Professor: “Some White People May Have to Die” to Solve Racism

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Unfortunately extreme ideology is saturating America, and diluting any hope of critical thinking by the masses.

IMO the media wants people to believe that extreme ideologies are saturating America.

I'll agree with you on that. But they are, so my belief is its working.

He's not calling for black people to go out and kill whitey. He's talking about black people using their 2nd Amendment rights to defend themselves. For better context:

"Because what we look at week after week is that national catastrophe after catastrophe where black people, black children are still dying - and we are front row, we're front and center when it comes to white people talking about the justification for owning assault weapons and for owning guns to protect themselves from evil black people and evil immigrants. But when we turn the conversation back and say does the black community have a need to own guns, does the black community need to protect itself, does the black individual need to protect themselves from police officers, we don't have that conversation at all."

He then references a paper laying out an argument that blacks have often been on the, umm, recieving end of the 2nd Amendment :

www.constitution.org...
While discussion of the Second Amendment has been relegated to the margin of academic and judicial constitutional discourse, the realization that there is a racial dimension to the question, and that the right may have had greater and different significance for blacks and others less able to rely on the government's protection, has been even further on the periphery. The history of blacks and the right to bear arms, and the failure of most constitutional scholars and policymakers to seriously examine that history, is in part another instance of the difficulty of integrating the study of the black experience into larger questions of legal and social policy.281 Throughout American history, black and white Americans have had radically different experiences with respect to violence and state protection.

Perhaps another reason the Second Amendment has not been taken very seriously by the courts and the academy is that for many of those who shape or critique constitutional policy, the state's power and inclination to protect them
is a given. But for all too many black Americans, that protection historically has not been available.
Nor, for many, is it readily available today. If in the past the state refused to protect black people
from the horrors of white lynch mobs, today the state seems powerless in the face of the tragic
black-on-black violence that plagues the mean streets of our inner cities, (pg.360) and at times seems
blind to instances of unnecessary police brutality visited upon minority populations.2

A couple of his podcasts played in the background while reading through that study and he is quite radical, but not at all militant. There is a distinction.

a reply to: PistolPete

Hate is hate... color it whatever you will.

This guy is spreading hate period.... debating to kill? This is sick.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

The irony in that statement... just... wow.

I'm not too worried about it.

This still holds more sway..



...then this so-called "professor" ever will.

For every wanna-be race demagog out there, there is someone like MLK, though perhaps not so well known, countering it. I like to think, in my own little way, I combat this jackhole's idiocy, too...and without saying some people in a group may have to die.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: DeathSlayer

As a minority

As a sane mind on these forums, you may be a minority. But brother, you are not a minority for who you were born.

People like you with a good heart, will soon prove to be the majority. I commend your continual stance on all things insane here. We may have different shades of skin, but I'd stand with you and have your back. Not for that fact, but because you, sir, are a fellow human being, and you have a good mind.

Cheers !!

originally posted by: SR1TX
Free Speech?

Hate Speech?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: cenpuppie

What's the difference between indiscriminately killing white people and the same thought process for muslims in countries who haven't attacked America?

I don't support either but I hope you understand my question.

Unfortunately extreme ideology is saturating America, and diluting any hope of critical thinking by the masses.

When is the last time the US attacked innocent civilians for being Muslim?

Or do you mean, when a known target was using innocent civilians as shields, in a war zone?

I get confused sometimes....

originally posted by: PistolPete

So the 2'nd doesn't apply to all American citizens?

Well fake outrage ensues.. I don't believe it.

But of course, do you mean criminals can't legally carry guns? Good thing whitey evades that legislation, huh.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Debating to kill what? He's talking about using violence to defend against violence. Kinda like the line of thinking that when a school shooting happens if the teachers would have all been armed it would have mitigated the damage or stopped it entirely.

The Info Wars article is decidedly misleading, note where the quotes in the title end. Before "to end racism". He didn't say that.

And to be clear, while I support people's right to bear arms - all people, for all reasons. I'm not advocating for an insurrection against white people, and neither is this professor.

a reply to: seagull

Well said! MLK was a wonderful man! Your vid is not working though.
Edited to add, it's working now. Sorry!

originally posted by: badw0lf
originally posted by: PistolPete

So the 2'nd doesn't apply to all American citizens?

I think the thrust of his argument is that the 2nd amendment has been historically applied against black people.

originally posted by: badw0lf

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: cenpuppie

What's the difference between indiscriminately killing white people and the same thought process for muslims in countries who haven't attacked America?

I don't support either but I hope you understand my question.

Unfortunately extreme ideology is saturating America, and diluting any hope of critical thinking by the masses.

When is the last time the US attacked innocent civilians for being Muslim?

Or do you mean, when a known target was using innocent civilians as shields, in a war zone?

I get confused sometimes....

If a handful of extreme Americans attacked China, would you expect our government and infrastructure to be destroyed in response?

Further more, when we have no connection to American lives being lost to Yemen, Libya, and Syria, should we topple their government?

Projecting freedom is not dictating the forms of government for sovereign nations.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: DeathSlayer

Professors constantly compete to be the most wonky in ideology.

That being said, the last few years has offered a digression in many people's ideology.

People getting butt hurt for losing, and people getting drunk on winning.

Everyone losing sight of the ball while they focus on the players.

Damn shame.

the problems didnt begin with the election. theyve been festering while being nurtured for the past 8 years

a reply to: DeathSlayer

God, you guys are looking for trees to bark up. He said...

“When we have this conversation about violence, or killing white people, it has to be looked at in the context of historical turn,” said Curry . “And the fact that we’ve had no one address, like how relevant and how solidified this kind of tradition is, for black people saying look, in order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people may have to die.”

In context, it was about Django. He was talking about the solidified tradition of how black men need to kill in order to be free. He was saying it needs to be discussed, not celebrated or promoted.

*Snip*

a reply to: Abysha

Please do articulate for us how the jist of this statement is out of "context":

“When we have this conversation about violence, or killing white people, it has to be looked at in the context of historical turn,” said Curry . “And the fact that we’ve had no one address, like how relevant and how solidified this kind of tradition is, for black people saying look, in order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people may have to die.”

These "intelligent" Black people wanted to lynch U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVoes today when she was addressing their college graduation ceremony.

www.foxnews.com...

Future leaders of America...(sigh). Disgusting, isn't it?

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Tell me, Slayer. Do you commonly create threads that misspeak as to the content?

"for black people saying look, in order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people may have to die.”

He was referring to others, not his personal views which is a HUGE difference than what you are suggesting. Reading comprehension is important. Don't you think?

a reply to: Abysha

Yep. You are correct, Abysha.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Abysha

Please do articulate for us how the jist of this statement is out of "context":

“When we have this conversation about violence, or killing white people, it has to be looked at in the context of historical turn,” said Curry . “And the fact that we’ve had no one address, like how relevant and how solidified this kind of tradition is, for black people saying look, in order to be equal, in order to be liberated, some white people may have to die.”

Why is that confusing to you? Does it confuse you that a black man is making a request to address the reasons other black people feel they need to fight to be free?

I've heard plenty of white conservatives ask the same question. Why is it confusing when a black professor asks it?