppression, just like this case.
I do hope you will start a new thread will all of that instead of posting it on this one.
This 'mini-thread' started by janesix making the comment that ". . . no one is being oppressed". I pointed out that Baltimore PD has paid a substantial amount in damages since 2011 for various cases of police brutality, mostly against African Americans, and suggested this is part of a wider picture of social oppression by saying:
"But it goes beyond the police. Social oppression is where a particular group or category of people is mistreated and/or exploited in a way that is supported by social structures. Remember redlining? That's social oppression. The fact people with 'black-sounding' names get 50% less call backs when sending out a CV (yep, studies have been done). That's social oppression. Any situation where power or authority is unfairly used to hold a person or group of people down. That's social oppression."
So which part of that leads you to conclude I've gone from one incident in Baltimore to oppression of a specific race, covering the entire country? I am not using an 'isolated incident' to infer country-wide oppression, 1) because it's not an isolated incident, and 2) because I've made it very clear that there is a number of other things indicative of a wider pattern of social oppression and I've even told you what I think those things are.
And yes of course there are other examples of social oppression. Women have been socially oppressed for years. So have disabled people in various ways. What has that to do with anything?
And no, black people can't socially oppress white people in the same way, because white people as a social group dominate all the areas I showed in the 'diagram' of social oppression above. If you can't see how it's all interconnected, then I can't really help you.
All I can say is, if you aren't sure what I mean by something, ask me, but please don't misrepresent what I have said.
Fact: In America, the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
Fact: The trials haven't happened yet, and all of the facts won't be known until the trials are completed.
Fact: Only the accusations have been made public at this point, not the case for the defendants.
Fact: No one is in a position to render a judgment on guilt or innocence or on what did or did not happen until both sides have been heard.
Fact: Jumping to conclusions (the 'jumping to conclusions bias', also referred to as the 'inference-observation confusion') is a psychological term referring to a communication obstacle and cognitive distortion where one "judges or decides something without having all the facts – to reach unwarranted conclusions."
I agree that it was absolute stupidity; but, it was also criminal.
Baltimore city is the 7th most dangerous city in America for violent crime, where one out of every 70 people are victims of crime every year. In 2014, there were 210 murders in Baltimore. Most of the victims had no history of criminal activity and were mostly males between the ages of 20 and 29.
Baltimore never recovered from the damage incurred during the riots in 1968 after the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. in Tennessee. That followed a year of 159 race riots in the U.S. The Baltimore riots in 1968 left six dead, 700 injured, 5,800 arrested, 1,000 small businesses damaged, looted and/or set on fire. There were over 1,200 fires set by arsonists during the riots. Damage was estimated at over $12 million (equivalent to $77.5 million today). Almost all of this took place in the rioters own neighborhoods.
Baltimore had great difficulty encouraging businesses to re-establish and residents to rebuild the neighborhoods affected. Things were so bad that in 1975, the city gave away over 100 abandoned or damaged properties for $1 each to encourage gentrification. Today, Baltimore still has 16,000 vacant and abandoned properties.
During last week's riots in the predominantly black neighborhoods of Baltimore, more than a dozen buildings and 144 vehicles were set on fire and one person is still hospitalized for critical injuries sustained while inside a building on fire. In all, 19 buildings were totally destroyed. More than 200 small businesses were damaged, robbed and looted. Two CVS pharmacies were attacked and one, which employed 45 people, was burned to the ground. Evidence at the scene verified that controlled medicines were stolen. Convenience stores and grocery stores were robbed of cash and tens of thousands of dollars of inventory. Entire racks of clothing were carted away by thieves from Mondawmin Mall.
Was this stupid? Of course it was.
City Council President Jack Young, a black man, urged citizens to "Stop the madness. We can not go back to 1968 where we burned down our own infrastructure and our own neighborhoods. We still have scars from 1968 where we had some burnt out building and businesses did not want to come back to the city of Baltimore. We have to stop the burning down and the breaking in of these stores because in the end it hurts us as a people,” he said. “This is no reason to loot and rob in the city of Baltimore. The whole world is watching us and some people are even calling us animals."
Now, due to increased risk, insurance premiums will be raised for home, auto and business insurance for innocent citizens in the neighborhood. Municipal buildings will also have insurance cost increases, passed on to taxpayers. Half of all insurance companies have temporarily suspended issuing new policies in the affected neighborhoods.
Lost businesses will increase poverty for small business owners and the people they employed. Locals will have to travel further for prescription medications, groceries, and etc.
Was all of this over 'compassion' for Freddie Gray? I don't buy it. Sociopaths and thugs don't have compassion.
Speaking of April's Baltimore riot, Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News Ben Shapiro wrote: "Modern race riots do not occur because of the supposed white superstructure or a legacy of governmental underservice. They occur because valueless rioters act in valueless ways. Baltimore is evidence that glossing over lack of values with leftist pabulum about social justice doesn’t stop cities from burning."
IMO, you've hit the nail on the head. The basic problem isn't racism OR social injustice. It isn't even police brutality.
It's the mind set and attitude of the people as a whole. The "gimmee" attitude that the world owes them a living, the "entitlement" philosophy that they are entitled to whatever they want. So, rioters want some "fun" destroying things; go do it. They want a new shirt or a TV; go steal it. "Whitey" owes it to them anyway, and the minor fact that they aren't burning white stores or homes, aren't stealing from whites, is beyond their limited reasoning processes.
There were positive signs during the Baltimore riots: the mom dealing with her son. The line of people lined up in front of the police, protecting them. The pastor and family at the funeral, begging for peace. The politicos of Baltimore, asking for the same.
But at the bottom is still both the criminals that don't care for any but themselves and the "fire starters" - the racist idiots that egg them on and encourage the behavior for their own personal power and gain.
You and every other reasonable person on this thread have made valid points, and it is encouraging to see this expression. However, we are all aware that very seldom will the racist change his stripes and admit the truth about America. However,if you haven't seen this already; in this video a redneck actually takes responsibility and admits the evil of racism in this country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYM1o8QIk6c
Don't you think people who use words like "redneck" are racist?
Not at all. The term "redneck" derives from the fact that many rural whites who work in the fields literally get red necks from being out in the sun all day. Just like the term "cock" is not necessarily derogatory or offensive, as the word has been used for centuries as an element of English surnames, ( Badcock, Hancock,Whistlecock, etc.).
It is also synonymous with "rooster". Many words are seen as offensive simply because an individual chooses to interpret them that way. This usually stems from a lack of education. Furthermore, the man in the video, which I am sure you didn't watch, refers to himself as a redneck. Also, he admits that he used to be a racist. He is living proof that all rednecks aren't stupid,evil, or unpleasant to be around.
It's interesting that you would focus on the most superficial element of my post. I can't help you if you won't let me, and that goes for all of you who could benefit from someone who has taken the time to actually study a problem, rather than relying strictly on emotion, hearsay, and propaganda.
Here again is the link , maybe you will watch this time : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYM1o8QIk6c
The people who put this reality TV show together didn't think redneck was a derogatory term. Neither did millions of fans.
I agree with janesix. I live in the Midwest. There's really no way around the fact that it is offensive. It implies social backwardness below-average intelligence.
The fact that a word is only perceived to be offensive makes it no less offensive. By WB's logic, the term "f*ggot" shouldn't be counted as offensive, derogatory remark to homosexuals, seeing as how the *original* meaning of the word was "bundle of sticks used for firewood".
"He is living proof that all rednecks aren't stupid,evil, or unpleasant to be around." --WB
^ Well, you kind of shot yourself in the foot, as you try to explain away the offensiveness of the term “redneck”, by implying that rednecks would otherwise be associated with stupidity, evilness, and unpleasant company. Thanks, jerk.
Word Up, Inside, and Vigorously All Around : I learned a long time ago: Never pick on someone bigger, or someone who is much, much, smarter than you are!
I take pride in the fact that I do not have to resort to pedestrian, personal attacks, or derogatory comments in order to get my message across. Now that you have enjoyed your cathartic release, do you have anything worthwhile to say about the fact that a man was murdered by the police? Or are you more interested in defending your self image?
Even many famous Country singers use the term "redneck". Perhaps you should contact the people responsible for the following songs and inform them that they are all "jerks" for using the term:
Little Texas - Redneck Like Me
Bellamy Brothers - Redneck Girl
Tracy Byrd - Redneck Roses
Diamond Rio - Redneck Love Gone Bad
Ty England - Redneck Son
George Strait - You Sure Got This Ol' Redneck Feelin' Blue
John Michael Montgomery - Paint The Town Redneck
Tracy Lawrence - You Can't Hide Redneck
Jerry Reed - I'm Just A Redneck In A Rock And Roll Bar
Billy Ray Cyrus - Redneck Heaven
Jamey Johnson - Redneck Side of Me
Roger Creager - Mothers A Redneck Too
Brooks & Dunn - Redneck Rhythm & Blues
Joe Diffie - Leroy The Redneck Reindeer
Alan Jackson - It's Alright To Be A Redneck
Jerry Jeff Walker - Redneck Mother
David Allan Coe - Longhaired Redneck
Cledus T. Judd - First Redneck On The Internet
Why do you always post about how much smarter you think you are than everyone else on the forum? I guarantee you that is not the impression others have from your posts. Arrogance is not a sign of intelligence.
And what's with the irrelevant pictures you keep posting? Don't you know the difference between a redneck and a hillbillie?
Have you heard the song 'Wise Up?'
I have never posted that I am smarter than everyone on this Forum. And just like feenix, who also dared to insult me, but could not back up his own fiction, I fear you have painted yourself in the same corner. Now, show the world where it was that I made such a preposterous statement. Of course you cannot. You seek to use the language as a weapon, but you keep pointing the gun at yourself. Neither do you understand the meaning of arrogance.
Your comment: " I guarantee you that is not the impression others have from your posts ", reveals that you concern yourself with trivialities. I would not smile at the world simply so the world would smile back at me. There is nothing for I, or the world to gain from such blatant hypocrisy,or false modesty.
I am reminded of the man who stood on the deck of the Titanic as it was sinking and complained that the band was not playing a particular song in the original key; the very same man who politely said "excuse me"as he pushed the woman holding the baby out of the way and took her seat on the lifeboat!
Your arrogance is not winning you any points. Also, it seems to have slipped your memory that you were the one who derailed the conversation with your mention of rednecks.
Furthermore, posting a list of people/groups who don't find a term offensive doesn't make it *not* offensive. You're relying on opinions to prove an objective position. I'm sure I could find you a list of people who don't find the term "b*tch" offensive, but that doesn't mean it isn't.
But since you suddenly seem to care about staying on point, I fail to see how rioting, defiling property, and warring against law-abiding cops because of the *alleged* actions of a few who *may* have abused their powers accomplishes anything productive--other than making local business owners hate you, the local *law abiding* police resent you, and every sane person in the country thinking of you as a barbarian.
Also, I fail to see how this is so casually chalked up to "white supremacy" and "oppression" by many people, especially in consideration of the fact that 3 of the 6 officers now facing charges are black...including the driver.
But it doesn't surprise me when people ignore blacks playing a potential role in killing other blacks. Why? Because nobody gets to cry "Racism!" and then feel justified in knocking over a local convenience store. These people don't think all black lives matter; they only care about the black lives taken (or *believed* to have been taken) by white lives.
Otherwise, you'd be hearing more media campaigns to stop the predominately black-on-black violence decimating communities in cities like Chicago.
Also, "I take pride in the fact that I do not have to resort to pedestrian, personal attacks, or derogatory comments in order to get my message across."?
Really? But you're apparently not above being condescending or arrogant. Someone so clearly above the rest of us shouldn't be so bothered by the honesty of someone like me in thinking that you're a jerk, on the basis of your previous discussion.
The people who "ignore" blacks killing blacks, as you would like to imagine, ignore nothing at all. They are simply smart enough to understand that much of the black on black violence in the ghettos is a symptom of oppression. You can look at any race of people, at any time during the history of the world, and see how economics and poverty play a role in contributing to their aggressive behavior.
The German people were drowning in poverty after the end of World War I. The fact that they came to support the Nazi party does not indicate that they were inherently evil as a race, or nationality. It only indicates the obvious: that they were desperate, and that the Nazis offered them a way out. The anti-semitic violence was a symptom of fear, and desperation, cultivated by an oppressive racist regime.
"The people who "ignore" blacks killing blacks, as you would like to imagine, ignore nothing at all."
And this is exactly why Trayvon becomes national news for months on end--even getting publicized attention from the president--while dozens of other black kids are being killed by other black kids with near media silence. Because these cases aren't fuel for a "let's-all-blame-white-people" race war.
Also, if oppression is to blame for blacks killing other blacks, what oppression would that be, exactly? It certainly would seem that violence-steeped inner city communities are oppressing themselves when some within them use their perceived oppression by white supremacy as an excuse to ignore personal responsibility and free agency and be as violent and destructive as they please, consequences be damned.
The purpose of a thread is not to answer the questions of people who really don't want to know the answers, but to simply gain insight into the way these type's of personalities view the world ; not to change them , but only in order to develop a better vaccine.
The Purpose of A Thread © 2015 w r e n c h B i s c u i t
Why do you still persist in the belief that the death of Freddie Gray had anything to do with racism?
Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced yesterday that charges have been filed against six police officers in the death of Freddie Gray. Have a look at the six officers:
A murder charge was only filed against one officer: the driver of the police van. The driver was the only officer in the van and the City State's Attorney said that Gray suffered fatal injuries while in the police van transporting him (as yet unproven). There is still no mention of how the injuries occurred.
The charge against the driver is for second degree murder. Under Maryland law (Criminal Code § 2-204), a second degree murder must be intentional. "Murder requires a criminal state of mind – whether it be premeditation, ill will, hatred, spite; it’s what differentiates murder from manslaughter", according to Alex Ferrer, a former police officer, attorney and judge. The charges may not stand up during the preliminary hearing.
Was that officer some white supremacist who premeditated killing a black man, or did he have ill will, hatred or spite against black people?
The officer driving the van and the only officer charged with murder is himself a black man.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … acked.html
"The officer driving the van and the only officer charged with murder is himself a black man."
If this is your evidence that the crime perpetrated by the police was not racially motivated then you have missed the point entirely. The charge is in essence against the police department. For years the department has been under fire for its prejudicial arrests and treatment of black people. Because the police officer that is being charged with murder is black does not mean the crime was not racially motivated. Freddy Gray was taken down by White officers as well who deemed it necessary to place him under arrest. That just began the whole thing in motion. A profiled man arrested and transported by a cop who is now being charged with defending Gray's death. The thing began as a racially motivated judgment against a black man that resulted in abuse by another black man, a police officer in this case. The cop had a choice to question the charges and proof against Freddy Gray but instead continued the violation of this now dead mans rights.
No evidence whatsoever has been presented that Gray's arrest was "racially motivated" or that "the thing began as a racially motivated judgment against a black man" or that there was "abuse by another black man." And, nobody has been charged with "defending Gray's death." No charges have been brought "against the police department." You said "the cop had a choice to question the charges and proof." No, he didn't. Gray was never formally charged because he was dead when he was brought to the police station. You are jumping to way too many conclusions.
None of what you said in this post has anything to do with the riots and certainly is not justification for the riots. The cause of death had not even been determined when the riots started. In fact, it is still unknown just how the injuries occurred.
I can only lead you to the trough my friend. Your perspective is what continues the prejudice and misconceptions. While you are looking for a smoking gun, if you understand the analogy, you are ignoring the history.
I believe wrenchbiscuit is making the point that this case stems from a mindset that black lives DON'T matter, or somehow matter less. And this mindset is a consequence of white supremacist ideology which is pervasive in society. As such the color of those responsible is irrelevant. ANYONE can act in a way that supports and protects the status quo, even those who are part of the group that are negatively affected by it. In other words, a black person can internalize white supremacist ideology and adopt attitudes and behaviour that perpetuates it, just as much as a white person can. I'm sorry but your argument doesn't stand up.
There is absolutely no evidence to support that. If you have some evidence for that, please post it. Deliberate vandalism, robbery, arson and assault have to do with a mindset that no lives matter.
Half of the Baltimore police force is black; the Chief of Police in Baltimore is black; the mayor of Baltimore to whom the Chief of Police reports is black. I don't think any of them "internalize white supremacist ideology and adopt attitudes and behaviour that perpetuates it."
Since you don't live in America, you may not understand American society well.
All the information you need is available at your fingertips (but I'm guessing you won't try to find it). Does that mean all police officers involved in police brutality against African Americans have made a conscious and deliberate decision to cause harm because the victim is black? Of course not. That is what YOU are implying, and it's ridiculous. You don't have to be consciously biased to hold attitudes and assumptions about race that perpetuate white supremacist ideology.
What color are these children? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkpUyB2xgTM
Listen to what the black children are saying, and understand what it tells us. It tells us is that white supremacist ideology is pervasive and insidious. It is not about people deliberately and consciously being racist. It is about how cultural norms about "good"/"bad", "attractive"/"unattractive" are established and maintained. Everyone who lives in a society where such ideology exists will be affected by it, regardless of color, and whether they are conscious of it or not. And no that doesn't mean everyone is deliberately racist. It means everyone, regardless of color, has the capacity to make assumptions based on race. The difference is that a social group that has political, and economic dominance over another group is in a position to exploit, abuse and be unjust towards that other group. It's much more difficult for the group being oppressed to do the same. Unless of course you just think all these children are deliberate racists? Do you? If not, then explain their comments.
And yes there are black politicians, even a black President! And no of course not every black politician is complicit in the perpetuation of white supremacist ideology, and that's not what I said. In many cases black politicians are struggling to contend with the social problems they are faced with, and why wouldn't they be? Do you think because the Mayor of Baltimore is black, she can magically solve the socio-economic conditions that stem from white supremacist ideology? Or because the Chief of Police is black he can magically reverse the effects of hundreds of years of racial bias in society? Or because Officer Goodson is black that he is incapable of making assumptions based on race? Pointing out black people in positions of authority as if their existence somehow negates the existence of white supremacist ideology, betrays your ignorance of what that ideology actually is and how it works. I won't criticise you for that because we all have room to learn. But I will criticise you for parading that ignorance as knowledge though.
(And no, making assumptions about where I have lived, where I currently live, or where I am going to live, doesn't help your argument. It still doesn't stand up).
i feel you but they also need to be out there so that thenation and the government recognize that this cannot go on, and that changes need to be made in policies having to do with police, but in particular white police. I don"t agree with all their actions but i applaud them.
No change has ever come in this country without forcing the status quo to recognize there is a problem. If you oversimplify your perspective on this you ignore history and you become complicit to the institutionalized racism of the present and future.
First you have to prove that there is "institutionalized racism", which no one in this thread has proven so far.
But there IS institutionalized racism. When you are forced to hire based on skin color (race) rather than qualifications or provide limited educational opportunities based on race, it can be nothing else. And both are still going on.
The irony is sufficient to bring me to a state of nausea, after which I will probably start to hallucinate. This thread has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the depth of institutionalized racism in this society, by featuring a majority who choose to ignore the state of the world around them, and who refuse to accept the historical record of the last 500+ years. We are drowning in proof, yet Jed, Jethro, Ellie Mae, and Granny clamor for more.
This is nothing new. I have read many works by 18th and 19th century clergy, and secular writers alike, that claimed the evils of slavery were simply an exaggeration, and that slavery was actually good for the African, as it allowed him to learn the more refined ways of the European, through discipline and humility I am sure that many on this thread are actually blood relatives to these "scholars"; those who even used God to justify their depravity.
WB, I'm kind of disappointed. You were doing so well. I don't mean that sarcastically--I could tell that you were trying in your last couple of posts; the attitude change was refreshing. But why switch from priding yourself in not making personal attacks to insinuating that people in this forum who disagree with you are secretly praising slavery?
I don't think that many would argue that institutionalized racism isn't real. Affirmative Action alone proves that it is, and that's just one example among many.
There are, however, many (like myself) who think that several hundred years of slavery (which no American alive has had to endure and no American alive has instigated) and several hundred years of intense race-based oppression (which certainly few people under 40-50 have been affected by in any meaningful way) are BS excuses for why a black American today isn't as equally capable of succeeding or failing as anyone else (and equally capable of exercising free agency and taking personal responsibility for his or her own life and actions).
^ Uff da! I apologize for the length of that sentence.
If the goal is for black communities (and black Americans in general) to be able to improve their circumstances (and I don't think we disagree that this needs to happen in many places), that can only happen when people replace their excuses with personal accountability.
It only happens when people stop pretending that the things that some of our grandparents (add as many "greats" as you care to) may have done to each other is somehow writing the course of their lives in stone.
A kid getting straight D's in school doesn't improve his GPA by complaining about how a long history of unfair "privilege" is why the "A"-students get A's and that their success is relentlessly "oppressing" him into bad grades; he improves by buckling down and studying like pretty much every other student has had to do to be successful.
"BS excuses for why a black American today isn't as equally capable of succeeding or failing as anyone else"
I think this is the crux of the matter. How is equality measured when the school system you go to is substandard and your subsequent education is unable to allow you to compete with others who have an above average education to rise above you? You may say move out of that neighborhood and improve your chances. With what resources is this available to the poor? How about a job when your skin color precludes you from an equal chance? Yes it still goes on and I have seen it up front and personal.Just for a minute, throw out the educational and work options available for the black population and look at the crooked politicians that come out of these neighborhoods. What you have is elected black politicians who run around paying lip service to their constituency all the while making themselves richer. Baltimore has a whole crop of them right up to the top.These guys and gals are running around trying to quell the riot for what? To protect their positions and show that they have control of their charges. These guys should be run out of office on a rail. This farce of legal equality may make white America feel good about themselves and soothe the guilt of past slavery but the remnants of slavery feelings still exist and while not practiced outwardly is an internal struggle many whites wish to think does play out anymore.
rhamson, I would appreciate it that if you're going to quote me, you quote me in context.
You have cited problems arising form underfunded or lacking education, poverty, and legal representation--all things that have nothing to do with slavery or the extreme racial oppression of bygone eras. I feel that if you'd actually read all that I wrote, you'd have noticed that I didn't say that black Americans have no legitimate reasons for their problems. I only said that slavery and 1960's-esque racial oppression were BS excuses.
I don't feel like you can count being black as a disadvantage when looking for a job when Affirmative Action is specifically designed to give blacks (and other racial minorities) preference in hiring, even in situations where they may be under-qualified.
I've yet to see one company (or college, for that matter) willing to show that same lopsided preference for whites. When have you ever heard of a college or business telling a black applicant, "Sorry, it's just that we're only accepting/hiring whites right now so we can meet our quota"?
"This farce of legal equality may make white America feel good about themselves and soothe the guilt of past slavery..."
White America has no reason to need to make itself feel better about slavery because white Americans today have no reason to feel guilty about slavery. We took no part in it. A good number of white families (like mine) weren't even in the country till after slavery was abolished.
I'm not going to feel guilty for something I had no part or say in just because I'm equally white as the people who did. In the same way, no black person should be expected to feel guilty because some other, unrelated black person's great-great grandfather, say, robbed a bank in 1896.
Whenever racial injustice or inequality is mentioned, many white Americans will usually respond as follows:
• " Why should I feel guilty?"
First of all, nowhere on this thread has anyone stated directly, or implied that white Americans should feel guilty about the plight of the African on this continent. But I will explain why some feel a need to express their innocence. When an individual's identity, or their definition of self is greatly influenced by racism, nationalism, or xenophobia, any criticism directed at others who may appear to belong to the same class, race, or group, is interpreted as a direct attack upon their own character, when in truth, someone may simply be stating a fact.
For instance, if I speak of institutionalized racism, or a system of white supremacy. I am not suggesting that working class, or poor whites are responsible for laying the foundation of the system, as that would be ludicrous. The poor and the working class have always been subservient to the ruling elite. The system was set in place by the European aristocracy. What the poor and working class whites do is to help maintain and perpetuate the system, either through, apathy and denial, or through acceptance and direct action. This is not surprising, since a majority of Americans , white and black, will defend the state's right to number each citizen as a commodity, parcel the land into divisions of real estate that only the wealthiest can afford, and perpetually enslave the masses to a wage. The genius of this system is that it is self regulating, and self perpetuating. The average American citizen is most likely not even aware that they are being used and manipulated by the ruling class. Save for the fact that the average human can speak a language, and has prehensile hands, there is not much difference between human society, or a herd of livestock, whether that society be in Harlem, or Beverly Hills.
Rather than feel guilty, white Americans should feel angry about bending over for so many years, and only dreaming of vaseline.
LOL Your "system" of a ruling class coupled with a poorer and working class has been instituted on every continent and by every race on earth. That the current style and particulars in this country originated in Europe means nothing. Had it not been for the "system" we might still be sacrificing people to Huitzilopochtili. Or, alternatively, starving while cattle roam the streets. Or feeding Christians to the lions.
Overall, I'd have to say that the European system or capitalism has benefited the greatest number of people, and with the greatest good.
Your lack of acceptance or understanding does not change the facts. Apparently, as long as someone is making money, you call it progress. But the numbers don't lie. Human sacrifice is still practiced today, for the same old reasons, but only in a different form. Of course, human sacrifice occurred in the past, but it was greatly exaggerated by the conquistadors. It is also important to note that a majority of the First Nations did not practice human sacrifice.
In the past people were sacrificed to appease the gods so that a drought would end, or that there would be a good harvest etc.. In other words, people were sacrificed for some form of material gain. It is the same today. Only today people are sacrificed for money.
• In 1925 the number of annual traffic fatalities exceeded 20,000 in the United States. Since then it has steadily climbed, and fluctuated. Since 1963 the annual U.S. traffic fatalities have averaged around 40,000. Of course traffic related injuries are even higher. In 2013 there were over 2 million traffic related injuries, many of which caused permanent disability.
• It has been estimated that worldwide, by 2020 road traffic deaths and injuries will exceed HIV/AIDS as a burden of death and disability.
• Nearly a million children worldwide die every year as a result of unintentional injuries, and the biggest killer is traffic accidents, according to a report from the World Health Organization.
The report said MVC's, followed by drowning, fires and burns, falls, and poisoning, are the five major causes of unintentional injuries. About 830,000 children under 18 die every year, and millions more children suffer disabling injuries that could have been prevented, says Dr. Etienne Krug, the director of the Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention at WHO.
Of course the populace has been brainwashed into believing that traffic fatalities are a fact of life, and that traffic fatalities are just the cost of doing business. The human cost; in flesh and blood. The majority have accepted this : hook,line, and sinker. The drunk driver has been demonized and used as a convenient smoke screen. But the truth is that there is no such thing as a safe automobile. The truth is that the majority of MVC's are caused by motorists who are not intoxicated. The truth is that the automobile industry, the oil companies, the insurance companies, and cities that collect millions in annual revenue from traffic fines, all profit from the carnage.
Rather than promote mass transit on a large scale, the system has purposely been designed around the private automobile. to maximize profits, as well as to better control the populace. But what is most interesting is that a majority of those who profit from the automobile also assume the same risks. This tells us that convenience can easily become an addiction, and just like a heroin addict, Americans will risk their lives everyday for that convenience. The sad part is that with the current infrastructure, a nationwide mass transit system would be nearly as convenient as the private automobile. And yes, it is affordable! According to CNN Money: U.S. MVC's cost: $164.2 billion each year.! This money would be better spent on mass transit.
But this is only one of the many evils of capitalism. Another would be the high cancer rates of the last 60 years due to food additives and other industry related toxins. Yes , human sacrifice is alive and well. Of course you probably call traffic fatalities "accidents". But an accident is something that happens unexpectedly. Traffic fatalities and MVC's are predictable events. No one can say who and where, but we can be certain that by the end of this year, between 30-40,000 people will have died as the result of a traffic fatality. No, there is nothing; there is no convenience, or amount of money worth all of this unnecessary death and heartache. But of course, there is a difference between a human being, and a reptile.
Sorry, but human sacrifice (and most animal, for that matter) is illegal in this country. Nor are traffic fatalities any form of "sacrifice" at all: each and every one is completely voluntary. No one is forced to enter a car, and automobiles are not an "evil" of capitalism in spite of being bought and sold.
Because there will, statistically, be tens of thousands of deaths from auto accidents does NOT mean they are not accidents any more than knowing that there will be, statistically, 10,000+ injuries from ladders means that those are not accidents.
And you are quite wrong in that there is no convenience worth the deaths from auto accidents. The American public has voted and that vote is clear: the convenience of a car IS worth the carnage. While you think differently, you seem to be the minority. I would have included myself on your side, but...I own and use a car. The convenience must be worth the risk or I would not have one. How about you? Ever ride in a car?
Children do not voluntarily ride in cars. What world are you living in? They have to go wherever their parents or guardians tell them to go. Furthermore, many adults don't have a choice either. The system is stacked against them. In many parts of the country, there are no efficient mass transit systems. Consequently, if people don't choose to drive a car then they are unable to work. This can hardly be considered a choice.
According to WHO : " ... there are more than 164,000 emergency room-treated injuries and 300 deaths in the U.S. that are caused by falls from ladders each year..." Obviously, these are also predictable events also. Now you will know what to say the next time you fall off a ladder . When your significant other says, " Honey, why is your nose bleeding, and why does your arm appear to be broken in at least three places? You can reply, " I was up on the ladder, and it appears I suffered a predictable event!
By that reasoning no one could work before cars were common. I'd have to call BS on that one - I worked with a man that got too many DUI's and was reduced to a bicycle. In construction work that was a different location every other day, over a 20 mile radius. There are also things called "feet", in case you aren't familiar with them.
No, people drive cars because they like the convenience.
People are manipulated and led to the trough. There is nothing inherently evil about human weakness, but those who exploit that weakness for profit, in spite of the pain and misery it may cause, are the lowest common denominator.
So? Never made a sale or trade where you were happy with the result? It's called "exploiting" someone. And if you weren't happy with the result why did you do it?
Sorry, Wrench - I simply do not subscribe to the theory that no one is responsible for their own actions. We all make choices ourselves, and if they are bad ones we are still responsible for making them. Many (most) will try to blame someone else ("They led me to the trough!"), but at the end of the day they are still responsible for themselves.
"things that have nothing to do with slavery or the extreme racial oppression of bygone eras."
"I didn't say that black Americans have no legitimate reasons for their problems. I only said that slavery and 1960's-esque racial oppression were BS excuses."
I did not take anything out of context. I only cited your conclusions. It is funny how dismissive you are of the history and continued harsh feelings that pervade our society and its treatment of, in societies actions, to the lesser people in our country. You just cannot take 200 years of slavery where society treated a people like cattle, bred them for their strength and subservient characteristics and sold their progeny off in auctions to the destruction of a cohesive family unit. Then once "FREED" or an action that resembled it because of their conditioning, left them to Jim Crow laws to fend for themselves.
"I don't feel like you can count being black as a disadvantage when looking for a job when Affirmative Action is specifically designed to give blacks (and other racial minorities) preference in hiring, even in situations where they may be under-qualified."
Affirmative action only refers to large companies and government criteria outlined under E.O.E. laws. The largest contingent of jobs in the US are of small business' where E.O.E. does not apply.
"When have you ever heard of a college or business telling a black applicant, "Sorry, it's just that we're only accepting/hiring whites right now so we can meet our quota"?"
Never on paper or in a recording because they would open themselves up to all sorts of litigation.
"White America has no reason to need to make itself feel better about slavery because white Americans today have no reason to feel guilty about slavery. We took no part in it. A good number of white families (like mine) weren't even in the country till after slavery was abolished."
Once again dismissive of the problem and it ramifications. So many "Patriots" beat on their chest and tell us all what a great country the USA is in its ethics of equality and freedom when the truth is that we enslaved a race to help the southern white plantation owners to become immensely wealthy. In addition to enslaving a race of people we destroyed their social structure, family unit, dreams and ambition. Sure some and in some cases many have risen above the rest but in most cases these people were extraordinary individuals.
"I'm not going to feel guilty for something I had no part or say in just because I'm equally white as the people who did."
Oh I believe this just from your statements and demeanor. Your response borders on a sociopath reasoning as related to the past and how inconvenient feelings of humility and understanding might get in the way. In other words screw the past because I was not there?
"In the same way, no black person should be expected to feel guilty because some other, unrelated black person's great-great grandfather, say, robbed a bank in 1896."
Totally different reasoning when referencing a total societies feelings and dealings of enslaving and using a portion of their society to serve them even though the enslaved did nothing to warrant the injustices heaped on them. Your convenient dismissing of those actions alone are inexcusable.
How long do you recommend that white people feel guilt about slavery? Would another hundred years do for you? Or maybe two hundred? How long do they have to wait before you are satisfied with their level of guilt?
+1 Slavery had nothing to do with the riots in Baltimore.
"How long do you recommend that white people feel guilt about slavery?"
As long as it takes to allow those enslaved as a race in the past have a reparation of their place in the mainstream of this country. If you cannot make the connection of how the dismemberment of their place in society was established and until just fifty years ago was recognized then you cannot understand the problem.A sub culture of these people has been established in absence of opportunity and responsible assimilation into this society. With recent riots, demonstrations, looting and marches nothing has changed in the fifty years that MLK was killed. A conversation needs to have two parties to agree there is a problem and what that problem is before any reparation or change can take place.
Then what are YOU suggesting is the reason for these problems? It SOUNDS like you (and others) are saying that black people are the problem. Is that what you're saying?
Absolutely not. All poor culture in America is the result of the same thing. The huge percentage of fathers abandoning families is the main problem I believe. Nearly fifty percent in whites and 70 percent in blacks(in poor communities, not in the entire population). It's not really a black or white issue at all. It's a cultural issue. It has a lot to do with what's on the Internet and what's on TV too. Our youth are growing up without any sense of purpose and poor morals. It shows more in the black community because there is a higher percentage of blacks that are poor per population. Although the gap is quickly closing.
In 1940, the illegitimacy rate for black babies was about 14%. Today, it is 75%. In 2014, 72% of all black children were living in homes without a father.
According to this report from Allan C. Brownfeld, J.D. "Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime. They are nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison."
Living without a father in the home does not mean that the father is not involved in their children's lives. On the contrary, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that black fathers (in the home or not) are more involved with their kids than white or Latino dads. Go figure.
There are two reasons why single parent homes played a part in the riots in Baltimore. One reason is that, according to the Maryland Department of Human Resources, in the four Baltimore ZIP Codes where the rioting occurred, there are about 3,000 men who collectively own more than $40 million in back child support payments. This forces children to depend upon and expect welfare payments to support them instead of their parents. If the child doesn't have all that he needs or wants, he thinks the government or the system is to blame.
The second reason is marriage itself. When a child grows up without parents who love each other and are committed to each other and are planning their future together, it adversely affects their children's lives emotionally, not just financially. That is the single difference between most black children and most white children in America.
The decision to have children out-of-wedlock and to not support those children financially is not the result of racism, or white supremacy theories, or past slavery, or oppression. In an age where birth control is an option available for free to the poor, the parents are solely responsible for these decisions and no one else. These parents are the ones to blame, and no one else. The statistics show that Beyoncé was right: "If you liked it, then you shoulda put a ring on it."
"The decision to have children out-of-wedlock and to not support those children financially is not the result of racism, or white supremacy theories, or past slavery, or oppression."
Well stated by someone who looks at the problem from the outside. Is this your statement or an extrapolation of the truth from your theories? Or is it just convenient to have an opinion of something you view from overseas?
The thing is, I agree. I think the things you mention are definitely part of the problem. Most of all, I agree when you say it has a lot to do with poverty, so it impacts black people more because a higher percentage of black people are poor. The difference is that I ALSO think racial bias within important social structures and institutions is a factor, and makes the problem even worse.
Given the evidence that shows racial bias exists within the court system(1), education(2), law enforcement(3), employment(4) and finance(5), I think it's unreasonable to believe that a) racial bias doesn't exist and b) that this racial bias is not part of the problem. For me (and others I suspect) it is this blatant denial of absolute facts that makes your position so incomprehensible. I genuinely cannot fathom why you insist racial bias is not part of the problem.
(1) black men are given longer prison sentences than white men for the same crime, even when they have a similar criminal history;
(2) black children are suspended from school more often than white children for the same behavior;
(3) people with African-American-sounding names get 50% less call backs than those with white-sounding names when sending out a CV with the same employment and education history.
(4) black people searched more often than white people when stopped by police, even though statistics show more white people carrying contraband.
(5) "During the bubble, minority borrowers were much likelier than white borrowers to end up with high-priced subprime mortgages, even when their incomes and credit scores were similar. Such loans often set those borrowers up to fail. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition recently found that in Washington, D.C., minority homeowners were far more likely to go into foreclosure than white owners with similar credit scores and loan sizes."(Refinancing Bias: Does Race Play a Factor - Woodstock Institute)
So because I said that I believe the slavery in the US (which no black person alive has had to endure) and 1960s-esque racial oppression (which nobody under 40-50 years old has been meaningfully affected by) are two BS excuses for black Americans today, that somehow automatically means that I'm blaming blacks for all their problems?
Wow. Jump to conclusions much?
There are several reasons for these problems. Breakdown of family structure, gangs, low income, demographics, state of the local economy, underfunded schools, etc. But if you'll notice, none of these things are *intrinsic* to being black. In fact, they have little-to-nothing to do with race. Period. Any white, Hispanic, Asian, or other community would be negatively affected in similar ways under the same conditions.
Communities of any race will experience more joblessness, homelessness, crime, and violence when they live in a predominately low-income area where schools are underfunded, the local economy is weak, crime isn't effectively dealt with, gang violence goes unchecked etc.
Because the effects of the consequences are universally transferable, they can't be innately linked to being of any one particular race.
Wow. Defensive much?
I'm asking, not telling, which suggests I'm seeking clarification not jumping to conclusions. As I said to janesix, I absolutely agree that those issues you and she mention do contribute to the social problems under discussion, but I ALSO think racial bias is a factor (see my comment to her for examples).
Also, it's not enough to just say all these things are factors, and leave it there. You have to ask WHY do proportionally more black people live in poverty? WHY is the income of African Americans 77% of white Americans? WHY is the wealth of African Americans 5% of the wealth of white Americans? WHY do gangs exist and thrive in urban areas? WHY and HOW is the family structure being broken down? Those questions will inevitably lead you to the criminal justice system and law enforcement, education, employment and finance and that is where you WILL start to see the problems that are specific to skin color. It's also where your denials about race being a factor, gets into the realm of denying facts. And that is where your position loses credibility in my eyes (and I suspect the eyes of others too). This adamant rejection that racial bias has anything to do with the social issues mentioned is frankly irrational in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
Nothing excuses the riot in Baltimore, burning down your own neighborhood, damaging or destroying 200 neighborhood businesses and places of employment, burning 144 vehicles, robbing, assaulting, raising insurance premiums for everyone in the neighborhood, etc. That riot caused millions of dollars in damages and will set that neighborhood behind for decades to come. Racists didn't destroy that neighborhood; black street thugs did.
What has peaceful voting or demonstrating done to bring the causes to light? What has petitioning and applications for employment in principally white business done to improve their lot? The answer is, through rioting, has said nothing. Once the cameras were turned off only because the rioting has stopped the issues surrounding these riots are slowly dissipating just as the politicians want it to and with it the causes for the unrest. A lot of lip service is being applied to shut this down. Time will tell whether another invitation to the cameras will be needed to get something done.
And what has riotiing done to improve their lot? Besides driving away the businesses they want to work at, that is?
Well, it increases crime. It destroys business opportunities. It scares away the people that could make a difference. It raises taxes. And, at the top of the list, it increases the power of idiots like Sharpton that use race and rage to grow their business.
So what! They never lost something they never had. The thing they did gain was attention. And that attention is the fear from neighborhoods that have the fat and happy ignoring the problem. Maybe that fear will at least start a conversation. By the way they never had that before either.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, " A little rebellion now and then is a good thing"
"..In Britain, even those politicians considered friends of the colonies were appalled and this act united all parties there against the colonies. The Prime Minister Lord North said, "Whatever may be the consequence, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over..."
"...The British government felt this action could not remain unpunished, and responded by closing the port of Boston and putting in place other laws known as the "Coercive Acts ..."
" ... A number of colonists were inspired to carry out similar acts, such as the burning of the Peggy Stewart. The Boston Tea Party eventually proved to be one of the many reactions that led to the American Revolutionary War.
In his December 17, 1773 entry in his diary, John Adams wrote:
Last Night 3 Cargoes of Bohea Tea were emptied into the Sea. This Morning a Man of War sails.
This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History..."
It appears that "magnificent" violent acts and the destruction of property is as American as apple pie. Perhaps the masses in inner cities across America will follow suit, and burn their ghetto prisons to the ground. No one listens or pays attention to peaceful protest. The Revolutionary War is a perfect example of this. Peaceful protest very rarely accomplishes anything, other than helping the status quo to remain in place. James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Medger Evers, Martin Luther King, and tens of thousands more can attest to the fact that the black Civil Rights movement was never a "peaceful movement". If so, then we need to rethink the Law of Gravity.
Yep! The tea party, carried out by the evil white supremacy group running the world. And now other races have joined the evil as well.
Perhaps we should rethink the Law of Gravity; if we can foment a world wide riot, burning civilization to the ground everywhere, we might all float to the moon! Good thinking!
Oh? The stores they burned were never there to begin with? They were all just an illusion, no doubt brought on by the evil system?
It's been years since you have lived here. They could no more afford the products on the shelves than your man in the moon reasoning. The CVS employed 40 or 50 people out of the 100,000 or so that live in the area. Good reasoning. It is no better than telling them to eat cake.
Really? If no one can afford the products, what is paying the wages of the store clerk? How does it stay in operation?
And I've never lived in the ghetto or any inner city. Closest I've ever come is a suburb of a small city. Always been rural, mostly in a very poor county, where poverty was being poor, not just claiming to be. (When I moved there in 1974, nearly half the county had no running water, for instance. Poor, in other words.)
Then you have nothing to relate to with this event. Only judgment is what you are capable of in this instance. As far who is buying the products? Not enough to build that many stores to worry about. Your version of poor with has nothing to do with poor and disadvantaged.
"Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood.
Urban riots are a special form of violence. They are not insurrections. The rioters are not seeking to seize territory or to attain control of institutions. They are mainly intended to shock the white community. They are a distorted form of social protest.
The looting which is their principal feature serves many functions. It enables the most enraged and deprived Negro to take hold of consumer goods with the ease the white man does by using his purse. Often the Negro does not even want what he takes; he wants the experience of taking. But most of all, alienated from society and knowing that this society cherishes property above people, he is shocking it by abusing property rights.
There are thus elements of emotional catharsis in the violent act. . . . It is also noteworthy that the amount of physical harm done to white people other than police is infinitesimal and in Detroit whites and Negroes looted in unity."
(Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.)
Nice excuse...but I didn't see many white people in the pics of the Baltimore riots. Just blacks, losing what little they had built over the years to the thieves and thugs of the riot.
Here are a couple to chew on. Anybody can look these up to their own advantage. There is a unrest simmering within this so called free society. When you get down to brass tacks there are only a privileged few who have access to freedom.
"The principle of self defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi." - MLK
"It is incontestable and deplorable that Negroes have committed crimes; but they are derivative crimes. They are born of the greater crimes of the white society." - MLK
Again, do you see how King is able to UNDERSTAND the contributing factors, and even EMPATHIZE with those who perform violent actions, while at the same time recognising the LIMITATIONS of such actions? He isn't crudely denying the facts just so he can make events fit the narrative he chooses to construct. He's acknowledging the complexity, contradictory, messy nature of racial politics, lived out in the real world, while at the same time eloquently expressing his own ethical and moral position. That's why I think his view on this subject is credible, and yours is not. Aspiring to the ideal, WITHOUT misrepresenting reality, is what separates this reasoned view, from your unreasonable one.
And that's what you choose to cherry-pick from that whole quote, the part about white people? Just going to ignore the other parts, like: "Urban riots must now be recognized as durable social phenomena. They may be deplored, but they are there and should be understood". See how he said that riots may be DEPLORED, i.e. nobody LIKES rioting, but should be understood. See how he is able to keep two ideas in his mind at the same time, without confusing them. The idea that we can UNDERSTAND such behaviour without CONDONING it? See how that works?
No. I just disagree. This is not the time of MLK, and I don't think the "reasoning" he attributes to the rioter, such as it was, applies.
The riots we see today are not about an abused black man feeling good about stealing. It is about a thug, black OR white, destroying. And it doesn't matter what is destroyed; the "fun" lies in destruction and not in some kind of cathartic relief from hurting whitey. It stems from a very different root - while MLK may well have been at least partially right (I'm disturbed that he portrays blacks so stupid as to be unable to figure out who they are actually hurting), the rioters today don't care. They are there just to destroy and have fun doing it. They are a mob without a brain at all, just having fun. It is merely vandalism to the nth degree, nothing more.
And this is the issue. For you it's completely beyond the realm of possibility that there might have been a lot of DIFFERENT motivations involved, because there were a whole lot of DIFFERENT people involved, with DIFFERENT thoughts, feelings, ideas, experiences, and reasons for being there. It's this inability to accept basic reality about PEOPLE that makes your view so unreasonable.
How about this? There were lots of people in Baltimore at the time of the riots. Some of them rioted because they enjoyed the violence; some because they got caught up in the moment; some because they wanted to "stick it to the man"; some because they were angry and wanted to vent their frustration; some rioted because they didn't want to be seen as 'chicken'; some because it was a great opportunity to get some free stuff; some rioted hoping it would bring attention to the issues; some have no idea why they got involved, they just did; some who were there DIDN'T riot at all; some actively tried to STOP the rioting, and put themselves in harms way in the process; some saw the rioting, got scared and went home etc. etc.
Anyone who knows anything about people, knows that the above is much more realistic than the idea that EVERY PERSON THERE had the SAME motives, the SAME thoughts, the SAME ideas, and the SAME reasons for being there: thuggery. That's absurd. And in fact it dehumanizes the people involved. It turns them into robots with no diversity of thought, motive or intelligence. So no, you don't need to be disturbed by MLK's comments; he isn't dehumanising anybody. You are. And the greatest concern is the fact that you don't even appear to realize it.
“...After all, acknowledging unfairness then calls decent people forth to correct those injustices. And since most persons are at their core, decent folks, the need to ignore evidence of injustice is powerful: To do otherwise would force whites to either push for change (which they would perceive as against their interests) or live consciously as hypocrites who speak of freedom and opportunity but perpetuate a system of inequality.
The irony of American history is the tendency of good white Americans to presume racial innocence. Ignorance of how we are shaped racially is the first sign of privilege.
In other words. It is a privilege to ignore the consequences of race in America.”
― Tim Wise
Acknowledging anything more than "thuggery" as a cause or explanation for some rioters' behavior would require him to feel uncomfortable and, perhaps, feel the need to take some responsibility for the perpetuation of a system in which he, a white male, has a distinct advantage. It is much easier to point fingers, judge, and blame. It is then someone else's problem. No action required. Just a continuation of the comfortable status quo.
You're absolutely right, PP. I take exactly zero blame for the racism exhibited here. Nor do I take any blame for the riots of Baltimore - not a single looter or arsonist had race on their mind anyway. And yes, I had the "advantage" of being a white male - losing jobs and education opportunities from "the system" of affirmative action when legalized racism (and sexism) was enforced through the country.
Whether you think so or not is immaterial to me, but the heroes of the Baltimore action were many. They were the cops ordered to stand there and watch as their neighborhood was burned and they were attacked, without replying with bullets. They were the family and pastor of Gray, begging for peace even before the riots started. They were the regular people that lined up in front of the cops to protect them. One was the mother slapping her ignorant kid back into the house.
They were not those with matches, rocks, or clubs that became vandals for no other reason than it was fun. And no, it wasn't for some grand feeling or purpose; it was because it was fun to destroy the work and labor of others. Too stupid or lazy to build, they chose destruction instead and deserve no praise or excuses for their actions.
“Privilege is driving a smooth road and not even knowing it.”
To which I can only repeat my earlier comment: "You're absolutely right, PP. I take exactly zero blame for the racism exhibited here."
You certainly nailed that one! It also brings back the selfishness of the "what about me" mentality.
"I take exactly zero blame for the racism exhibited here. Nor do I take any blame for the riots of Baltimore"
This is where the problem begins and continues to snowball into a riot condition. What we vote for and who we support in running the country has everything to do with the racism and unrest we are beginning to see. You think you live in a comfy vacuum in your rural setting and cast judgment upon those less fortunate because you have worked very hard to get what you want. Somehow you believe others who have also worked hard and failed due to their community and racial make up should just work harder? The more you support the elite political structure of sending all the money to the top the more you contribute to the eventual tumult that will result. This is how you are to blame as well as many others
"Somehow you believe others who have also worked hard and failed due to their community and racial make up should just work harder?"
Sure. We can guess that the rioters in Baltimore have worked hard and failed. And we could guess wrong - I doubt that more than a few percent of them have ever held a job in their life. The workers can be seen lining up in front of the cops, trying to save what they've earned. Vandals, on the other hand, have never worked for anything and thus don't care if it's destroyed.
But it always sounds good, doesn't it? Black people feel oppressed (although they aren't) and thus can blame whites for their lack of ambition and work ethic (and morals in the case of rioters). So give more to support them, require legal racism to make them feel better, and that way we can permanently lock them into the largess of Uncle Sam.
Sorry, but I just do not swallow any of it. Race has nothing to do with it, whether they had slave ancestors or not. Unwillingness to support themselves does. Men that create babies without a thought of supporting them does. Women that create babies knowing there will be no father and no way of supporting them does. Uneducated parents that think their children should be the same does.
Guessing at what the conditions that created this catastrophe were and then determining an attitude is exactly what the rest of white bread America has chosen to do and continue as a reaction. Expect more of this as the gap of the haves and the have nots widens and the unrest continues toward a police state to make sure the status quo has no responsibility or enact actions to help the country in favor of greedy and selfish policies.
The fact that you paint "white bread America" with the same brush is discrimination. You are making an untrue statement about people just because they are white. All white people don't have the same opinion of anything just like husbands and wives don't agree with each other about everything.
The fact that some people are poor and some are rich ignores the fact that there is a huge middle class in America and that it has the greatest influence in the polling booths, choosing legislators and city mayors.
Then you don't understand the term. How long have you been gone? White-bread people or things that are ordinary and boring, and often those that are typical of white Americans is not as broad a brush as you would have us believe. Most of America is appalled at the riots and the conditions leading up to it. When people are oppressed there can be the loss of logic, common sense and legality when it explodes. While this is not an excuse it is a reason. Whether or not you accept the reason is not germane to the argument. That you understand the reason is a step in the right direction.
Put WHITE and it's racism, yet blacks can have any black organization they want, black-only scholarships etc.
Black Student Union
Congressional Black Congress
Black History Month
American Association of Blacks in Energy
Association of Black Psychologists
National Association of Black Journalists
National Black Business Council
National Black Chamber of Commerce
National Black NBA Association
National Council of Negro Women
United Negro College Fund
African American Museum Association
Association of Black American Ambassadors
Association of Black Women in Higher Education
And the list goes on and on. Where is the real racism in the United States?
Blacks are PRIVILEGED in the US.
JANESIX, you are absolutely right. American blacks are definitely privileged people. After all, they live in a country that is truly The Land of Opportunity.
"Anti-white racism is rampant in Black Studies programs which are generally indoctrination programs in left wing politics."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/09/bo … al-tweets/
"If she were a white racist rather than an anti-white racist, she would never be hired. Professors are supposed to be experts in some scholarly field, and professionals in their classroom discourse. They don’t have a license to indoctrinate students in their prejudices — whether those prejudices are right or left,” he said"
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … z3ZfT2ICwJ
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Whites have a new one:
http://toprightnews.com/colorado-bbq-to … te-people/
where a Colorado BBQ outfit run by a Hispanic wants a white appreciation day, giving whites 10% off at his store.
Of course, there were immediate threats of lawsuits as well as lots of hate mail: as you point out, to have a black day is fine and wonderful, but white days are verboten.
And it's ok to have "black pride" , but if you have "white pride" you are a racist or a white supremacist or white nationalist.
It's especially not ok to be a white male in this country. It's ok to make fun of white males, especially in commercials etc. where it's ok to portray them as morons and dolts.
Then you are in the all or nothing camp as well. There are those on the left that would say all black people are being oppressed and then there are those on the right who say as you state no one is being oppressed. It is a good thing to cancel each other out as that way eithers input can be categorized as unrealistic and others who wish to move onto reasoning their way through this can ignore both. Thanks.
I did not say "blame," I said "responsibility." And, I did not say responsibility for the Baltimore riots, but for the continuation of systemic racism. Those who refuse to acknowledge it exists are enabling its perpetuation.
Except that there is no "systematic racism". Just lies to support people's conscious decisions to fail in life and not take responsibility for themselves.
"Systemic," not "systematic." Your certainty that there is no systemic racism, despite the overwhelming evidence, is appalling. I understand your plight, though, even though I can't justify it.
"Facts matter not at all. Perception is everything. It's certainty."
You are mistaken: I fully recognize that there were many motives apparent that day in Baltimore, and many different actions, though I don't really accept Gray as a motive at all and do find that the "motive" for the wanton and stupid destruction was nothing but vandalism. Anyone smart enough to lift a spoon to their mouth knows that burning the neighborhood drug store isn't going to help. Even that idiot Sharpton will tell you that.
But the topic here was set many posts ago: "Nothing excuses the riot in Baltimore, burning down your own neighborhood..." by writer fox, and it is that which I address. There is no excuse for the rioting, and I don't care what the motivation was, it needed to be stopped. If rioters got hurt in the process, so be it - it could well help prevent such madness in the future. The topic isn't those trying to stop it, it isn't the people caught in the street when it happened. It's about those that chose (chose mind you) to destroy an already poverty ridden neighborhood.
There's some contradiction here: "I fully recognize that there were many motives apparent that day in Baltimore. . ." but then you say "I don't really accept Gray as a motive at all and do find that the "motive" for the wanton and stupid destruction was nothing but vandalism". You can't have it both ways.
Yes this started because of the comment by writer fox: "Nothing excuses the riot in Baltimore, burning down your own neighborhood". I responded that "Understanding WHY someone takes a particular action, is not the same as EXCUSING that action", and pointed out that even though MLK criticised violence, he recognised the importance of understanding and acknowledging the reasons behind it.
Then you suggested "[the rioters] are there just to destroy and have fun doing it". And I pointed out that yes, there were people who chose to riot purely for the fun of doing it, but it's unreasonable to suggest that ALL those who rioted did so for the same reason. I stick by that, it is unreasonable. And I repeat that it dehumanizes the people involved, because it suggests that they are all robots with the same thoughts, ideas, and motives. Common sense tells us that's plain nonsense.
But my main criticism goes back to what writer fox said. The idea that because I am able to acknowledge and talk about the socio-economic circumstances that cause such riots, I must therefore be excusing that behaviour. Again, common sense tells us that the first step to solving a problem is understanding the root cause. Vandalism is not the root cause of the riots. It's the symptom, not the disease and there's point just treating the symptom. The disease is the socio-economic circumstances that contribute to the inequality between black/white, rich/poor. The idea that simply considering those issues in relation to the rioting, is somehow "excusing" rioting, is just more nonsense, and it's an insult to any reasonable person's intelligence. It also makes discussions around race even harder, which helps no one, hence my criticism.
"I fully recognize that there were many motives apparent that day in Baltimore. . ."
And so there were, from vandalism to excitement to protecting what they had. I intentionally did not limit it to rioters, just to people in Baltimore. But I did limit rioters to vandalism, and stand by that. No one smart enough to pound salt thinks that wanton destruction of friends and neighbors, of innocent people, is going to help their socio-economic status. Particularly when they aren't willing to do anything else.
It might explain demonstrating, it might even explain some anger and rocks at cops. I could even see it escalating to the stupidity of trashing cop cars, but it simply does not explain burning and destroying, and it does not explain simple theft (did you see the interior of those stores?). Both remain in the vandalism category, not in the idea that the those poor, pitiful people live in such a racist climate that they can never get out on their own and their rage overcomes them so they break windows and steal rolls of toilet paper.
And neither was the looting and destructing about Gray, for much the same reasons.
Thanks for the clarification.
Regardless of what you think of the rioters' actions, the same thinking you applied to the people of Baltimore in general must also apply to the rioters. They are diverse in ideas, thoughts, feelings, motivations etc, and the fact they committed acts which are illegal does not change that. Diversity of thought is the nature of people, and the beauty of people. No two of us are exactly the same. That's a very basic truth about human beings that you are denying because you happen not to like the actions they took.
Stripping the rioters of ALL political intention and motivation, and insisting they were ALL nothing more than mindless thugs, just serves as a way to avoid addressing the deep-rooted social issues which sparked the riots in the first place.
It also dehumanizes the rioters by stripping them of any diversity of thought and motivation (part of their humanity). That makes it easier to categorise the rioters as "them", and not "us". The effect of dehumanizing is that it makes it easier to harm people, because it's easier to harm, or allow others to harm, people we see as "them", than people we see as "us".
The reality is that the rioters were no different in terms of their diversity of thought and motivations than anyone else in Baltimore or anyone else in the world. As much as you would like to make a distinction between yourself and the people who rioted, whether you like it or not, they are not "them", they are "us". When "they" damage "their" community, it is in fact US damaging OUR society.
Now let me be clear. I am not "excusing" or "justifying" violent behaviour. In my opinion there are more positive ways that such anger and frustration can (and were) expressed. Nevertheless, some people did choose to engage in violence, and it is entirely reasonable to suggest that some of them were indeed mindless thugs. It is entirely unreasonable to suggest that ALL the rioters were mindless thugs, with NO political intention or motivation whatsoever. I'm sorry, but that is a denial of reality. It's an irrational argument.
Only "some" of them burned 200 businesses and 144 cars.
"the same thinking you applied to the people of Baltimore in general must also apply to the rioters"
Really? The woman slapping her kid off the streets has the mindset and motivations of a rioter? The people lined up, protecting the cops from rioters, has the same mindset of wanton and stupid destruction?
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Because those intent on destruction ARE mindless thugs, without political motivation or intent. While you can pretend they had higher motives than vandalism, glorifying their actions into something of value, it just wasn't so - they were there for the fun of destroying and stealing - nothing more.
In the next sentence I told you exactly what thinking I was referring to: "They are diverse in ideas, thoughts, feelings, motivations etc. . ." That's the thinking you applied to the people of Baltimore in general. The same applies to the rioters, who are also from Baltimore and also human beings. They are no less likely to have diverse motivations than any other group of human beings, even if the are acting the same way. The woman "slapping her kid off the streets" was using violence that day too, but she had a different motivation. Same action, different motive. That's exactly my point.
That implies all the rioters had a mindset of "wanton, stupid destruction". Again, it's likely they didn't all have that mindset. Much more likely that there were lots of different thoughts, feelings and motives among those rioters, as there would be among any group of human beings.
Civil disorder has been used throughout history as a form of political protest, particularly by those who feel disenfranchised. So no, people who are "intent on destruction" are not always "mindless thugs". And unless you can categorical prove what was in the mind of EVERY person who rioted, it is completely unreasonable to suggest that ALL the people who rioted did so "without political motivation or intent". By considering the social context and common sense knowledge of human beings, it's much more likely that some people rioting had a political motivation or intent, and some didn't. That's the most reasonable conclusion.
I think there are better alternatives to violent behaviour, but I absolutely refuse to accept irrational statements about the rioters just because they did something I happen to not like. When someone does things we don't agree with, we can't just abandon reason for the sake of convenience. That's what you are doing, and it's beneath you.
I am sure your last statement was rhetorical. When a woman is at rock bottom, she can only dig in an upward, or lateral direction.
You're right. I'll give you that 1%, maybe even up to 5%, had some motive other than fun or simple theft. But no more than that, and I won't give you even that 1% that had some glorious racial "cause" to better the black man or even "protest" the miserable state of affairs in the ghetto.
Where do you get 1% - 5% from? If you have reliable evidence to suggest that figure, I'd like to see it. If not, then you're just saying random numbers. You can't just make up figures to support your own view. Actually you can, but quoting made-up percentages doesn't make your view any more objective or reasonable. I think the most that can reasonably be said is that, of those people who rioted, it's likely some had political motivations, and others didn't. If you want to quantify that, then you need concrete evidence. Anything else is just speculation.
But it's not just about being rational, it's also about being pragmatic. As you know, finding solutions starts with understanding the problems, and that starts with asking the right questions. The question you and others seem to be ignoring is, why was a part of society so angry, so frustrated and so distressed that damaging the local community seemed like a good option? We have a choice: address that question with a view to finding long term solutions; or we can express moral outrage, dismiss the issue by calling those responsible 'mindless', then move on to the next 'story' in the news cycle while we wait for it to happen again somewhere else. Which of those do you think is the more useful approach?
"The question you and others seem to be ignoring is, why was a part of society so angry, so frustrated and so distressed that damaging the local community seemed like a good option?"
This is the truest question I have heard yet in light of the finger pointing and slandering of the community. ++++++++++++++
"The question you and others seem to be ignoring is, why was a part of society so angry, so frustrated and so distressed that damaging the local community seemed like a good option?"
No I'm not. While you assume that the riots were about anger and frustration, they weren't. They were about vandalism and fun of destruction.
"Which of those do you think is the more useful approach?"
Do you find that giving these vandals what they want (total support, from cradle to grave) has accomplished anything at all, beyond making the problem worse? Have we encouraged (or forced) a productive citizenry by supporting them? Or forever locked them into government control, forever dependent on someone else for their needs?
"While you assume that the riots were about anger and frustration, they weren't. They were about vandalism and fun of destruction."
And all you have back in Idaho is an assumption it was not. What proof do you have it wasn't? Do you know any of the people who live there? I do and everyday is an exercise in survival. You also assume that they are all on the take on welfare looking for handouts. Did you come up with that yourself or was it something you learned from the mainstream media in the process of coming up with your assumptions about all these people rioting. Freddy was the tipping point for the unrest and rioting a result of releasing frustration with the police and the lack of opportunity in the area. Or perhaps you made a trip to Baltimore unbeknownst to us and can give us some insight as to who you talked to in reaching your conclusions.
To what are you referring? Have I visited Baltimore? Yes I work there occasionally, have business and personal friends and family that live there. I live about 30 minutes from it. I have had many conversations in Baltimore about Baltimore and come back with my information personally.
I have the same indicative you do that it was due to deep political considerations - assumption. Or have you interviewed the rioters with in-depth questions to find the psychological roots of their mindless actions?
Baltimore has one of the highest rates in the country for charity. It seems likely that most of it goes to the inner city, ghetto dwellers - where the riots were. Or would you rather use made up rules that fly in the face of common sense to "prove" that the people and their families that rioted don't use welfare?
While you keep claiming that racist cops are to blame for riots, it doesn't make it true. Burning and looting have nothing to do with frustration with cops OR lack of opportunity in the area in spite of the immense desire to turn rioters into reasonable human beings instead of the mindless animals they are. And yes, I've been to Baltimore in the past - can you list the rioters you interviewed for your knowledge of their "reasoning"? Or are you simply taking the thoughts of those that didn't riot and applying it to rioters?
Ditto to you. When was the last time you visited Charm City? Do you know anybody who rioted and interviewed them? Or are you just genuflecting with your massive knowledge of politics and statistics of the area. As to your question I talk to a lot of people from the area and get two different answers. I know police who have told me instances of "tuning up some "Ni@@ers" in arrests while claiming they got hurt by themselves or resisting arrest when in fact they did not. I also have talked to people (black) who live in the area since I work around there regularly and they have constantly complained there are no jobs. They have often asked me if I am hiring. Yes there is McDonald's and such but nothing that can help them out of their condition. Do you think that might have something to do with the public assistance being kind of high around here? You would have us believe it is either laziness or lack of character that these "thugs" rioted but it just did not happen because everyone was bored. Like I said and Don said, "why was a part of society so angry, so frustrated and so distressed that damaging the local community seemed like a good option?" Because there is nothing getting done to improve the situation. Guess what there still is nothing getting done.
I was speaking to a laborer (black) on a job site recently and he said the problem between the races is that white people want to believe nothing is racially motivated while black people feel everything is racially motivated.
So you talk to people that didn't join the riot and conclude from their statements of their personal feelings that rioters burned and destroyed from a deep-seated desire to better themselves.
And you don't see anything wrong with that approach and conclusion?
I don't know if any of them rioted but I do know what I have been told and who said anything about bettering anything as a reason. I said it was out of frustration of the community towards first police harassment and then the circumstances they live in. We can only hope that something good can happen in the aftermath with the investigations. The governor has already cleared the last hurdles of police cameras and their funding. This was held up for the past three years in litigation and allocating funding. So something good has already happened.
Yes - you know what you have been told. Such as rioters had nothing more on their mind than destruction and fun. You would just rather pick and choose what you'd like to believe as true, and pick that frustration with no job made someone torch Walgreens and smash cars.
Now you find that burning and looting makes more funds available for cameras and are the cause that they will now be more common. Good thinking!
"Yes - you know what you have been told."
I have it from the peoples mouth. I would take that a little more seriously than the infomercial you learn your information from. It seems you are the one picking and choosing from half assed reporting by the
infotainment some call news. And by the way it was a CVS store that was brought into the city. Much of the employees came from outside of the neighborhood in an effort to curb shoplifting. The only way it helped the neighborhood was by having some convenience to spend what little money they had.
"Now you find that burning and looting makes more funds available for cameras and are the cause that they will now be more common. Good thinking!"
That is so convoluted from what I said I can't get a grasp on what you mean. The rioting and looting got the government to act on the complaints of police harassment and brutality by now streamlining the new policy of putting cameras on the police to monitor their behavior. YES! Something good happened as a result. Something that the mayor had shelved. Catch up will you please?
"I have it from the peoples mouth."
As you've already said you don't have from the rioters mouth, It's a little hard to see why any other opinion would take precedence...except, of course, that it agrees with your own unsupported opinion.
Sorry about the CVS store that was built in the area and burned down (along with other buildings). Can't see the name on the front makes a difference, though - a store hiring people and selling goods is a store hiring people and selling goods. I suppose that the shoplifting comes from frustration, too? And that deep resentment of all those white folks working in and running the store, horribly oppressing not only themselves but everyone else in sight?
Somehow I don't believe for a moment that you have any support at all for the claim that much of the labor force came from outside the neighborhood because it would limit shoplifting. Or even outright employee theft, for that matter. I don't think you have a single address for a single employee of that store and I'm sure you don't have management's reasoning for hiring a single one of them.
Convoluted? You stated there was no money to buy cameras with. Now you are claiming that days after the riots, the money is available and available as a direct result of the rioting that cost the city many tens of thousands of dollars. Your reasoning is just a little flawed here, I'm afraid - have you forgotten that a time correlation does NOT indicate a causal effect?
You are just picking at your scab of misinformation. I don't expect you to believe a word I say in trying to defend what you do not know. Unfortunately in your zeal to discredit what I have to say you have exposed your beliefs rather than what you know. Thanks for your effort.
LOL Caught are you? In the same dissemination of misinformation you accuse others of? Or are you still assuming your unsupported opinion is worth more than any others, simply because it it is yours?
Your argumentative beligerance is what cripples the conversation and not the information. You don't know the subject as intimintly as I do and your attacks on credibility is typical of it. Information is not what you want in this conversation but if you want some real understanding of the situation maybe it would be best if you visited the places where I have worked and lived for the last twenty years to learn for yourself. I know you won't do it as it may show you something you never could believe from someone else.
Sounds like you're still assuming (without a valid reason to do so) that the looters and burners in Baltimore are the ones you talk to. That you conduct business with. That are your immediate neighbors and acquaintances. While at the same time admitting you haven't talked to any of the rioters to try and get an honest determination of why they became animals that day.
And then, when I fail to take your completely unsupported opinion as fact, go on the attack claiming that no one but you has any real information as to the cause of the riots.
Rhamson, I lived in one of the poorest counties in Virginia for 22 years. When I arrived there, in 1974, nearly half the county had no running water and many had no electricity. That's poverty, not some ignorant punk running around in their Nike's with a book of matches and a baggie of coke, and those people did the best they could with what they had. In the 22 years I lived there, there was never a riot and no one burned down the drug store or trashed the cop car. I was instrumental in helping a friend and co-worker get his SS when he turned 65: he was born in a wagon alongside the road (no one registered a black birth then) and given to a neighbor to raise. He enlisted in the army at 15, lying about his age, which made it quite difficult to prove how old he was. He left school in the 3rd grade to work and help feed his adopted family, and signed his paychecks with an "X". Nevertheless, he made a life for himself - he owned his own house - by working for it. Not by burning stores, not by crying about white supremacy or about how whitey was oppressing him, and not by taking charity his whole life. He did it by honest, sweat-of-the-brow work and I salute him for it.
Which is more than I'll do for the thug destroying the life of his neighbors, whether he's frustrated or not.
Now I know you are talking out of the side of your neck. To compare the poverty of West Virginia to that of Baltimore makes no sense. You have crossed racial, economic and social lines in your effort to prove you have any more knowledge of the situation than anybody else. I have intimate knowledge that was shared by the rioters and looters at the scene of the riot with the news people running around with them. You can look it up for yourself. Poor white West Virginians exploited by the coal mines and the poor in Baltimore who are harassed and even killed by the police in Baltimore have little in common other than their income. WOW were did you pull that one out of?
Yes. The Baltimorians are different, because they are "oppressed" by the system of white supremacy. We keep forgetting that.
You really need to learn to read a little better: I never mentioned West Virginia and specifically indicated the man I mentioned was black.
The county was Caroline, about half way between Richmond, Va. and Fredericksburg, Va: smack in the heart of Virginia. It was about 90% black when I lived there, and was extremely poor. There were no coal mines. And the biggest difference between the people there and the thugs of the Baltimore riots were that those around me worked to improve themselves and didn't find destruction to be particularly fun. Overall they were law-abiding citizens trying their best to make a living - I doubt the crime rate was even 1/10 that of the inner city of Baltimore and certainly we didn't have the drug problem Baltimore does now.
The problem of Baltimore isn't white supremacy and it isn't particularly black racists (although they do what they can to promote racism with all its evils). It is poverty coupled with an entitlement mentality that expects someone else to take care of everything. A lack of responsibility.
I stand corrected and am sorry for the misrepresentation. Never the less you are speaking of blacks in general when you only focus on the poverty aspect of your post. I don't know what the availability of jobs were back then in the area you lived in but you fail to apply it to the modern paradigm. People did work hard back in the day but that does not mean that the inner city black population is unwilling to work. The lack of jobs and then jobs that pay enough to survive makes the choice between making more on welfare than working a minimum wage job a no brainer. Would you work your butt off to make less? That is if you can find a job anyway. If you think things are the same as twenty years ago in another part of the country you are deluding yourself.
I am "old school" for real; I grew up during the 1950s and 1960s in what is now called South-Central Los Angeles -- one of the biggest "ghettos" in the US.
And let me tell you something: Back in the day when I was growing up -- in an all-black and very poor neighborhood -- hardly anyone chose welfare over work. I mean, like, many of the men took jobs working for "below minimum wage" in such places as restaurants, car washes, junk yards, gasoline stations and parking lots. And many, if not most, of the women who were employed worked as maids for rich white people in communities like Beverly Hills.
What we are seeing today is the hangover from the Civil Rights Movement and the War on Poverty, or Great Society. Those endeavors mostly only oriented many members of the nation's black society to view themselves as inferior to whites and to be dependent on government handouts and the goodwill of whites.
In other words, because of all of the negative things that grew out of the Civil Rights Movement and War on Poverty, or Great Society, a great many contemporary blacks think and behave in the same unliberated ways that were forced upon their enslaved forebears.
Thus, the so-called "lack of good jobs" is NOT the problem. The problem is, many blacks today are sorely lacking when it comes to motivation. Opposite of the way that most US blacks were during the early 1960s and before -- when they were always ready, willing and able to do whatever it took to pull themselves up and to care for their families -- many of today's blacks are little more than poor-old-broken-down-slave negroes who get highly upset every time one of the "Bosses" treats them wrong, and who believe that they cannot survive and succeed in life unless the "Bosses" extend them a helping hand that is comprised by such things as free jobs, free food, free medical care, free contraceptives and free money.
It is time for "Black America" to wake up and get over its "slave mentality." The time is ripe for a bold new movement, based entirely on unlimited black enterprise, capitalism, self-reliance and self-determination.
I can relate to your view that working your way out of poverty is very much a character builder and has many rewards. Unfortunately for many poor the work to do so is insurmountable as inflation and opportunity is pulling it out from beneath their feet. To purchase a house in 1955 for $6000.00 would cost you $52,862.46 today adjusted for inflation with an inflation rate of 781%. On the inverse a house that costs on average $150,000.00 today would have cost $17,025.31 with an inflation rate of -88.6%. Do the math yourself. http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ . With these types of costs odds are it would take an extraordinary individual to rise to the occasion. There is no future in minimum wage and especially with few job opportunities. We can agree that those who rioted and looted did not seem to possess this type of internal fortitude. It is a different time my friend and it did not happen overnight. It is beginning to look like survival of the fittest with the police and National Guard as the barrier between the haves and have nots.
Compared to the way things were for most black people in the US during the 1950s and before, "being black in the USA" today is easy.
Opposite of what was case for the majority of American blacks back in the day, contemporary blacks are not "required to sit in the back of the bus," they have easy access to almost every workplace there is -- as long as they're qualified and want to work, there are no white lynch mobs roaming the country sides looking for unwitting blacks to hang from trees, blacks today can get advanced degrees in such educational institutions as the University of Mississippi and Alabama State University, and I could go on.
All of the gibberish about such things as rising inflation rates and a shrinking job market is just that -- gibberish.
Any one who is determined to succeed in this country can do it, and he/she can do it in a relatively short time.
A whole lotta folks are gonna havta stop watchin' MSNBC News and listenin' to left-wing Democratic politicians whose missions in life are to influence as many people as they can to have doomsday and woe-are-we attitudes.
So have you abandoned your claim that exactly 1% - 5% of rioters had political motivations? If not, then I'm still waiting for the evidence that supports that figure. If you have then how credible does that make your current claim that the riots were all about "fun"?
The problem with taking an irrational approach is it removes any credibility in the eyes of anyone who values reason. You know as well as I, you can't prove those figures. You also know you can't prove all those who rioted, did so for "fun". Here you are, stating these things as if they are indisputable facts, when really you have just made them up because they fit your view of the world.
The same goes for your claim that all the people who rioted want "total support, from cradle to grave". Prove that statement is true. If you can't, why make such an outlandish claim? Again, you're just making things up to support your own view. This type of hysteric rhetoric is part of the problem because it prevents any kind of sensible discussion about the issues. In turn, that slows down progress in developing long term solutions.
You know racial bias exists in society, and you know the socio-economic problems in areas like Baltimore city disproportionately affect African Americans. You know because you have access to the internet, and can find the overwhelming evidence that supports both those assertions. Yet you choose not to find it. Instead you prefer your rhetoric. How about, instead of making statements with no basis in fact, try answering these questions:
Why are more black children than white suspended from school for the same behaviour?
Why are more black people than white, searched when stopped by police, even though more white people are found to be carrying weapons and contraband?
Why were more black people than white people offered subprime mortgages despite similarity in financial circumstances?
Why do CVs with African-American sounding names receive 50% less callbacks than those with non African-American sounding names, despite the same knowledge, skills and experience being listed?
Why are black men given prison sentences that are 20 times longer than white men for the same crime, even when they have a similar criminal history?
Why do black and white children choose a white doll, when given a choice of a black or white doll and asked to choose the 'good' doll?
You could research those things and start a thread about any answers you find. Surely there's enough meaningless rhetoric in the world. How about you help reduce the amount by just a little bit?
Come on Don - don't be silly. Go back and read that post; it is plainly an opinion and not a claim. And yes, I still have that opinion.
Same answer - go back and read the post with an open mind rather than one filled with anger that someone disagrees with you. You can start with the seeming insinuation that 5%=0%.
So? You are claiming, along with others, that there are no jobs - no source of income for those people. If not welfare, how do they support themselves? Buy burning the drug store?
Let's just take one of those: "Why were more black people than white people offered subprime mortgages despite similarity in financial circumstances?". Provide figures proving that assertion and I'll answer it, although with an opinion only. I could never dig into the minds of each mortgage vendor, after all.
Add on: While I cannot answer the question: "Why do black and white children choose a white doll, when given a choice of a black or white doll and asked to choose the 'good' doll?" I can tell you where to GET that answer. From the black parents teaching their two year old kids that they are inferior or "bad" because of their race. I leave it to you to figure out how to fix that problem.
LOL! That is not even deserving of a serious response, but it is very funny.
Saying that you are just expressing "an opinion" is no excuse for talking nonsense. Even opinions about politics can (and should in my view) be based on sound reasoning. Your opinion is not based on anything resembling sound reasoning as far as I can tell. And while you have the right to express unreasonable opinions about social issues if you choose; I have the right to call such opinions out for what they are. I'm sorry wilderness, but whether you're stating it as a fact or as an opinion, your suggestion that only 1% - 5% of rioters had political motivations, is nonsense.
Whether it's 5% or 0% makes no difference because the numbers are meaningless. By your own admission you've fabricated them. You think that can be justified by saying it's only your "opinion". I disagree. You're still just making things up. How is that useful in any way?
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. If not, then point out where I made the claim there are "no jobs" and "no source of income for those people".
Presumably, the fact you are only casting doubt on two of the situations described, means you acknowledge the other situations are a reality for African Americans. It says a lot that of all these situations, you focused on the one you appear to doubt, and the one where you feel able to blame African American parents. I think that's an example of cognitive bias, where you ignore things that don't seem to support your view, and pick up on things that do. Unfortunately you are wrong about the two you have chosen to focus on.
Both black and white children were asked the same questions, and indicated the white doll as the "good" doll. So this is not a "black" problem. And we don't need to get information from the parents. Some parents (black and white) were interviewed. Both indicated surprise at their children's views, and said they had not discussed the issues of race much (one white parent cried). So no, this is not about parents explicitly teaching their children white supremacist ideology. It's about children being immersed in a society where such an ideology is dominant, and serves as an example of the insidious way it influences children's self-image and their relationships with others.
And I'm sure you can find the information about subprime mortgages and racial bias as easily as I did. There are court cases, scholarly articles, news articles and studies on the subject all at your fingertips.
Let me be clear, you and others raise questions about personal responsibility, which is all about an individual's responsibility for themselves and their family. I think you are right in doing so. But the point of the above questions is to remind you and others, to ALSO raise questions about social responsibility, which is about responsibility to society, not only for individuals, but also for the structures, institutions, organizations etc. that make up society. The above situations are examples of how racial bias is woven into the fabric of society. Each one has detrimental effect on African American families and communities. In turn this contributes to the type of socio-economic conditions seen in Baltimore. It is socially irresponsible to ignore that.
But unfortunately you and others apparently can't see the overlap between personal responsibility and social responsibility, and can't see how both are interconnected with education, employment prospects, poverty and crime. Your focus is solely on personal responsibility. Solving complex problems means tackling them from multiple angles at once. That means looking at personal responsibility and culture, as well as social responsibility and racial bias within social structures. Quoting phoney numbers in the guise of expressing an "opinion", and only picking up on things that support your view, are of no use whatsoever.
I'm sorry, Don, but we will never agree on social vs individual responsibility. While we both agree both have a share in the racism of America, we put vastly different weights on it. You will continue to insist that society is 90% responsible, the individual the remaining 10% - that the individual carries very little blame for their actions and circumstances.
I, on the other hand, will continue to insist that the individual is 90% responsible (and 90% to blame) for their actions. Although I realize that it is no longer in vogue to accept responsibility for ones self, I am of the old country where it was accepted as a matter of fact without trying to shift blame to someone else.
So we will continue on, with you assuming that the black ghetto is caused by white supremacy instead of people accepting what they have rather than working to change it. You will continue to demand that someone else do something, anything, to give more to black Americans and thus increase racism.
Just like the dolls: a 2 year old has had little contact with another race and cannot be held responsible for "instinctively" choosing a different race than their own as "better". Yet there is nothing "instinctive" about this: it is a direct and irrefutable result of the parent's actions. Not those of someone across the country; the parents. Yet you will still claim it is NOT the parents to blame; it is someone else. Anyone but the only one that could be feeding that child such nonsense.
The superior science does not view the subject from without, as one might peer through a microscope, but actually becomes the subject. Until you are capable of mastering such science; until you are able to be born into a ghetto as a black man, or woman in America, in the late 20th century, it is not possible for you to reach a reasonable conclusion concerning the motivations of rioters. The absurdity of your apologist rhetoric is legendary.
P.S. The "old country" is dying. Soon it will be less than a memory. God is great.
Then I will never be able to understand the black man's motivations, any more than you can understand or assign motivations, thoughts or reasons to anyone with a white skin. For neither of us can change our color.
But I DO find it quite unreasonable when folks assign an IQ of 25 (or similar figure) to the rioters (regardless of color) in Baltimore. Which is what is being done when deep emotions and political considerations are assigned to someone intent on destroying their environment. Anyone smart enough to tie their own shoes understands that such actions are counter-productive.
But I do agree, sadly, that the old concepts of responsibility are dying off. It's much more popular to assign blame and responsibility to some one else.
But your quaint obeisance to a mythological figure does seem a little out of line. Was there a particular reason for it?
What is your obsession with posting irrelevant pictures with all of your posts?
Is it perhaps passive-aggressive behavior that goes along with not having a real argument?
Those figures are yours not mine. I think it's very difficult to put exact figures on the importance of personal responsibility vs. social responsibility. I suspect they are more equal in importance than you suggest though, because they are two sides of the same coin. No matter how level the playing field is, a lack of personal responsibility will be a limitation to prosperity. Likewise, no matter how much personal responsibility someone takes, bias within social structures will be a limitation to prosperity.
Nowadays, like it or not, the lives and fortunes of individuals are increasingly influenced by relationships with the structures, institutions and organisations that make up society. If you think that's not the case try cashing a check, buying a home, or starting a business without the involvement of a bank; finding a job without involving an employer; being considered for a well paid job without a degree, or qualification from an educational institution; being a young African American male in an urban area, without having to interact with law enforcement. That's why safeguarding against bias within those social institutions and organizations is so important.
So the most reasonable approach in my view is to address the problem from multiple angles. In each area (education, employment, finance, courts, law enforcement etc.) sincerely ask, what aspects of the problems in this area are related to a lack of personal responsibility or culture, and what aspects are related to racial bias within relevant social structures? Unfortunately you, and those who share your view, are only asking half of the question. Apparently that stems from the fact you give less weight to the importance of social responsibility. And therein lies the problem.
Agreed. Social bias can and does impose limits.
It does NOT, however, impose such limits that abject poverty is the only thing left. That limit comes from the individual. You have a long list of "limits" imposed by society (lack of education, police, ghetto living, etc.) but not a single one is such that it cannot be overcome by someone willing to work to do so. And that's the personal responsibility end of it - the side that isn't even addressed, let alone worked on, by too many people. It doesn't matter what their color, they are content to sit in their ghetto and accept the handouts of government. While you and they relax, sit back and wait for someone else to solve their problem for them.
It isn't going to happen, ever. Until the people decide that they, not some faceless bureaucracy or white supremacist somewhere, is responsibility for the path they've chosen. And the reason for that is that it won't matter how much society gives them such charity will never, ever create the sense of personal responsibility that is required to run their own life. As long as they continue to always blame someone else they will remain forever stuck in the ghetto...even if they manage to move out of it they will remain there.
Your comment that "limit comes from the individual" is a key point. It suggests you don't recognize that "the individual" is also a product of the society he or she lives in. Flaws that are woven into the fabric of that society are transmitted, via mainstream culture, into the core beliefs of individuals (whether they are aware of it or not). So even limitations within "the individual" can have roots within society.
An example is the idea that black people are subordinate to white people. This idea is woven into the fabric of society for various historical reasons, is transmitted via mainstream culture (law, art, history, customs, values, traditions etc.) to everyone in society. It's been termed 'white supremacist ideology' by social sciences, and psychologists, who have investigated and studied its effects.
The 'doll test' is an example where we see how this ideology affects children. The experiment was first conducted in the 40s, and has been conducted many times since. The value judgement that a white doll is 'good', 'pretty', and a black doll is 'bad', 'ugly' is not the result of someone explicitly telling children these things (many parents interviewed said they had never even discussed race with their child). The idea is being 'transmitted' to children via the mainstream culture of society. We can see the mechanisms of this at work with our own simple experiment.
Type 'top 100 kids movies' into google and scan the results. Of the movies that feature humans, what percentage have a main character who is African American, or non white? Bearing in mind that about 13% of the population is African American, are the movies listed representative of society? When I did this search, the results were not representative at all. This is important because 1) these movies are aimed at children who, by definition, are in the process of developing their core beliefs and attitudes about the world 2) main characters in kids movies tend to be heroes. Heroes are typically represented as brave, trustworthy, honest etc. When children see other people with positive attributes who look like them, it has a positive effect on their self-image. There is no shortage of positive white characters in mainstream kids movies. Can the same be said of African American characters? Yet these are the narratives that form a significant part of mainstream culture.
Look at standards of beauty. American Vogue (widely considered a fashion magazine par excellence) has existed since 1892. In that 118 years the number of women on the cover who have been non-white is 14 (or 1% of the total number of monthly covers). What message about color and beauty does that convey?
The point of all this is not to suggest that all young black people have low self-esteem or negative self-image. That's not the case at all. The point is to show how young black people are being constantly assaulted with negative messaging about who they are, in ways that young white people simply are not. The result is that many black people feel they have to perform twice as hard as a white person to achieve the same success. In other words, it's always more of an uphill struggle. For those young people who don't have a supportive environment, or the emotional resources to overcome that struggle, it can be too much. And that's when people start to fall into other ways of living.
Now, add to that the type of racial bias we've already discussed in education, employment, law enforcement, the courts, finance etc. And add to that the deliberate racism, which is admittedly less common nowadays, but still happens.
I'm painting a bleak picture I know. I don't mean to. I'm just trying to give some sense of how the limits of "the individual", are intertwined with societal issues; how problems with society can translate into personal problems which seem to be an issue of personal responsibility, but are actually an effect of the wider societal problem. Those societal problems require deep-rooted solutions.
For you information, this short video shows young African American women (late teens) talking about some of the issues of self-image, issues of identity etc. that are part of their reality. It also recreates the doll test. Interesting viewing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyI77Yh1Gg
Understanding WHY someone takes a particular action, is not the same as EXCUSING that action. You seem to be confusing the two. Recognizing ALL the factors that lead to such behaviour is part of understanding the problem. Suggesting that the ONLY motivation for those riots was pure thuggery is just a plain lie. While it's true that SOME of the rioters no doubt were simple opportunists, it's also undoubtedly true that others were trying to make some kind of political statement, and others still were actively trying to STOP the violence. Unfortunately that doesn't fit in with your narrative of "black street thugs" so it's conveniently overlooked.
And I'm sorry, but the perpetuation of racial bias (either intentionally or unintentionally) is ONE OF the factors behind the socio-economic conditions that spark such riots. Ignoring that really isn't going to help the situation..
Apologies if that came across as needlessly defensive. I saw your all-caps and interpreted your original question as being snarkier than it seems you intended. My bad.
I have to ask , Are we Americans comfortable with Violence incited justice. With people who jump to make arrests based on groups who choose violence rather than peaceful protests? Granted a trial must happen, following a complete investigation but it must not be politically motivated, it must not be tried in public opinion. It must also be equaled out in accountability. The people who rioted in Baltimore or any other state must also be held accountable for the violence they visited upon Baltimore.
We must also consider the fact that it should not be allowed to be a race issue. It should be a human issue, a human being died, were the police at fault or responsible? It should make no difference what color the person was.
I can admit that at times police have become very aggressive when making arrests but I have to admit to myself that being an officer today has become very difficult. The violence on the streets today has become intolerable. Police officers must consider every time they step out of their homes in the morning that their chances of dying are high… They must consider that every move they make may be brought into question, they must consider that ever word they say may be brought under scrutiny.
They must also consider that they may be retaliated against for the actions of other officers, such as the Brooklyn man, Brinsley who stated to his Instagram followers, “burn the flag” in protest of the recent police killings of black men. “Marching up and down the streets does little to nothing to bring awareness to serious matters,” he wrote. “So let’s ruffle some feathers and take it into our own hands and make them watch in horror as we burn what they represent.” (BY Tina Moore, 2014) Before he shot his girlfriend and killed officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu in their squad car.
This brings questions to the mentality of the Baltimore riots, rather than peacefully demonstrate for the questionable death of a man, they choose the mentality of Brinsley, lets burn Baltimore, loot and terrify “them”. I am sorry this is when justice is no longer about justice, this is when justice becomes something tainted and unbalanced. Who pays for the lives lost or the injuries sustained in street violence?
Are we as Americans white, black, red, etc. going to accept that a death means more or is worse than another, or justifies violent retaliation, because of race?
Disarm the police, are people insane? Just who do people think will be armed? Do people believe that police will come to their aid if they are unable to protect themselves or the person who made the call? It’s just plain ignorant.
How about this: maybe the officers of the US should just throw down their arms, walk out and let the American people protect and serve themselves! Maybe these people would like to familiarize themselves with the martial law of the military when mayhem breaks out. Maybe they would like to meet the neighborhood thug up close and personal with no one to call for help! Personally I would much rather deal with my local police officer than my government! Wake up America, this is what our current government is hoping for! American initiated martial law!!!
If we the American people do not wake up we are going to find ourselves in the midst of a civil war within our own borders which in turn will lead to the fall of our nation by other countries who will attack us when we are too busy defending ourselves to fight back! People we have terrorist living in our back yards waiting for that vulnerable moment to strike!
The black people should be yes arrested if they done wrong but not killed because of racist police.
Hats off to that mum that stopped her son even if she hit him .
This is a white man, dressed as a red man, trying to wear a white face, painted like a scary savage, with an evil black wendigo who eats his own people perched on his brain and symbolizing his madness. Tonto says "How. How this riot happen? Tonto think white man no share money."
"Not true" says Kemosabe, who knows very well that 'Tonto' means 'fool' in Spanish. Kemosabe Obama (who lives in a big White House and likes to be called a black man even though he is really a biracial Mulatto – but, hey, that's OK, he can call himself whatever he wants just like Bruce Jenner can call himself a woman even though he has all those male parts dangling you-know-where and he still has that Y chromosome in every cell of his body) threw a whole bunch of money at the problem.
Obama created the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) way back in 2009 which gave $831 billion to poor communities to immediately save and create jobs, to provide relief programs for those impacted by the recession, to expand unemployment benefits and social welfare, and to directly invest in infrastructure, education, and health.
Baltimore City received over $1.8 billion! The exact amount sent to Baltimore was $1,831,768,487. That's a whole lotta wampum! In fact, that's $12,358 for every man, woman and child below the poverty line. Baltimore got $467.1 million to specifically invest in education and $26.5 million for crime prevention. And that's on top of all the other government assistance 60% of Baltimore residents receive, like the free breakfasts and lunches over 85% of Baltimore's kids get every day in school.
And all that federal money is on top of money Baltimore County already invests from tax revenues. The income tax in Baltimore County (3.2%) is double the rate of the rest of Maryland and sales tax is 6%.
"The Baltimore school system ranks second among the nation’s 100 largest school districts in how much it spent per pupil at $15,700 per student. Only NYC spends more."
Baltimore City (with a black School Superintendent and a black School Board) spends $188,000 per student over their 12-year education. That's an annual tuition of $15,666 – much more than most private schools charge!
All that money invested in education results in 1/3 of Baltimore's students failing to graduate from high school and, of those who take the test, SAT scores below the national average by more than 100 points in reading, writing and math. Those are the best results money can achieve to solve the problems.
All that money spent on education is to help kids make something of their lives and the results are a violent crime rate that is 370% higher than the U.S. rate.
Rev. Donte L. Hickman Sr., black pastor of the Southern Baptist Church in Baltimore, worked for five years to secure grants and funding from the big White House program to build a low-cost housing project for 61 low-income senior citizens and a community center for job training, housing counseling and other services. The buildings were in the process of construction when the riots started. This is what they looked like on April 27:
Here's what they looked like the day after the riots:
Here's one of the thugs wearing a first-class gas mask to protect himself from the smoke of arsonist's fires and from smoke bombs hurled at police:
He was caught on camera slashing the water hoses fire fighters were using to put out the fire in the CVS pharmacy during the riots. Why did he do that? Because he wanted his neighborhood to burn down and he wanted dozens of employees in his neighborhood to lose their jobs. Were these just kids too young to be fully responsible for their delinquent behavior? Of the 235 rioters arrested so far, only 34 are juveniles.
And these weren't people behaving like animals. Animals don't foul their own nests; only humans do that. These riots are like what the reviewer said about 'The Lone Ranger' sequel: "It's a noisy, never-ending nonsensical mess, which easily tops the flops. It's flogging a dead horse."
Say 'Ugh', Tonto.
That is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. I am chuckling as I type the phrase "I do not support criminals!" since I am quite certain you already know that. I understand your desire to mischaracterize my views in order to make them easier to refute, even though I cannot justify your behavior.
I don't believe you could be more wrong about romanticizing rioters ! Had you made some distinction between all out rioting and conscientious protesting , I might allow you room to somehow romanticize rioting ,however , every time I watch thugs with hoods pulled over their head's ,[ and this is where you compare rioters with soldiers in black ! ] I realize just how ashamed that I have become of Americans . My own country.
NO, there is a huge difference between the patriot who believes enough in his country , his political view's and their outcomes , And the mindless thug who follows the parade into the protection of darkness to loot ,to pilfer, to rape and reduce his neighbors livelihood to something less than some jungle mentality .
There is a huge difference in the ideal's of a patriot like John Adams and that of the Michael Browns of our society . And yet so many like you chose to romanticize the wrong one's again and again . No my friend, it doesn't surprise me much that there ARE those like you who simply group together to two very different categories of these kinds . This reasoning is exactly why the idealistic intentions of patriotic few -are totally compromised by the others who are blind to these realities .
Yes, there is a huge difference between the patriot who believes in his country , his political view's, and their outcomes, and the rioters in Baltimore. Their is also a huge difference between their ancestors. The ancestor of the patriot chose to rape, murder, and steal. The ancestor of the patriot chose to force the Indigenous onto reservations .
The ancestor of the patriot chose to continue the institution of slavery because he was too lazy to do the work himself, or too greedy to pay someone. The grandfather of the patriot chose to continue discriminating against minorities, even after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Today,the patriot chooses to continue a legacy of evil, disparity, and injustice that can only lead to more violence and unrest.
In comparison, it appears the so-called "thugs" in Baltimore are the lesser of two evils. In fact, they don't even come close. Viva Las Vegas!
Because...what the ancestor did is put onto the current people? Sorry, MY world does not work that way - each person is responsible for their actions, but not the actions of strangers from hundreds of years ago.
Are we on the same planet? As far as I know, 1964 wasn't hundreds of years ago, and your spin could use a little grease. Since my post was unusually brief, it is hard for anyone to miss my comment about the continuation of an evil legacy. Furthermore, aren't you the one who informed the world, not so long ago, that you grew up in a trailer park? When you use the phrase "My world" , it suggests that you actually have some authority. But we all know that those who run this country, and the world, did not grow up in trailer parks. They don't even know how to spell it.
Nope - 1964 wasn't long ago. And none of my ancestors alive in 1964 had anything to do with your "white supremacy". Nor did I have anything to do with - I wasn't old enough to even vote them into power - and thus bear no responsibility for any of it.
Close but no cigar on the trailer park - I didn't grow up in one...but my kids did. I was already an adult at that point, doing what I could to better my life and theirs. Worked, too - hard work and effort nearly always does.
I have almost total control over "my world" - witness the refusal to accept your blame for what unknown persons long ago did. Although there are many people wanting to blame anyone with a shortage of melanin for evils propagated long ago, I do not accept that blame. I may have to live in the outside world were racism against white people is a fact, but no form or racism, against any race, will enter MY world.
Your refusal to accept any blame is telling on two counts. First of all, no one has blamed you for anything, so I do not understand why you insist on beating that drum. Secondly, whether you accept blame or not does not change the fact that you are benefiting from white privilege, and the evil legacy of those who came before.
"Hard work" is meaningless, and will hardly improve the condition of a slave in a system of tyranny. George Washington, and all of the others that many Americans like to refer to as "The Founding Fathers" did not champion the usefulness of "hard work" under British rule. Nor were they advocates of "peaceful protest". The people of Baltimore have made one step in the right direction; once they embrace, and implement the concepts of the Founding Fathers, perhaps they will experience, for the first time since 1865, some real progress.
Progress would be cleaning up their crime-filled city of drugs and gang violence. That would be a step in the right direction.
Sorry, but I've benefited from "white privilege" and "white supremacy" in the legalized racism called "affirmative action". I've worked 50 hours per week while carrying a full college load and watched as others, based solely on race, were given a free ride through school. I've been turned down for jobs, again based solely on race (and sex, for that matter). I've watched as my son couldn't even submit a work application because he wasn't the right race. None of it was pleasant and I decline to thank anyone for that wonderful privilege.
Well, hold on to your hat wilderness. You think that's rough, just wait till black people are given the reparations they deserve for nearly 500 years of slavery, and tens of millions of acres of stolen land are returned to the First Nations. You might just have to pack up and go home to Europe.
For sure. Any black (or any other race) deserving of "reparations" alive today should absolutely get it. Fortunately, there are very few, and the poor, downtrodden and suppressed rioters at Baltimore aren't among them.
And I'd absolutely support giving ten million acres to the Indian nations if they had owned them in the first place, but they didn't. They got the land the same way the Europeans did - by conquest.
"Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
When the Obama administration suggested shutting down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants whose losses of $150 billion have had to be made up by taxpayers, The Washington Post warned, in a story headlined, “Winding Down Fannie and Freddie Could Put Minority Careers at Risk,” that 44 percent of Fannie employees and 50 percent of Freddie’s were persons of color."
Affirmative Action at work.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/20 … mployment/
More of that "oppression" of course.
As the late Paul Harvey used to say, 'now for the rest of the story'....
Reading this post of yours prompted me to ask the question, why do blacks gravitate toward public sector employment?
Well, a study done by UC Berkeley, entitled "Black Workers and the Public Sector" might shed some light.
This Ipad makes it difficult to copy and paste links, but it is found under google
laborcenter.berkeley.edu. You will discover the true meaning of those numbers that you throw around in such a cavalier fashion and you might actually learn something.
It is a short read, just 12 pages with a great deal of statistical data and more importantly the reasons why the numbers are where they are.
Blacks have favored public sector employment since Reconstruction, since they were the only ones offering them jobs. For me and others, the military and public sector were relatively fair and unbiased employers compared with the private sectors. But, of course, you would not know about that.....
But maybe you can relate to this, it turns out that the largest single employer of white females have been the public sector, so maybe whatever advantage blacks were seeking in the public sector, white women were looking for also?
It is in the report, Page 4 of 12- Table 5.
Throwing numbers around without taking the time to research their significance does not shed favorable light on your arguments.