Race in America Today
- Thread starter yolosohobby
- Start date
Big cock? Just kidding! Don't go apeshit on me.I don't think any white man thought, "I wish I was born black, my life would be so much easier".
Actually race in America is better than 99.9% of the countries in the world. Where else could an E.I. immigrant rise from just the shirt on his back to millionaire status in less than 30 years?
Problem is too many blacks are proud of their gangsta culture. They mistaken being a badass gang member = black culture identity and expects tolerence on their bad behaviour. This is the root cause of racial tension in America today.
Well ... a couple things ... Neighbourhoods that are ruled by gangs are generally not making assumptions based solely or primarily on race or skin tone. While that does happen, gangs are generally more interested in gang member/not gang member analysis. Much gang related violence is between members of different gangs who look very much alike and are primarily differentiated by gang colours. Bloods vs. Crips, for example. Or Hell's Angels vs. Outlaws or Pagans. There was even violence between a Swedish Chapter of Hell's Angels and the Morbid MC (a local Swedish group) and I bet their members are only distinguishable by gang signs and clothing.This may be opening a real can of worms, but I'd like to engage in a constructive dialogue on this topic in light of recent protests in America over the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman tragedy.
This is one issue that puzzles me - For decades, there have been 100s of neighbourhoods in America that are essentially ruled by gangs. They are largely organized homogeneously around race/ ethnicity. They clearly have a "Neighbourhood Watch", except it is militarized, brutal and lethal. Im not sure the local community actually held a meeting and invited them to form their organization it was likely established by force. They watch over their turf. They actually profile people. They actually hunt and stalk people. They engage in criminal activity routinely, including pre meditated murder.
Are they racist(s)?
I appreciate that race & bias are complex issues. I am not trying to offend anyone. I am genuinely curious about the "equivalence" when thinking about racism in America today. I am open to a wide range of persuasive views from others. I am sure that others have studied and experienced these issues more than I have, so I am hopeful of finding a real teachable moment for myself and others.
My biases ? - I will try and be critical in my assessment of my own biases. I am anti division, whether on the basis of class, race, religion, gender, sexual identification, income, wealth and other "categories". I feel strongly that there is too much division in the world today. I am currently of the view that we dont talk reasonably about the right issues , in a civil/ informative way , rather, we get caught up in the minutiae of a media led / talking point/ ill informed narrative. Too many thought and discussion leaders have personal agendas to maintain their power and affluence- to the detriment of those of us living outside the benefits, perqs, access and protection they maintain for themselves .
The issue with GZ is that he identified someone as a threat because of TM's skin tone and clothing, approached him without absolutely no legal authority to do so and after he had been told by a 911 dispatcher not to approach, then engaged in a physical confrontation which ended with him shooting an unarmed teenager. Most of those who are critical of GZ take the position that he would never have confronted a white teenager who was otherwise dressed and acting in exactly the same manner. I expect that age, gender, clothing and skin tone all played a role. Does anyone believe that GZ would have confronted a middleaged, Caucasian woman dressed in a business suit? Not that this in any way excuses his actions (even if true).
Race relations in the US are complicated by the number of racist apologists who either try to dismiss people who acknowledge racism as promoting "white guilt" or who try to equate the terms "cracker" and "nigger" (and other "reverse racist" strategies). There is very little sting to the first term, as it is used about the comparatively powerful. The second term is ugly and dehumanizing and is used to dismiss and condemn based on racial markers (like the amount of melanin in your skin). For a variety of reasons too complex to go into, the industrial revolution started in northwestern Europe. This gave Caucasians technological dominance over much of the world for two centuries. Most of the really degrading terms for non-Whites harken back to the times of Empire, when you could verbally demean someone who was not "white" and they had no option but to take it. There has never been a similar period when western Europeans and their descendants (as a group) were called "cracker" and they had no power to respond.
The war was not about slavery initially, but about states rights vs. Federal authority. South Carolina seceeded in December 1860 and Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter in April, 1861. The emancipation proclamation was January, 1863, almost two years after the Civil War had started. Also, President Lincoln initally proposed the measure not as a humanitarian gesture but as a means of crippling the south's industry and agricultural production.I think most of us have had enough of your rhetoric and tired arguments...I could argue the flip side and mention how many Union soldiers died on the field during the Civil War so that young black children could play in freedom someday...but I won't sink to your level.
I appreciate your answer.Well ... a couple things ... Neighbourhoods that are ruled by gangs are generally not making assumptions based solely or primarily on race or skin tone. While that does happen, gangs are generally more interested in gang member/not gang member analysis. Much gang related violence is between members of different gangs who look very much alike and are primarily differentiated by gang colours. Bloods vs. Crips, for example. Or Hell's Angels vs. Outlaws or Pagans. There was even violence between a Swedish Chapter of Hell's Angels and the Morbid MC (a local Swedish group) and I bet their members are only distinguishable by gang signs and clothing.
The issue with GZ is that he identified someone as a threat because of TM's skin tone and clothing, approached him without absolutely no legal authority to do so and after he had been told by a 911 dispatcher not to approach, then engaged in a physical confrontation which ended with him shooting an unarmed teenager. Most of those who are critical of GZ take the position that he would never have confronted a white teenager who was otherwise dressed and acting in exactly the same manner. I expect that age, gender, clothing and skin tone all played a role. Does anyone believe that GZ would have confronted a middleaged, Caucasian woman dressed in a business suit? Not that this in any way excuses his actions (even if true).
Race relations in the US are complicated by the number of racist apologists who either try to dismiss people who acknowledge racism as promoting "white guilt" or who try to equate the terms "cracker" and "nigger" (and other "reverse racist" strategies). There is very little sting to the first term, as it is used about the comparatively powerful. The second term is ugly and dehumanizing and is used to dismiss and condemn based on racial markers (like the amount of melanin in your skin). For a variety of reasons too complex to go into, the industrial revolution started in northwestern Europe. This gave Caucasians technological dominance over much of the world for two centuries. Most of the really degrading terms for non-Whites harken back to the times of Empire, when you could verbally demean someone who was not "white" and they had no option but to take it. There has never been a similar period when western Europeans and their descendants (as a group) were called "cracker" and they had no power to respond.
wRT Zimmerman case, he lived in a community where there was a rash of crime, and the information available was that it was predominantly young black men. So he saw someone who fit that description whom he also observed was behaving oddly in the rain. Is that profiling? As for legal authority. There were neighborhood watch signs posted everywhere and he was asked to do this service by his community. Is this not legal authority? WRT Zimmerman approaching TM and disregarding "being told not to approach". I dont think the evidence shows Zimmerman approached Trayvon, and I think it is plausible that he tried to reasonably comply with the dispatchers. he was already out of the car. And yes TM was not armed w a gun. But he had the ability to administer assault.
Those who take the position, the hypothetical position, that Zimmerman would not have confronted (did he really confront him? any proof of that??) a white teenager. Well if a community ios having a rash of break-ins from white teenagers dressed like TM, then maybe we would have found out the answer to that question. Same if it was a rash of break ins from caucasian women in business suits. So in addition to age, gender, clothing, skin tone; community facts and recent criminal activity also played a role, wouldn't you agree?
Not to re-open debate about the Civil War but the sweatshops in the North weren`t much better (similar to Bangladesh factory conditions to-day).The war was not about slavery initially
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, was one of the deadliest industrial disasters in the history of the city of New York and resulted in the fourth highest loss of life from an industrial accident in U.S. history. It was also one of the deadliest disasters that occurred in New York City – after the burning of the General Slocum on June 15, 1904 – until the destruction of the World Trade Center 90 years later. The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers, who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling or jumping to their deaths. Most of the victims were recent Jewish and Italian immigrant women aged sixteen to twenty-three;[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] of the victims whose ages are known, the oldest victim was Providenza Panno at 43, and the youngest were 14-year-olds Kate Leone and "Sara" Rosaria Maltese.[SUP][4]
P.S. This was the time when unions were needed (not now).[/SUP]
What pain? Sorry it is extremely offensive to be compared to such people. I would never think of enslaving someone, whipping, etc. That is/was and will still always be wrong on so many level.no the term is derogatory if you feel the pain involved with the word...what pain does cracker do to you?... give you dry mouth?...whatever, you're typical racist who wants to say the n-word freely... go ahead...start at dundas square
And no I don't want to free use the N word. I want to make sure BOTH words are not used. THAT was my point.
Clearly you want to go back to the way it was and flip the situation. You want to your time to freely be racist as some sort of "fair justice" however YOU were never enslaved, nor was I ever a slave driver. That was before our time.
I was to ensure it doesn't happen again, you on the other hand, can go a head and keep being the TRUE typical racist. Thanks
What would happen to a middle-class white man if he walked through a black-dominated neighbourhood run by a predominantly black gang, after dark?
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would hold a rally and broadcast it live on MSNBC?What would happen to a middle-class white man if he walked through a black-dominated neighbourhood run by a predominantly black gang, after dark?
I don't recall any evidence that TM was behaving oddly. Since GZ did not testify, was there another witness, or did the prosecution rely on the police report for that? One of the morals of the GZ trial is that, in a stand your ground state, better to kill the other person than just wound them. In the latter case, they get to testify as well.I appreciate your answer.
wRT Zimmerman case, he lived in a community where there was a rash of crime, and the information available was that it was predominantly young black men. So he saw someone who fit that description whom he also observed was behaving oddly in the rain. Is that profiling? As for legal authority. There were neighborhood watch signs posted everywhere and he was asked to do this service by his community. Is this not legal authority? WRT Zimmerman approaching TM and disregarding "being told not to approach". I dont think the evidence shows Zimmerman approached Trayvon, and I think it is plausible that he tried to reasonably comply with the dispatchers. he was already out of the car. And yes TM was not armed w a gun. But he had the ability to administer assault.
Those who take the position, the hypothetical position, that Zimmerman would not have confronted (did he really confront him? any proof of that??) a white teenager. Well if a community ios having a rash of break-ins from white teenagers dressed like TM, then maybe we would have found out the answer to that question. Same if it was a rash of break ins from caucasian women in business suits. So in addition to age, gender, clothing, skin tone; community facts and recent criminal activity also played a role, wouldn't you agree?
As for your other points, I agree that recent criminal activity would likely play a role in GZ decision. Of course, making assumptions that one suspected criminal is of a certain race or appearance and therefore someone who looks like that should be suspect is profiling and is morally questionable and (in some jurisdictions) also legally wrong. It's stereotyping of the most unsubtle and direct manner. That said, it's also understandable, if not excusable. Of course, I missed all of the evidence that break-ins were being conducted by black teens in hoodies. Was there any? If not, then GZ just stopped someone he thought looked like the sort of person he imagined would have been responsiblle for the break-ins.
Being asked to be in the neighbourhood watch by your community does not give you any additional legal rights. If you do anything more than simply "watch", you are, for all intents and purposes, a vigilante. You have no legal right to stop someone, or question them, or assault them, than anyone else has. This is why all reputable neighbourhood watch organizations emphasize that their members' only role is to watch for suspicious behaviour and then call the police, if necessary. You don't get out of your car to question anyone or challenge their right to be walking down your community's streets.
As for the evidence, why was GZ out of the car? I thought the evidence was that he had followed TM in a car and had then gotten out to speak to him. Since he ended up shooting him, we have (little) evidence of what was said. That's one of the places reasonable doubt comes into play. Exactly what happened in the minutes before TM died is a matter of speculation, which is why stand your ground is such a dangerous law. More should be in issue than just whether or not the killer had a "reasonable belief" that deadly force was necessary to prevent assault (the "immanent commission of a forceable felony"). Retreat jurisdictions require people to retreat, if possible, before employing deadly force. In a retreat jurisdiction, the fact that GZ was standing on a sidewalk (rather than being backed into a corner) would count against him. The "reasonable belief" test has actually been applied as more of a subjective than an objective test. Given that the victim cannot tell his/her side of the story, this is problematic, since the killer's explanation of his belief is hard to contradict and since profiling by jury members may make them more likely to accept "reasonable belief" when the victim is young, black and male. This would make it harder to prosecute someone who shoots a black teen and, especially, a black teen in a hoodie.
As for confrontation, is the other version of events that TM just attacked GZ without provocation? That GZ was minding his own business in his car and then got out to smoke or to enjoy the fresh air or to adjust his car seat and then was set upon by TM? That's a much less reasonable hypothesis than that GZ confronted TM. The hypothesis advanced will depend, in part, on each person's experience or acknowledgment of racism in America. If you believe racism ended with the election of President Obama, then you're definitely going to try to explain away GZ's actions as something other than race based. If you have a sense of the still pervasive discrimination against African Americans prevalent in areas of the US, then you are likely to consider race as a possible or likely motive.
Even in Bangladesh, sweatshop workers are not legally bought and sold like animals. Perhaps you would be surprised at how much of a difference that detail makes.Not to re-open debate about the Civil War but the sweatshops in the North weren`t much better (similar to Bangladesh factory conditions to-day).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, was one of the deadliest industrial disasters in the history of the city of New York and resulted in the fourth highest loss of life from an industrial accident in U.S. history. It was also one of the deadliest disasters that occurred in New York City – after the burning of the General Slocum on June 15, 1904 – until the destruction of the World Trade Center 90 years later. The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers, who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling or jumping to their deaths. Most of the victims were recent Jewish and Italian immigrant women aged sixteen to twenty-three;[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] of the victims whose ages are known, the oldest victim was Providenza Panno at 43, and the youngest were 14-year-olds Kate Leone and "Sara" Rosaria Maltese.[SUP][4]
P.S. This was the time when unions were needed (not now).[/SUP]
You are writing from a Euro-centric view of the world. There is MUCH more racism and historic violence among Asians and Africans than "White" people have promulgated over the centuries. Try being Thai in Japan. Try being Japanese in China. Try being Chinese in Africa. Try being Romanian in Turkey. Try being almost any ethnic minority in China. Try being Sunni in a Shia village. Its not "White" people against the world. Whitey is not the global bogeyman. He is not even the worst racist on the planet.As long as their are people in the world who will explain away clearly racist views and cry when they can't use racist terms because "it's not okay if white people do it" the world will never change.
|Some people have an inherent need to comment on what they don't and could never understand.
For a white person to comment on racism is like a man trying to comment on child birth to a woman. It's laughable because you can't possibly have an opinion worth listening to because it's one of those rare things that you have to live through.
If you've never been spat on, pulled over, followed in a store, etc. because you are white. Save your opinions. Otherwise you'll end up sounding like most of the people in this thread speaking about "black culture" and "cracker" with absolutely zero idea of what their talking about.
Racism is universal.
people are not born racist, it has to be taught. some generations are to far gone but it is possible as our kids grow up to teach it out. i would love to find the only black kid from the grade school i went to and i would love to apologize to him, i was young and ignorant and had no idea how bad the things i said hurt him until years later. i was raised with it as being normal not till later in life did i figure out how badly those words hurt some people.
No, none of these cultures enslaved another culture for 400 years. None of these cultures stole an entire continent from another and systematically wiped them out and drove the rest into reserves. Yes, white (Europeans) did that.You are writing from a Euro-centric view of the world. There is MUCH more racism and historic violence among Asians and Africans than "White" people have promulgated over the centuries. Try being Thai in Japan. Try being Japanese in China. Try being Chinese in Africa. Try being Romanian in Turkey. Try being almost any ethnic minority in China. Try being Sunni in a Shia village. Its not "White" people against the world. Whitey is not the global bogeyman. He is not even the worst racist on the planet.
Racism is universal.
Uh, they all did. And worse. Much worse. Go back to school, do some research, whatever. Your specific worldview is too narrow; it is ill-informed. You need to learn. But I'm confident your hatred of the white man will keep you from doing so, and your posts will continue to convince the dispassionate viewer of your ignorance.No, none of these cultures enslaved another culture for 400 years. None of these cultures stole an entire continent from another and systematically wiped them out and drove the rest into reserves. Yes, white (Europeans) did that.
I will wait here for your fail post, I will say either insulting me, asking me to prove it (not my job to educate you on world history), or simply repeating what you've already said (sheeple do that, read Orwell). Get educated about the world, and you will see there is and has been greater evil in the world than the white man buying black slaves from black slave traders. (Or did you now know that it was Africans who sold their fellow Africans into slavery?)
According to the facts i read on www.legalinsurrection.com / trial transcripts and video of proceedings, w very little analysis, you are off on a few points ... but i appreciate your answer.I don't recall any evidence that TM was behaving oddly. Since GZ did not testify, was there another witness, or did the prosecution rely on the police report for that? One of the morals of the GZ trial is that, in a stand your ground state, better to kill the other person than just wound them. In the latter case, they get to testify as well.
As for your other points, I agree that recent criminal activity would likely play a role in GZ decision. Of course, making assumptions that one suspected criminal is of a certain race or appearance and therefore someone who looks like that should be suspect is profiling and is morally questionable and (in some jurisdictions) also legally wrong. It's stereotyping of the most unsubtle and direct manner. That said, it's also understandable, if not excusable. Of course, I missed all of the evidence that break-ins were being conducted by black teens in hoodies. Was there any? If not, then GZ just stopped someone he thought looked like the sort of person he imagined would have been responsiblle for the break-ins.
Being asked to be in the neighbourhood watch by your community does not give you any additional legal rights. If you do anything more than simply "watch", you are, for all intents and purposes, a vigilante. You have no legal right to stop someone, or question them, or assault them, than anyone else has. This is why all reputable neighbourhood watch organizations emphasize that their members' only role is to watch for suspicious behaviour and then call the police, if necessary. You don't get out of your car to question anyone or challenge their right to be walking down your community's streets.
As for the evidence, why was GZ out of the car? I thought the evidence was that he had followed TM in a car and had then gotten out to speak to him. Since he ended up shooting him, we have (little) evidence of what was said. That's one of the places reasonable doubt comes into play. Exactly what happened in the minutes before TM died is a matter of speculation, which is why stand your ground is such a dangerous law. More should be in issue than just whether or not the killer had a "reasonable belief" that deadly force was necessary to prevent assault (the "immanent commission of a forceable felony"). Retreat jurisdictions require people to retreat, if possible, before employing deadly force. In a retreat jurisdiction, the fact that GZ was standing on a sidewalk (rather than being backed into a corner) would count against him. The "reasonable belief" test has actually been applied as more of a subjective than an objective test. Given that the victim cannot tell his/her side of the story, this is problematic, since the killer's explanation of his belief is hard to contradict and since profiling by jury members may make them more likely to accept "reasonable belief" when the victim is young, black and male. This would make it harder to prosecute someone who shoots a black teen and, especially, a black teen in a hoodie.
As for confrontation, is the other version of events that TM just attacked GZ without provocation? That GZ was minding his own business in his car and then got out to smoke or to enjoy the fresh air or to adjust his car seat and then was set upon by TM? That's a much less reasonable hypothesis than that GZ confronted TM. The hypothesis advanced will depend, in part, on each person's experience or acknowledgment of racism in America. If you believe racism ended with the election of President Obama, then you're definitely going to try to explain away GZ's actions as something other than race based. If you have a sense of the still pervasive discrimination against African Americans prevalent in areas of the US, then you are likely to consider race as a possible or likely motive.
Id recommend the defence closing if you care to watch something. It is quite powerful. It drives home that this was a local specific, incident, not a national discussion.
Now the local case is poisoned? , i dont know the right word, with all kinds of ulterior and extraneous issues / agendas.
Anyhow the trial is the trial and then there is the national interpretation/ exploitation of the trial and hopefully we can swiftly move to an honest what the fuck do we do about these tragedies !
fyi, i believe racism is not uni-directional white prejudice to black, for example. There is plenty of racism to go around - in every direction.
Ok, they all stole land from the indigineous people here and drove them into reserves? I think you're making up your own world history, buddy and no amount of books or actual facts will change your imaginary history so I'm not even gonna try.Uh, they all did. And worse. Much worse. Go back to school, do some research, whatever. Your specific worldview is too narrow; it is ill-informed. You need to learn. But I'm confident your hatred of the white man will keep you from doing so, and your posts will continue to convince the dispassionate viewer of your ignorance.
I will wait here for your fail post, I will say either insulting me, asking me to prove it (not my job to educate you on world history), or simply repeating what you've already said (sheeple do that, read Orwell). Get educated about the world, and you will see there is and has been greater evil in the world than the white man buying black slaves from black slave traders. (Or did you now know that it was Africans who sold their fellow Africans into slavery?)
Dude, seriously. Take a world history course. Don't let your Aspergers' syndrome stop you from learning.Ok, the all stole land from the indigineous people here and drove them into reserves? I think you're making up your own world history, buddy and no amount of books or actual facts will change your imaginary history so I'm not even gonna try.
Here's one for starters: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ds-racist-countries-answers-surprise-you.htmlOk, they all stole land from the indigineous people here and drove them into reserves? I think you're making up your own world history, buddy and no amount of books or actual facts will change your imaginary history so I'm not even gonna try.
