It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What can we do to address race-relations and solve racism?

page: 54
2
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
You are very welcome, Semper.

But, I kind of disagree with the assessment of yesterday's debate, but I will not go into those matters again.

There are a few more things that I have to disagree with as well.

Slavery is a racial issue because there are still divisions in the treatment, legalization and enforcement of it by race.

That is what you have to sort out. Then, these matters and their historical examination can be truly discussed. It would be fair to see how each type of slave was "shipped", whether some slaves were used for "breeding", the type of punishment used, the type of housing and conditions were used and how slaves were restricted from civic and social society.

Sure there were prejudices of many sorts in terms of classism, but you have to measure the inequality in how these matters were dealt.

Which slave was dealt with the least equality? Which slave was treated with the most contempt by society?

Then, we can see gravity of the situation for each, compare and constrast.


But thank you for introducing some very fascinating issues to consider in the entire "reparations debate".

[edit on 21-9-2006 by ceci2006]




posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Slavery is a racial issue because there are still divisions in the treatment, legalization and enforcement of it by race.


I am pretty sure that Slavery is now illegal.

Or did I miss the meaning of legalization and enforcement?

Semper



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
No, I don't mean now.

But in terms of the history of slavery between the early years of America from the first arrival of the Colonists to the end of the Emancipation Proclamation.

But then again, with the treatment of the Chinese workers in the American West in terms of law and social segregation, I say up until the early part of the 20th Century.


So, perhaps the arrival of the Colonists to the early part of Jim Crow?



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

That is what you have to sort out. Then, these matters and their historical examination can be truly discussed. It would be fair to see how each type of slave was "shipped", whether some slaves were used for "breeding", the type of punishment used, the type of housing and conditions were used and how slaves were restricted from civic and social society.

Sure there were prejudices of many sorts in terms of classism, but you have to measure the inequality in how these matters were dealt.

Which slave was dealt with the least equality? Which slave was treated with the most contempt by society?


OK


“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”

During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.researchnews.osu.edu...



White slaves transported to the colonies suffered a staggering loss of life in the 17th and 18th century. During the voyage to America it was customary to keep the White slaves below deck for the entire nine to twelve week journey. A White slave would be confined to a hole not more than sixteen feet long, chained with 50 other men to a board, with padlocked collars around their necks. The weeks of confinement below deck in the ship's stifling hold often resulted in outbreaks of contagious disease which would sweep through the "cargo" of White "freight" chained in the bowels of the ship.

Ships carrying White slaves to America often lost half their slaves to death. According to historian Sharon V. Salinger, "Scattered data reveal that the mortality for [White] servants at certain times equaled that for [Black] slaves in the 'middle passage,' and during other periods actually exceeded the death rate for [Black] slaves." Salinger reports a death rate of ten to twenty percent over the entire 18th century for Black slaves on board ships enroute to America compared with a death rate of 25% for White slaves enroute to America.
www.revisionisthistory.org...



Finally, Talty should know that "Negro blood" by itself did not confine anyone to slavery. If the maternal descent line was from a white female or had been broken by manumission, the descendants were free. Southern white people could legally have more Negro ancestry than some unfortunate slaves because the definition of "white" usually allowed between one-fourth and one-eighth "negro blood" in a free person of otherwise European ancestry. Many people moved from "free colored" or "mulatto" to "white" with no "Imitation of Life" secrecy involved. The children of the infamous Sally Hemings/Thomas Jefferson union would have been legally "white" once manumitted. For more information on this issue, please see my review of "The Forgotten Cause of the Civilarchive.salon.com...



The Englishman William Eddis, after observing White slaves in America in the 1770s wrote: "Generally speaking, they groan beneath a worse than Egyptian bondage." Governor Sharpe of the Maryland colony compared the property interest of the planters in their White slaves, with the estate of an English farmer consisting of a "Multitude of Cattle."

According to Thomas Burton's Parliamentary Diary 1656-1659, in 1659 the English parliament debated the practice of selling British Whites into slavery in the New World. In the debate, these Whites were referred to not as "indentured servants" but as "slaves."
www.crusader.net...



Cromwell, in the middle of the sixteenth century, shipped some thousands of Irish women and children to the Barbadoes to be sold as slaves. Forced by their owners to mate with the others these unfortunates were succeeded by a few generations of Irish-speaking negroes and mulattos. And it is commonly asserted to this day the natives of Barbadoes speak with an Irish brogue.
kulturindustrie.blogspot.com...



Although African Negroes were better suited to work in the semi-tropical climates of the Caribbean, they had to be purchased, while the Irish were free for the catching, so to speak. It is not surprising that Ireland became the biggest source of livestock for the English slave trade.

There are records of Irish sold as slaves in 1664 to the French on St. Bartholomew, and English ships which made a stop in Ireland enroute to the Americas, typically had a cargo of Irish to sell on into the 18th century.
Few people today realize that from 1600 to 1699, far more Irish were sold as slaves than Africans.

The planters quickly began breeding the comely Irish women, not just because they were attractive, but because it was profitable,,, as well as pleasurable. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, and although an Irish woman may become free, her children were not

www.raceandhistory.com...



The treatment of White slaves exactly paralleled that of enchained Africans. Irish slaves were transported to the colonies of British America and Barbados, packed tightly together like freight cargo, in cramped and unsanitary conditions. Often as many as half of these unwilling White prisoners died en route to the Caribbean, a fact that mattered little to the rulers, which sought primarily to remove them from conquered Irish Catholic lands that had been marked for imperial Protestant colonization and settlement [by White Protestant dissidents themselves ethnically cleansed from their ancestral lands -- Ed].

Upon arrival, those who survived were physically graded and auctioned like livestock upon the slave markets in Barbados. Any that resisted were subjected to severe lashings and other corporal punishments. They were branded on the forehead or buttocks as the property of the plantation owners who purchased them as slaves for life. Indeed, even their children were born into hereditary slavery. Irish women and children suffered extreme degradation on the human flesh markets and were commonly sold into unwilling sexual service. www.nationalvanguard.org...


A little information on what you requested. Breeding, punishment and parallels as it relates to the White Slave Trade in America.


Semper



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
If you want to discuss racism, fine, even the subjugation of the African Race. Yet, Slavery is NOT a racial issue. Not if your going to discuss it intellectually and completely.

I just think that the two MUST be separated if any logical discourse is to follow.

What an excellent point! Slavery is not a racial issue. Something that has been so obvious, and in front of our noses all along, yet nobody saw it!
is all I can say, since I'm out of WATS.



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 09:35 PM
link   
OH !!!

YEA!!!

SURE!!!

Everyone is suspiciously out of WATS when Semper posts something good... HMMMMMM

Conspiracy???



Seriously though, thanks jsobecky and FF and Ceci...

Semper



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If they think Mel Gibson is Anti-Semitic, yet think Tony Snow was just using a figure of speech, they must be against black people and so therefore are part of the Dominant Culture.

I'm not sure where you got that. According to this logic, being pro-black = anti-jewish, right? I never said anything even close to that.

I simply used two well-known examples of potentially racially insensitve remarks to illustrate a topic we've been discussing: Are Americans are more sensitive to 'Jewish issues' than 'black ones'?



I can't say on this board what I think about your line of logic, HH.
Suffice it to say that I disagree.

That's all you need to say. I don't need your opinion.



And Harlem Hottie and Saphronia, I’m sorry to point this out, but it seems that neither of you are willing to even suggest that Ceci has been out of line in her attacks against my character. Does that mean you agree with her? You certainly have plenty to say in support of her, and you don’t hesitate to set the white people straight when they strike back at her (in defense of your race, of course), but when Ceci makes these spiteful attacks against my character in public, you are strangely and sadly silent.
I can’t help but think that this choice of yours serves not to improve race relations, but to cement the divide between the races...Please rest in the knowledge that if anyone attacked one of you – one my friends’ character, I would powerfully defend you, regardless the color of the attacker.

I have been insulted, my character attacked, and did I ever ask you for help? No.

On the last thread and this one, I have only involved myself in the continuing dispute between you and Ceci when I thought it might make a difference. I've already said all I have to say. What- am I supposed to get her back 'in line', like the 'good black' people think I am?

Together, the both of you are detracting from this thread, especially with this new nonsense about me and Saphronia. Please. Handle your own drama. I have my own.

I really can't believe you said that. I understand that you're frustrated with Ceci, but don't put me in it.




[edit on 21-9-2006 by HarlemHottie]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Well, HH, I'm apologize profusely to you if you felt that I was including you and Saph into this. This was never my intention. I would never do so. I especially apologize for my part in disrupting the thread.

My heart especially goes out to Duzey, you and Saph. To see you all affected by this, is especially hurtful to me. I apologize greatly and humbly to all three of you. I hope that this will never happen again.

But, I made a decision today. I am not going to be involved in any more personal drama after what happened this morning.

I'm only going to sparingly focus on topics now. If even that.

I was sick and tired of it as of this morning. Truly.

Be rest assured, the only drama here is BH's own.

I have no more to say about this anymore. The work has to go on.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No. My issue with reparations is not 'now' about taxes. We were talking about who would PAY reparations. You said the government. That means our taxes. I pay taxes. Therefore .... it's still my money.

And its also mine. I wasn't aware that your opinion means more than mine. I thought we were all equal.



There is no 'historic wrong' to be righted.

Really?! Thank you for telling me. I was under the impression that the US gov't legalized the enslavement of my people until 1865. I was also under the impression that, from 1865 to 1965, the US gov't legalized the subjugation of certain citizens on the basis of their race.



No one alive had anything to do with it. Nor did their parents. Nor their grandparents.

You've been misinformed. Between 1882 and 1968, 4,743 people were lynched, the vast majority of whom were black. The numbers could be higher, but those are only the murders documented in local papers. If we divide 4,743 (# killed) by 86 (# of years under consideration), we get about 55 murders a year. If we forget about anything that happened before about 1920 (since those people are really old or dead), that still gives us 2,647 such murders committed by people who are still alive. Further, if we really want to nit-pick, each lynching, presumably, required at least two 'lynchers', one to hold the victim, and one to make the noose. So, that gives us, at least, 5,294 murderers, still alive. That's not all. These lynchings were very public events, so there are plenty of people, still alive, who enjoyed the spectacle. In fact, they took pictures and distributed postcards.

So, in conclusion, there are many, many people, still quite alive, who took part in the 'fun' of abusing black people. Be mad at them for creating a problem our generation is forced to deal with.

As an aside, I found something interesting in the wiki article. They describe the two main motives for American lynching. One was some breach of Jim Crow etiquette, the other was for financial reasons:


upon successful lynching of a black farmer or immigrant merchant, the land would be available and the market opened for white Americans...The most prevalent accusation was murder or attempted murder, followed by a list of infractions that included verbal and physical aggression, spirited business competition and independence of mind.

en.wikipedia.org...

That tidbit, I believe, underscores the need for financial restitution. It's now obvious why blacks as a group are so impoverished: until 1968, whenever they managed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they were terrorized, often to death.



How about you read them now?

I read your links, and they made my stomach turn. If that's where you're getting your information, it's no wonder you oppose reparations. I would too, the way they're presenting it. The slogan at the top of the first link, adversity.net, is "Reparations, Retribution, Recrimination, Revenge." That's obviously wrong because 'retribution' and 'revenge' would be to enslave all white people. As for 'recrimination,' the only recrimination going on around this topic applies to the whites who cry reverse-discrimination.

The content of the page wasn't much better, in my eyes. According to them, the Japanese interned in WWII deserved reparations because it was awarded directly to those who had suffered. Apparently, unbeknownst to blacks, we must have let the clock run out. Actually, if the US gov't didn't have its hands so full after the Civil War, preventing petulant Southerners from committing wholesale murder, maybe they would have done it. Or, maybe, they didn't do it because, alas, blacks were still being discriminated against.

I could take apart the rest of the links because they're filled with faulty information, but I really don't have the patience. A word to the wise: when a cause needs its proponents to parrot their 'talking points,' the cause probably can't stand on its own. If it did, its proponents could debate without teaching aids.



I THINK WE AGREE at least that the money we are sending overseas should stop being sent over there and should be spent here at home....Cut that 6 billion $$$ that Bush said we are giving Africa for AIDS research.

I think you took the point too far. I'm against political aid, ie, the money we use to arm one side against the other. Those conflicts don't involve us, and I don't think we should fund murder, govt'-endorsed or not. OTOH, AIDS research is different. It saves lives. I believe that's the only reason we have for involving ourselves in other countries.



[1]If you want more programs, programs that all americans could participate in, then I'd be open to that. But don't label them 'reparations'. That term is a fallicy IMHO.

[2]In the end it is up to the individual. The person can use the programs that are available or they can not. I found the US Army and went to work in the military while at the same time getting my college for free. I found a way.

I'm trying to follow your train of thought, so allow me to do a little experiment. I numbered the above statements for reference. In the first statement, you seem to be addressing poverty. In the second statement, you bring up personal responsibility. That tells me that you see reparations as an attempt by blacks not to take any responsibility for their circumstances. Is this true?



Since we are chatting HH .. I have a question or two

I'm always happy to answer your questions, FF, for the purposes of cross-cultural understanding. However, I'm not answering this one until you tell me what you think about my answer to your rap question.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:03 AM
link   
HH

Just a question...


As for 'recrimination,' the only recrimination going on around this topic applies to the whites who cry reverse-discrimination.


Do you feel that reverse discrimination does NOT exist?

Here or anywhere else?

Are "People of color" (I hate that term, I'm not white, actually a dark shade of tan) the only group that does not discriminate?

If there are other groups that discriminate, what is the criteria? Is it a personal action, or part of a group dynamic?

How do you feel about the supposition that programs such as "Affirmative Action", [as a program designed and implemented to specifically assist one race of people,] are comparative to reparations?

How do you stand on reparations for the other cultures and races that have experienced slavery and discrimination such as the Irish, the Chinese and Hispanics?

Semper



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Sorry for my late arrivial again...



I have never understood black on black crime. Considering the difficulties that are sometimes inherited by those of the black community; WHY is black on black crime so high?? Do you know? It's a complete mystery to me why some black people, who call each other brother and sister, many times go on to destroy the lives of their fellow black Americans. And why do black people call themselves 'African Americans' when it was their fellow Africans who sold them to slavers to begin with?? I would think that if anything black people wouldn't be too happy about their ancestors being mistreated and enslaved by Africans like that. They were, and yet their great-great-great- grandchildren hold Africa in such high regard.


I love that you asked these questions, FF. These are the sorta things we should be talking about. For my part I will attempt to address these misconceptions.

Black on Black crime doesn't exist. There is just crime, and poverty is the only reason for it. When you are starving you don't look and say "oh, I can't rob them they are black like me." Blacks commit crimes of poverty on each other because they are packed tightly into these "communities" starving. It's not because they are black--it's because of the poverty.

We call each other brother and sister because of slavery which ripped families apart. Some black people don't even know that's why. To ask an ill educated starving person to feel some since of community is a tall order. Some get knocked for drug crimes at the age of 13 they become a felon. Once you are a felon there is nothing left for you but crime. You can't get a grant or a loan. You can't even get a job at Mc Donalds unless you lie on the application. What we have now is steady release of American blacks from the pen that can do nothing but crime to survive. They have no education and even if they got one in jail the chances of them getting a job is slim to nill. This is just the reality. To do crime to survive is a choice that many people make of all colors. To call crime black on black or to look down on a black person for killing another black as opposed to just doing the killing would be racist, in my opinion.

Tis the condition many black folk are forced to live in. I grew up around people that are no longer with us so I can see the whole picture. Their parents are crack headz living off the government giving their county checks and food stamps to the dopeman. What would you do if you were 13 and there was no food and no way for you get food....what would you do to eat? Would you rob? Would you sell some crack? The alternative is starve. What would you do?

[edit] I have removed the first paragraph because I'm tired of this whole thing of who is the bigger racist on ATS. From now on I'll only be addressing things that are on topic. If you have something to ask me that is personal please put it in a U2U.

Peace
Saph

[edit on 22-9-2006 by Saphronia]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I was going to post something and then decided not to. This is useless.

Semper .. as soon as I get some WATS I'll be giving it to you. Excellent information and it needs to be acknowledged and addressed by ALL the posters on this thread.

HH ... I didn't ask a rap question. Also - I appreciate that 4-5000 people were lynched, but I didn't do it. I shouldn't have to pay anyone anything just because of what a few others did somewhere else and at a different time.

SAPH ... thanks for the answer. I have always wondered why. Now I have some insight. Thanks.

As I said .. my last post. Please don't address me since I won't be back on to answer anything. Thank you.



[edit on 9/22/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Semper I wasn't out of WATS and you deserve one
Thanks for continuing to add good information to a thread that does "get out of control"



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
It's quite funny to me how many comments about how a "useless thread" that "gets out of control" could last 50+ pages.

Perhaps the answer truly reflects this thread is not so useless after all. In fact, I think this thread is quite useful to those committed to getting a willing investment out of engaging the question of race-relations on all fronts.

The questions did not change. They are still asked forthrightly, directly and waiting for an answer. These questions were not to accuse anyone of anything. They were also not asked to put forth any given agenda. The inquires only represented two distinct requests on my part to discuss these issues in earnest.

I give my thanks to those who are actually thoughtful and did try to answer the question. For those of you who could not, I wish you to keep on searching for that answer and continue to persevere.

This is a tough issue, but hardly a useless one. It is one that could start the pathway of understanding if people truly recognized a few points:

1)Racism affects all of us, some more than others.

2)We all need to learn about racism more. No one is left out of the picture.

3)This is not a thread that "gets out of control". It is as good as the people that makes the thread. And a lot more time could have been spent on tackling the issues if it weren't on the focus of personality.

4)Like rape, racism is an issue of power. And it seems to prove that one isn't "racist", they have use such tactics of control to accuse others as bigoted and racist while they come off smelling like a rose. It seems in order to obtain and possess a sense of control, there are actions taken that subjugate people on the basis of "delusions", "fantasies" and "lies". The sad thing about this, is that when people have to get to that level of accusation, it truly means that they are closed-minded and cannot see another way around it. They also cannot ask any other questions except to afford their own interests.

It is derogatory and unnecessary to write off what others are saying because you simply haven't experienced them. It conveys a lack of empathy and a practice of selective hearing.

5)There is no way that you can't see a "color". That is what is distinctively different about us. Human beings come in different colors. However, it is the ideology, the transmission of that ideology and the practice by the dominant culture that enables these differences on such an inherent level that people cannot escape making comments based on variation. Biases happen.
Racism happens. Bigotry happens. In order for it to lessen in our society, we have to be serious in recognizing the inequalities and treatment that occurs.

To not see a "color" is to ignore the beauty of "diversity". Furthermore, it is to embrace one culture and race above all others. For some, this is good. Others of us think this is not.

6)People still have to have guts to talk this issue out. It's okay to be tired and retreat for a while. But, in the end, this is a discussion that needs to be hashed out. If people continue to refuse to discuss this, they continue having the same stereotypes of others. And then, they will continue to be "disturbed" and "saddened" when recognizing the depth of racism out there. And when they do recognize the "depth" of racism out there, then they will be able to feel what others are going through. And then, they won't focus on issues of personality anymore. They will be able to discuss the issue in its proper format.

7)This is more than recognizing racism. It is trying to find that middle ground for us to understand each other. If people don't want to seek that middle ground and focus too much on who has been hurt, then we will never get anywhere. As emotional as race is, this is still an intellectual exercise as of any other topic. And people, have to be willing to look past the petty issues and go forward to discuss these issues regardless. Talking about race is not about highlighting who is the most patient or kind. This is a situation that has delve deeply into unknown territory in which we can find out different things about each other. But if people are stuck on issues of control, then perhaps we will never get anywhere.

8)This is not a conversation that focuses on penalizing anyone. I've seen how this discussion went. And even, by going through the back pages, I am not upset by it as others are. I'm happy that people were brave enough to engage this conversation. When people took sides, things went awry.

But I've swept away all my hurt and despair. I continue to move on and do my part to continue this thread. People who are equally committed need to do the same in order for things to get better.

If people want to practice true equality, practice it. Do not pretend to be "equal" and then try to control others. There is too much to talk about to resort to playing power issues.

There are things that need to be discussed here. The last thing on my mind is whether this thread is "out of control" or that it is "useless". I continue to work on making this thread "useful".

But I can see how one might think that this thread is "out of control". When the dominant culture has to actually hear the stories of people of color, their ideology is lessening. It becomes disturbing enough that they have to understand the effects of what their words and actions have done to others outside of the main culture, race and ideology. The ideology of the dominant culture is not working here. We are moving past it to find a new type of explaination for why these matters happen. And when power is jeopardized, there is nothing else to do but turn tail and run. That action represents to me true insecurity, not to mention fright over learning something new.

No one likes to see what they've invested their time in repeating slowly being dissected an analyzed. They would rather see their past beliefs left in tact. And those who have something to lose, will fight to the bitter end so that their own invested views will not be erased. It's a sad fact of life, but it is true.

We need to take Saph's word to heart and "proceed". There is no retreating back. We have to press forward and continue the talks. Right now, the effort needs to focused on issues. That is where the meat of the discussion lies. And it's time to focus there in order facilitate this progression into this brave new world.




[edit on 22-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:00 PM
link   
The only question to propel this further is why the issue of control is aligned with race? Why do people feel that a thread is "out of control" when the things being said do not reflect their manner of thinking?

Would the discussion on race be "more in control" if we simply spoke "assimilationist" talk and continued to say what is commonly accepted by the dominant culture?

Better yet, to throw these things into the issue of "reparations" and "slavery", why do you think people cannot truly delve into the issues regarding these very things? Is it because once information is disseminated about the pain, anguish and horror that people went through that the topic is suddenly "out of control"?

Now this has nothing to do with an "issue of personality". We are only dealing with the subject matter and that only.

Any issues of personality will be ignored and not answered.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Thank you, Harlem Hottie for finding the site on lynching. I think it is important that people take a look at these pictures in order to realize the depth of hatred that was perpetuated in these acts. It's not about whether the people of today "didn't do it". It is rather whether they "feel it" or not. Do they feel sickened and upset that acts like these had taken place all over the South during the era of Jim Crow, if not before?

They have to be equally sickened that the people perpetuating these acts are still alive.

And yet, no one has given their condolences or expressed their sadness or horror about what happened. They are too focused upon saying, "I didn't do it" or "My relatives didn't do it".

Posses were definitely set up to execute the acts. And there were a lot of bystanders there. And for anyone to say whether "their relatives didn't have any slaves", another appropriate question to ask is whether anyone's relatives "attended a lynching party" or any course of action that contributed to the deaths of people of color and newly arrived immigrants across the country. Now, that is something they can't say for sure, because these events were watched by a lot of people. And in the past, they used to have picnics while the actions was going on.

It is amazing to me for the people who could praise "revisionist history" could not be moved by the pictures of lynching as postcards in America. For people to propose that we are all "one human race", it is also amazing to me that they have no comment on how such acts scarred the landscape of America in many ways.

For a lot of people who care about "human beings", they remain stone-faced and silent about pictures depicting the actual deaths of people suffering at the hands of their "fellow human beings".

It is a total hypocrisy that people can care for the entire "human race" and to not describe how they feel to have had these acts take place and to watch a group of people standing there without even worrying about being taken to justice for their acts of wrong doing.

I think the reason behind the lynchings speak for themselves why reparations are in order.

Whenever Blacks are independent, in control and working financially on their own, a Rosewood happens. The things that they have built with their own hands, sinew and self-determination are often ridiculed, attacked and destroyed. These same acts take place today. I can name a few examples off the top of my head.

[edit on 22-9-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saphronia
We call each other brother and sister because of slavery which ripped families apart. Some black people don't even know that's why. To ask an ill educated starving person to feel some since of community is a tall order. Some get knocked for drug crimes at the age of 13 they become a felon. Once you are a felon there is nothing left for you but crime. You can't get a grant or a loan. You can't even get a job at Mc Donalds unless you lie on the application. What we have now is steady release of American blacks from the pen that can do nothing but crime to survive. They have no education and even if they got one in jail the chances of them getting a job is slim to nill. This is just the reality. To do crime to survive is a choice that many people make of all colors. To call crime black on black or to look down on a black person for killing another black as opposed to just doing the killing would be racist, in my opinion.

Juvenile records are sealed. To say that a person's life is ruined because of a drug offense at age 13 is disingenuous. Most societies, esp. ours, bend over backwards to rehabilitate young offenders. The exceptions are crimes of a sociopathic nature, like murder. Any of us can cite examples of youths who committed felonies and rose above it.

This in't limited to juveniles, either. Many adults have risen above their mistakes. It isn't easy, but then again, they made a bad choice to commit the crime in the first place.



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Once again, crime has nothing to do with Race.


The study of why people commit crime is important, not only as a field of behavioural research, but as a source of data for constructing public policy models in response to criminal behaviour. Greater understanding of why people commit criminal offences enables policy makers and the general public to make better decisions about the criminal justice system.www.sasked.gov.sk.ca...

Why do people commit crime?

People commit crimes for many reasons. Maybe they are poor and commit crime to get food, clothes etc. they cannot afford. Maybe they are unemployed and bored or rich and bored. Vandalism and drug related crimes are sometimes committed to provide excitement. Usually someone begins by committing a "small offence" which is unpunished. The criminal then commits bigger offences. Crime can become a habit or a way of life. There is no one answer as to why people commit crime.
www.request.org.uk...


Also variables to include, but not limited to:

1) Classical Theory
2) Biological Theory
3) Psychobiological Theory
4) Sociological Theory
5) Interactionist Theory

The study of Why People Commit Crime is by no means complete. The issue is far too vast to write an expose' on it here.
However to make the assumption that crime is in anyway connected to Race, is to also make the assumption there may be Genetic factors involved and that has been defrocked numerous times. (Although a theory that has been espoused several times before.)

Semper



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Thank you all for the wonderful applause.


All I am trying to do is to inject some actual factual evidence and not just continue to fill the pages with thoughts, conjectures and opinions.

I believe there is always a place for opinions, but perhaps 54 pages of opinion is a little over the top.

When this thread started, I began reading it intrigued to say the least. What a wonderful initial idea and open forum to discuss that dark closet subject, Race.

Then, it devolved into race baiting then into the Us V Them and though at times, amusing and even entertaining, did nothing to further anyone's understanding.

I just wish that people would understand that we all have prejudices and we are all bigots of one sort or another. What we have to do is accept, understand and above all else tolerate.

Tolerate those that are different or have different opinions.

Semper



posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I think it depends on who is invested in how these talks go. There are some of us who continue to say that "everyone experiences these things". But in the end, when you realize that some get treated more badly than others, then that's when the real issues of race begin to be discussed.

And I don't think that this thread devolved into an "us vs. them". I think that it was quite a shock for some to actually tackle the issues of race that the only thing they could do is to steer it into more "safe" areas that they could control. These sites of discourse were "areas" that some can still manipulate without feeling anything different.

These "safe" areas are those that people can hide in without feeling anything else in regards to the suffering of others.

Some people are ready to get out of these "safe" areas and truly talk turkey.

Others remain there with their hands over their ears, hoping that their beliefs will help them withstand the more disturbing parts of this discussion.

That's what selective hearing is all about. People hear what they want.

They don't truly answer what they are afraid of answering.

They repeat the same mantra that has gotten them through when the evidence is produced otherwise--even to the point of procuring other types of material to help them stay in that "safe" place. And part of that "safe place" is to say that "everyone experiences it". And then they continue to believe that this is the only way to be right.

I truly believe that people have to drop this line of thinking if there has to be a true discussion of race.

That's why talks of this kind require courage.



[edit on 22-9-2006 by ceci2006]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join