Victimization of African Americans as a form of control

It has become very obvious to me, and to many, I believe, that black leaders are engaging in the most harmful form of victimization of their own race. The purpose, I believe, is to maintain control over them politically. The Zimmerman trial is just one more example of how politicians twist the truth to maintain that control. If one were to listen only to black politicians, one would think that black Americans were victims of crime predominantly by non-blacks, when in fact, legitimate studies show just the opposite.
www.washingtonpost.com...

Nearly half the people murdered in the United States each year are black, part of a persistent pattern in which African Americans are disproportionately victimized by violent crime, according to a new Justice Department study released yesterday. The study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics also found that from 2001 to 2005, more than nine out of 10 black murder victims were killed by other blacks, and three out of four were slain with a gun. Blacks, who make up 13 percent of the population, were victims in 15 percent of nonfatal violent crimes.

One would think that if those politicians REALLY wanted to help black Americans, they would concentrate on fixing the problem within their own community. However, that is far from what they are doing. The real crime is that these politicians WANT, in my opinion, to maintain control, by using the "us versus them" technique, a technique that ensures that the situation does not change.
I would like to have a civil discussion on suggestions by ATS member on how this situation can be changed. Furthermore, I would like to know if you believe it is even possible to change the situation in the current environment, where the media concentrates on only the outlying stories, the 10% of murders committed by non-blacks against blacks.

I agree.

The way I see it, there is a tribal element to alot of culture clashes all over the world.

We aren't as evolved as people think.

Both black and white leaders will use any edge they have to gain power. Regardless of their own personal beliefs and views.

Racial divide is one of many tactics used.

The only way this will change is if a leader gets in power who has strong morals.

There arent many of them around though.

One would think that if those politicians REALLY wanted to help black Americans, they would concentrate on fixing the problem within their own community.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


I think this is the problem. It's like promoting an apartheid. Them and us, my community, your community etc.

To create or enforce a division based on race doesn't solve racism.

It is easier to control people when they are divided.

My solution would be target the community where there is an increased crime rate, then focus on families that are unable to take care of children, then make sure the children are supervised by someone else if the parents are inadequate.. its extreme but it should but bad habits at early age.

Goes for any crime commiters really.

Thank you well said.

It was hinted at by another poster. More or less, as long as you have the likes of Rev Al Sharpton rallying up black folks for the next straw cause, they are controlling the masses. Not to mention that the Rev gets certain kick backs from the government and his own special interest groups for keeping that fire stoked.

As long as he and the likes of the NAACP (another organization that lives up the "victim" mentality, a far cry from it's original foundations) are willing to pander to outsider interests it's going to be difficult to get the crowd to focus on the correct things.

When you have the likes of Thomas Sowell vs Rev. Al Sharpton (or Micheal Dyson), Sowell is going to lose because Sowell is kind of like me. Yea, it's real, it's happening, get over it. While others are more likely to pander to the "victim" mentality. All it is is the conservative vs liberal mindset. This racism thing, it's nothing compared to the "good 'ol days". My grandmother remember the days of desegregation and segregation. She has an axe to grind and i do not fault her because she had the real ish to deal with.



(explicit language warning)

That's how alot of our grand parents grew up. They teach our parents. And our parents teach us. Your taught one thing and you see another. That's how you get ostracized. Because your not willing to drink the kool aid, so to speak, and break down the problem and you realize it's BS. A diversionary tactic. While you have two sides screaming about the problem, you don't have two sides trying to correct the problem.

Divide. Conquer. Rule ad nausea.

as long as you have the likes of Rev Al Sharpton rallying up black folks for the next straw cause, they are controlling the masses.

reply to post by cenpuppie

Excellent points. I remember when Sharpton CONTINUED to perpetrate the Tawana Brawley hoax, long after he KNEW that she was lying. He ignored the facts, and continued to use the false accusations to advance his cause, namely, the continued "leadership" he enjoyed among the majority of the black community. For those too young to remember the Tawana Brawley fiasco:
www.thedailybeast.com...

The Tawana Brawley case that captivated New York in the late eighties is a shocking reminder of the toxic mix racial exploitation and personal ambition can produce. The New York Times and Retroreport.org have just released a new 15-minute documentary on the despicable hoax, which should be required viewing for the NBC News executives who are heavily invested in rehabilitating a key culprit of this loathsome episode: the Rev. Al Sharpton.
Brawley was 15 years old in 1987, when she was found in her hometown of Wappingers Falls, New York, with “Bitch,” “KKK,” and “Nigger” written on her stomach, her jeans burnt in the crotch, feces in her hair, and her tennis shoes sliced open. She said that she had been abducted and raped by a group of white men.

A trio of increasingly prominent, and radical, New York City black activists represented her and her family: attorneys Alton Maddox and C. Vernon Mason and the Rev. Al Sharpton. Brawley told them said that a cop had been one of her attackers, and Sharpton named that officer as Harry Crist Jr., a police officer from a nearby town who had committed suicide shortly after Brawley was found. Sharpton also named a local prosecutor, Steven Pagones, as one of the attackers. He offered no proof.

Gov. Mario Cuomo dispatched a veteran prosecutor, Jack Ryan, to handle the case. Brawley and her advisers refused to cooperate in any way with Ryan and his team. “That was the decision of the lawyers,” Sharpton says defensively in the Times interview. When asked why Brawley’s team would not meet with New York State Attorney General Robert Abrams, Sharpton said it would be “like asking someone who watched someone killed in the gas chamber to sit down with Mr. Hitler.” Sharpton later accused Ryan of kicking a blind man in a scuffle with demonstrators. Ryan was nowhere near the scene.

After a six-month investigation a grand jury found that the entire episode had been a hoax, with Brawley having defaced herself to avoid the wrath of her stepfather after staying out late to visit a boyfriend.

Thanks for your contributions to the thread.

It is easier to control people when they are divided.

reply to post by luciddream

True. The real crime is that people like Sharpton and Holder are harming the people that the pretend to be "protecting". I wonder how much further those that are victimized would be, if people like their false leaders did not exist. For every decent leader, such as MLK, there are 20 Al Sharptons.

The only way this will change is if a leader gets in power who has strong morals. There arent many of them around though.

reply to post by Briles1207


Very true. I believe that the key is the media. As long as they are invested in continuing this conflict, and I believe it is perfectly clear that they are, they will vilify any such moral leader, to the point where his/her name is mud, and no longer a viable candidate. The MSM is completely committed to make sure that the conflict level stays high, because it ensures that viewership and readership remains strong, and after all, strong ratings ensure premium commercial time. Although a "free press" is "protected" by our Constitution, this press is NOT free, but controlled by money and power. Some people call that controlling power the NWO. I call it pure greed and avarice.
MONEY=POWER=CONTROL

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

The only way this will change is if a leader gets in power who has strong morals. There arent many of them around though.

reply to post by Briles1207

 

Very true. I believe that the key is the media. As long as they are invested in continuing this conflict, and I believe it is perfectly clear that they are, they will vilify any such moral leader, to the point where his/her name is mud, and no longer a viable candidate. The MSM is completely committed to make sure that the conflict level stays high, because it ensures that viewership and readership remains strong, and after all, strong ratings ensure premium commercial time. Although a "free press" is "protected" by our Constitution, this press is NOT free, but controlled by money and power. Some people call that controlling power the NWO. I call it pure greed and avarice.

Exactly. A good example of this would be Margaret Thatcher. She was very stern and had strong morals yet was villified by the media for her strong stance on certain subjects.

Its a lose lose postion really.

Lose your morals, or lose your job. Flip the coin.


MONEY=POWER=CONTROL

Exactly. A good example of this would be Margaret Thatcher. She was very stern and had strong morals yet was villified by the media for her strong stance on certain subjects. Its a lose lose postion really. Lose your morals, or lose your job. Flip the coin.

reply to post by Briles1207

I was actually in that exact situation, when I worked for a very large corporation back in the 1980's. I refused to go along with an illegal action that they wanted me to be involved in. I ended up dead-ended, and finally left the corporation. I was threatened to the point where I documented everything and gave it to my lawyer, and let him know that if anything happened to me, he would know where to find the culprits. In the long run, I ended up forming my own company, and after many successful years, sold my company, and took a tenured position at a mid-size college. I don't regret what I did, one iota. Somehow, I believe that a higher power took care of me, and I found out later, that two of the people(including a 3rd line manager) were forced out of the company. I suspect that they tried their tricks with the wrong person in a position of power.