It is NOT racially motivated if the victim is white!

reply to post by ShaunHatfield

It is NOT racially motivated if the victim is white!

As easy as it would be to label this a white/black issue, it really is not. The problem is most often described as 'political correctness' and this is a very good definition. Current cultural trends are politically inspired to prevent dialogue between the races... all races.

Remember that 1970s movie, Blazing Saddles? The comedy in it ran roughshod over stereotyping... racial, sexual and everything else they could think of. But today? In 2011? That movie couldn't be made. The conversation has been silenced, the ability to look at our prejudices and make fun of them, has been outlawed.

I will not assume the worst of anyone I don't know and since every single person on this planet is first and foremost an individual human being, then our differences should't be placed off limits... nor should it become a topic for divisiveness anywhere.

Originally posted by anon72
I have YET to hear ONE story about a bunch of white youths Flash Mob attacking anyone-let alone blacks.

The Spanish vs the Mayans.
KKK
Germany 1940s
The Crusades

You could say those things were organised, but I think that probably makes it worse. I've seen plenty of white persons randomly attacking people, including myself. I don't know where you live, but I would move there if you've never see these things.

Just because you don't see something happen doesn't mean it isn't there. People have a remarkable ability to believe that reaity is only what the media reports sometimes. Where I live, police have been quite efficient and prosecuting people of all races for these types of crimes. By efficient I don't mean perfect, but they're quite happy to lay it on as thick as they can when something does get to court.

I find the same thing happens with gay rights and other topics. People read a few salacious media articles and make the assumption that everything is very one sided. Considering how many persons on ATS don't fall for the media, it's interesting to note that they're completely trusting when it comes to his topic.

reply to post by Pinke

^^Oh wow.^^^
People that site that kinda crap as an example for MODERN TIMES are truly ignorant, and perpetuating this crap.



PLEASE EVERYBODY: DO NOT GIVE INTO THESE DIVIDE AND CONQUER TACTICS

Love thy brother, and if he does hit you, turn the other cheek.

It's hard, but it will make this world better

In Philly, we called it Greek Fest.

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
reply to post by Pinke

 

^^Oh wow.^^^
People that site that kinda crap as an example for MODERN TIMES are truly ignorant, and perpetuating this crap.

I could have cited several situations I've witnessed in real life of white people doing the exact same things which are being described in the original post. I could have posted shots of white people in several riots. There's an entire segment of my post that you utterly ignored in your eagerness to throw down a flame.

What's also ignorant is assuming that in MODERN TIMES we're completely civilised and white people are utterly fantastic. Do you honestly think racist white people stopped existing and the KKK happened hundreds of years ago? White people ... like all other people ... are just people. Black people are also just people. If you actually bothered reading the content of the post you would realised I'm pretty much saying the same thing you're saying ...

Black people can be racist. White people can be racist. The media doesn't cover everything.

Where you got that I'm 'dividing and conquering' or 'perpetuating' anything from is beyond me. /Shrugs.

Originally posted by Pinke
I could have cited several situations I've witnessed in real life of white people doing the exact same things which are being described in the original post.

But you see, the main differences are that a) the opposite context (the context which is brought up in the OP) seems to be much more prevalent, and b) that the media and "justice" system indeed seem to treat these situations very differently. It's really just that simple.

Go ahead and research the FBI's UCR. The amount of black against white crime is staggering. And that's without the white majority. Blacks are the majority of serial killers ( before you argue a serial killer is defined as someone who kills 3 or more with a cooling off period in between ). Look at the rate of lockups? Pretty strange amirite? You got a low percent representing the highest.

Don't judge a book by its cover, unless the cover is trying to tell you something about the book.

Originally posted by ShaunHatfield
It is NOT racially motivated if the victim is white!

Exactly like it's not religously motivated if it's a jew, and we are barely told when a criminal is in fact a jew, on the other hand if it's a muslim well the media will plaster that everywhere, gotta keep the bogus zionist war on terror going right, the same as the media seem to get off on giving brown people something to fight about.

It's just a movie, right?

The Spook Who Sat by the Door a 1973 film, which is based on the novel The Spook Who Sat By The Door by Sam Greenlee. It is both a satire of the civil rights struggle in the United States of the late 1960s and a serious attempt to focus on the issue of black militancy. Dan Freeman, the titular protagonist, is enlisted in the Central Intelligence Agency's elitist espionage program as its token black. Upon mastering agency tactics, however, he drops out to train young Chicago blacks as "Freedom Fighters." As a story of one man's reaction to ruling-class hypocrisy, the film is autobiographical and personal.

The first report of attacks were on August 5th, right? Well, glad I was safe at a movie theater when this was released on August 5th.

Originally posted by Bleak
But you see, the main differences are that a) the opposite context (the context which is brought up in the OP) seems to be much more prevalent and b) that the media and "justice" system indeed seem to treat these situations very differently. It's really just that simple.

Not particularly.

I see a thread title claiming a generalisation. No offense to OP.

I see a youtube video discussing a complex issue about a local area. I doubt that the police are using the logic the youtube user claims. There are situations where I live where certain racial minority groups will riot/protest and dealing with them can be a tender matter. I can understand sometimes that police and courts decide to make certain decisions. Perhaps they shouldn't do these things ... but anyway ...

There are also articles written by journalists where I live regularly in the media about police going hard or easy on minorities and the debate that surrounds that topic. I don't believe the media is completely one sided. It's a regular topic of debate where I live.

Also where I'm from ...

Western Australia has seen very few prosecutions under these laws as crimes involving racism appear to be more commonly prosecuted as ordinary criminal offences.52 It was not until July 2004, fourteen years after their introduction, that the 1990 provisions were first used to charge and convict Damon Blaxall for racist graffiti attacks and possession of material likely or intended to promote racial hatred.53 In 2004 16 year old Aboriginal girl was the first person to be charged under the 2004 version of the provisions. The girl was charged both with assault and with engaging in condu‘intended to racially harass’. The facts of the case involved a physical attack upon a nineteen year old woman during which the victim was called a ‘white slut’ by the accused.

From: sydney.edu.au...

It's mostly an under utilised provision in Australia as far as I know. I haven't looked at all the statistics, but maybe I should! Just so little time in the day.

reply to post by ShaunHatfield


If you feel this way, DON'T keep quiet, say something, the DOJ gave the green lite, when it stopped all action against the high level crimes in the Justice system, where race was an issue (white victims), yes that is correct, Its called the race card, the Democrats use well, people in the DOJ don't like this, but the MEDIA is to blame the editors, are quiet because the money men are the bosses, they like the conditions, of the country, no jobs, businesses closing, and everything on the news is 2012. look at the news he travel to see rich, the working class people, but no trips to see the unemplyeed, the closed coffee shops,