The Racial Thing

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

I wasn’t going to jump in this conversation because of the racial overtone, but… To make this a racial issue is retarded, there were something like only 3 reported rapes.

As for the looting and rioting, you sit in those god awful conditions for about 4 days or more then be told by the soldier guarding the overpass “well no sir you cant pass over into liveable conditions, you have to rot right here.” At this point if I’m stuck behind like these people, I’m going to go nuts, steal what food my family needs to survive and yes if I get mad enough probably shoot at the same motherfuckers that are keeping me in these unliveable conditions.

Let’s not fool ourselves here, regardless of where you sit left or right of the fence, as of 2 days ago as reported by 2 embedded fox news reporters the national guard was not allowing these people to leave the superdome, they were locked in and not allowed to cross to liveable conditions. I don’t give a shit what color or ethnicity you are, your fight or flight kicks in, and since you can’t flee that leaves you the option to fight.

As a cop myself and with god as my witness, if I was in stuck in those conditions and told I could go no where I would be reacting the same way. Let’s also keep in mind, all these people are not “ACTING” this way, they are “REACTING” to how they are being treated. Not one person on this board, myself included can begin to imagine waht these people have experienced. That’s my 2 f-ing cents.

82

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
randman wrote:
Blacks are inferior to whites. They’re prone to violence, rape, but also have a gift for music and love chicken and watermelon. Does that about sum it up for you guys?

Randman, the point I tried to make in my first post is that no one can initiate a serious discussion about the race thing without being attacked as a bigot and a racist by people like you . . . people who, by the way, offer no constructive analysis or valid counter-arguments . . . just the same smirky pap . . . and lots of name-calling and insults.

It’s the same mindset that keeps us from racially profiling Arab men at airports.

I think this thread proves that point:
We can’t look at racial issues OBJECTIVELY in this country.

[/quote]

It’s because your arguments have not been objective whatsoever. You’ve used extremely subjective data to draw you conclusions fed by media that is also not objective.

To attribute a “skin color” to violence is beyond ridiculous. I just can’t take you seriously. And yes, you are a bigot.

83

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is nonsense. While many of LBJ’s intiatives failed, the Viet Nam war was a very large reason for that. The two key components of Johnson’s Great Society reform were the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed the literacy tests used to prevent blacks from voting, and the Medicare bill of 1965, which provided a system of health insurance for the elderly under the Social Security program.

Could you please tell me how stopping racist systems in place to keep blacks from voting and the institution of Medicare caused poverty? You called it a racist initiative. America was racist. If it was difficult to even vote, difficult to get an education, and difficult to find decent jobs, how could any program designed to end this be described as negatively racist? The alternative at the time was?

I’m not talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, nor am I referring to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Although they were a part of the Great Society, they are not what caused the Great Society to be such a horrible exoeriment.

I think Medicare was given to too many folks, and made an entitlement that has bloated the medical costs of regular people. Not a good thing in my opinion. Most of the times the gov’t gets involved in industry - it is a very bad thing.

Most specifically the Economic Opportunity Act is what caused the failure of the Great Society. Job Corps has been a colossal waste of tax dollars ever since it was created.

The government can’t give away money to poor folks just because they are poor. If you can’t see the Welfare system for the horrible cancer it was, then you have been wearing blinders.

And who was the largest recipient of the welfare system? Blacks. Specifically black females that were rewarded for having out of wedlock babies. They were rewarded with more money. It created an entire generation of poor that had never known independence. Which is what we are seeing in NO.

And it all started with LBJ.

[/quote]

rainjack,

I would like to introduce you to an idea that might be really shocking to you.

We have socialiced medicine and it is actually a system that is a lot cheaper than that of the US, and I think allmost all socialised systems are. Whenever an american politician states that the american health care system is the best in the world, people all over the world start to snicker. As far as I know the administration costs of our system are less than 1/10 of 1%.

Maybe medicine is an area that is a natural monopoly. I don?t know and I would agree with you in principle that the government usually isn?t doing much good interfering with any industry, but in this case it is hard for me to ignore that I grew up in a system that works, even for the poorest people.

84

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
First you have to grow an antenna and a tv-set on your belly. Then you have to get a tv-show,where it won?t take long for a televangelist to point out that you are gay.

It?s really hard to be purple, that is why so few choose to be purple.

In your zeal to be witty, and oh so freakin funny, you failed to realize that the reference to purple was because of randman’s avatar - which is? Yes - a PURPLE dinosaur.

[/quote]

Damn it.

85

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack,

I would like to introduce you to an idea that might be really shocking to you.

We have socialiced medicine and it is actually a system that is a lot cheaper than that of the US, and I think allmost all socialised systems are. Whenever an american politician states that the american health care system is the best in the world, people all over the world start to snicker. As far as I know the administration costs of our system are less than 1/10 of 1%.

Maybe medicine is an area that is a natural monopoly. I don?t know and I would agree with you in principle that the government usually isn?t doing much good interfering with any industry, but in this case it is hard for me to ignore that I grew up in a system that works, even for the poorest people.[/quote]

Well - our government is incapable of effective management. The overhead to run ANY gov’t agency is horrendous.

I’d be willing to bet money that the wealthy of your country don’t stand in line for treatment with the common folk. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it’s just that money will provide better medical care than the government.

I don’t think socialized anything is a viable alternative. Never have. It invites corruption and mis-management.

86

[quote]Pretzel Logic wrote:
I think you know my stance. Hey, you notice the white kid looks nervous? Like maybe his parents acutally taught him not to steal and even though you can’t blame anyone for taking food and water in this situation, he looks a little guilty.[/quote]

Um… Pretzel? Not a valid argument. The picture of the “Looters” has them with their backs to the camera… you can’t see their faces. Maybe they were nervous, too?

87

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack,

I would like to introduce you to an idea that might be really shocking to you.

We have socialiced medicine and it is actually a system that is a lot cheaper than that of the US, and I think allmost all socialised systems are. Whenever an american politician states that the american health care system is the best in the world, people all over the world start to snicker. As far as I know the administration costs of our system are less than 1/10 of 1%.

Maybe medicine is an area that is a natural monopoly. I don?t know and I would agree with you in principle that the government usually isn?t doing much good interfering with any industry, but in this case it is hard for me to ignore that I grew up in a system that works, even for the poorest people.

Well - our government is incapable of effective management. The overhead to run ANY gov’t agency is horrendous.

I’d be willing to bet money that the wealthy of your country don’t stand in line for treatment with the common folk. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it’s just that money will provide better medical care than the government.

I don’t think socialized anything is a viable alternative. Never have. It invites corruption and mis-management.

[/quote]

Being rich has certain advantages, yes, but even in your system you help people if you really, really have to, because you cannot let them die on the street.

Once that is established you only have two choices left. Either you develop a system that prevents people from becoming that sick in the first place, which is relatively cheap, or you pay a lot more money when they have developed a condition that needs some serious money to be cured.

I think your way would only work if you were willing to let people die in the streets if they developed such a serious condition, and this will never-ever happen as long as you are a democracy and those people can influence the outcome of elections.

I don?t think the european way of handling this is perfect, only the lesser of two evils.

88

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I don’t think anyone would say jack shit about a shirt that read “100% white man”. It means nothing and isn’t racist.[/quote]

I disagree. First of all, any shirt making a statement like “100% White Man” or “100% Black Woman” does mean something to whoever’s wearing it.

I think a “100% White Man” shirt would be very offensive to a large number of people.

89

[quote]Professor X wrote:

This is nonsense. While many of LBJ’s intiatives failed, the Viet Nam war was a very large reason for that. The two key components of Johnson’s Great Society reform were the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed the literacy tests used to prevent blacks from voting, and the Medicare bill of 1965, which provided a system of health insurance for the elderly under the Social Security program.

Could you please tell me how stopping racist systems in place to keep blacks from voting and the institution of Medicare caused poverty? You called it a racist initiative. America was racist. If it was difficult to even vote, difficult to get an education, and difficult to find decent jobs, how could any program designed to end this be described as negatively racist? The alternative at the time was?[/quote]

An interesting book on the results of the Great Society if you are really interested:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/046508995X/qid=1125849767/sr=8-6/ref=pd_bbs_6/103-5855483-2786238?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

90

[quote]PSlave wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I don’t think anyone would say jack shit about a shirt that read “100% white man”. It means nothing and isn’t racist.

I disagree. First of all, any shirt making a statement like “100% White Man” or “100% Black Woman” does mean something to whoever’s wearing it.

I think a “100% White Man” shirt would be very offensive to a large number of people.

[/quote]

Not to throw a bucket of water onto anyone’s flames, but even if someone did become offended by it, what is your point? That you don’t understand why? You think that there needs to be no promotion today of pride in one’s race from the perspective of a minority in this country? In a society where people, like many in this thread, try to link every negative aspect they can to “race” alone, you don’t see the need for positive statements regarding those same races? Please, explain that to me.

91

[quote]makkun wrote: A quick look into Japanese history disproves your hypothesis:

I don’t like your argument, as it shows considerable bias and belief in widely disproven correlations. I hope this is a sign of disinformation rather than confirmed racism.

Makkun[/quote]

Makkun . . . thank you for at least ATTEMPTING to introduce objective evidence. Unfortunately, you prove nothing . . . in fact you are proving just the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to prove . . . but you do raise an interesting point and you at least tried.

In the 1340s Europeans blamed the Jews for the Black Death. We’ve seen horrible examples of witch burnings and hangings. We’ve seen whites massacre blacks. We’ve seen the NAZIs and the Japanese government and military massacre everybody.

There is no question that politically dominant social groups attack minorities for political, economic and religious reasons.

What happened in the Great Kanto Earthquake has more to do with the Jews being blamed for the Black Death than it does with New Orleans 2005.

Now . . . if the white people of New Orleans were running around massacring blacks . . . then your example would be valid.

92

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
What happened in the Great Kanto Earthquake has more to do with the Jews being blamed for the Black Death than it does with New Orleans 2005.

Now . . . if the white people of New Orleans were running around massacring blacks . . . then your example would be valid.

[/quote]

I’m sorry, but could you try typing without the pointed hat? Your message is getting jumbled within bed sheets and the inability to go into detail. Laying that cross down for a few seconds might not hurt either. Don’t worry…it’s not lit yet. Riots in Japan only occurred because of the Jews? Would you mind expanding on that a little? It comes across as if the japanese would not have rioted if it weren’t for the jews…thus explaining that blacks and jews have been the problem with the world for centuries.

Please, enlighten me if I took that the wrong way.

93

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Not to throw a bucket of water onto anyone’s flames, but even if someone did become offended by it, what is your point? That you don’t understand why? You think that there needs to be no promotion today of pride in one’s race from the perspective of a minority in this country? In a society where people, like many in this thread, try to link every negative aspect they can to “race” alone, you don’t see the need for positive statements regarding those same races? Please, explain that to me. [/quote]

That’s not it at all. I think that we should all take pride in who and what we are, without taking it to the extreme and viewing those not like us as subhuman. The klan comes to mind. What bothers me is that we’re not “allowed” to take pride in who and what we are. It’s not considered PC. Well, fuck PC.

It’s a really, really sad state of affairs that, in the 21st century, we as a human race have still not become color blind. I doubt we ever will.

And, to prove my point by pointing the finger at myself, I was shopping at Target this morning. Walked through the hair-care aisle, which is not something I normally do, being bald and all, but I needed a new mirror to shave my head. Here are the two different aisles I saw:

“Hair-Care”

“Ethnic Hair-Care”

My first thought was, “What the fuck?” I wondered why Target felt the need to seperate things. Then I wondered why I was making a big deal about it.

What’s my point? We are a flawed society, but that’s not news to anyone.

94

[quote]PSlave wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Not to throw a bucket of water onto anyone’s flames, but even if someone did become offended by it, what is your point? That you don’t understand why? You think that there needs to be no promotion today of pride in one’s race from the perspective of a minority in this country? In a society where people, like many in this thread, try to link every negative aspect they can to “race” alone, you don’t see the need for positive statements regarding those same races? Please, explain that to me.

That’s not it at all. I think that we should all take pride in who and what we are, without taking it to the extreme and viewing those not like us as subhuman. The klan comes to mind. What bothers me is that we’re not “allowed” to take pride in who and what we are. It’s not considered PC. Well, fuck PC.

It’s a really, really sad state of affairs that, in the 21st century, we as a human race have still not become color blind. I doubt we ever will.

And, to prove my point by pointing the finger at myself, I was shopping at Target this morning. Walked through the hair-care aisle, which is not something I normally do, being bald and all, but I needed a new mirror to shave my head. Here are the two different aisles I saw:

“Hair-Care”

“Ethnic Hair-Care”

My first thought was, “What the fuck?” I wondered why Target felt the need to seperate things. Then I wondered why I was making a big deal about it.

What’s my point? We are a flawed society, but that’s not news to anyone.[/quote]

I have seen most stores in America seperate the two and no, I don’t see the point of that. Even Wal Mart, while they may be all on the same aisle, places all of the ethnic hair care products on the end of the last aisle in that section, literally in the corner. If they were viewed the same, you would at least see them from time to time on an end cap (the stations at the end of an aisle where they often place promotional items).

95

JJJJ,

[quote]JJJJ wrote:

[…]

Makkun . . . thank you for at least ATTEMPTING to introduce objective evidence. Unfortunately, you prove nothing . . . in fact you are proving just the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to prove . . . but you do raise an interesting point and you at least tried.

In the 1340s Europeans blamed the Jews for the Black Death. We’ve seen horrible examples of witch burnings and hangings. We’ve seen whites massacre blacks. We’ve seen the NAZIs and the Japanese government and military massacre everybody.

There is no question that politically dominant social groups attack minorities for political, economic and religious reasons.

What happened in the Great Kanto Earthquake has more to do with the Jews being blamed for the Black Death than it does with New Orleans 2005.

Now . . . if the white people of New Orleans were running around massacring blacks . . . then your example would be valid.

[/quote]

My example is valid, as it disproves your earlier point, made as an example of your main hypothesis:

JJJJ wrote: “No there were not. And in NONE of the well-documented urban floods and earthquakes in Chinese and Japanese cities (maybe 15-20 in the last 100 years) there has NEVER been the level of urban violence that we saw as a result of this flood, . . . or the police acquital in the first Rodney King trial, or the assassination of MLK or the blackouts.”

My argument was not to disprove your point that black people are more violent or say anything about NO; it was made to disprove your example (italics by me) as incorrect. And it did. That’s all.

So far, I have seen no proper sources for your main hypothesis, and have to say TSB until you can provide any. Which I doubt. I would really recommend you rethink your position that “blacks” are more violent than “whites”.

Makkun

96

[quote]Professor X wrote:
JJJJ wrote:
I’m sorry, but could you try typing without the pointed hat? Your message is getting jumbled within bed sheets and the inability to go into detail. Laying that cross down for a few seconds might not hurt either. Don’t worry…it’s not lit yet. Riots in Japan only occurred because of the Jews? Would you mind expanding on that a little? It comes across as if the japanese would not have rioted if it weren’t for the jews…thus explaining that blacks and jews have been the problem with the world for centuries.

Please, enlighten me if I took that the wrong way.

[/quote]

PROFESSOR X

There are hundreds of historical examples where a MAJORITY scape-goats a MINORITY and uses it to take out its frustration or acomplish some political (power seeking) end.

An example . . . in the 1340s the European victims of the Black death (MAJORITY) blamed the Jews (MINORITY) for the disease. There is evidence that by doing so, many Europeans were able to seize Jewish wealth.

In the example the gentleman cited . . . the Japanese government and military (MAJORITY) sanctioned attacks by civilian militias on Koreans (MINORITY) and again, evidence suggests that by doing so, the Japanese government and military increased the legitimacy. This has a lot to do with the political situation in Japan in the 1920s.

My point is that he gave a wrong example. It has nothing to do with what’s happening in New Orleans in 2005.

97

[quote]makkun wrote:
My argument was not to disprove your point that black people are more violent or say anything about NO; it was made to disprove your example (italics by me) as incorrect. And it did. That’s all.

So far, I have seen no proper sources for your main hypothesis, and have to say TSB until you can provide any. Which I doubt. I would really recommend you rethink your position, as it is not congruent with the scientific research on this topic.

Makkun[/quote]

MAKKUN . . . point taken. My statement in italics is badly written. Let me re-write it this way: “In all the disasters I have read about in Asian societies, I have never seen an example where Search & Rescue first had to secure the area and protect the rescuers from the people they were trying to rescue!”

The example you cited is a good example of political majorities scapegoating minorities. It was a popular tactic in 1920s Japan and 1930s Germany. And we saw it in this country against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

But I hope you understand that dynamic does nothing to explain what’s happening in NO.

98

[quote]makkun wrote:
So far, I have seen no proper sources for your main hypothesis, and have to say TSB until you can provide any. Which I doubt. I would really recommend you rethink your position, as it is not congruent with the scientific research on this topic.
Makkun[/quote]

Huh?

Have you looked at FBI crime statistics?

How about a record of National Guard deployments inside the US to quell civil unrest?

How about this comparison . . . median income . . . population ethnicity . . . National Guard deployments to quell civil unrest.

I do agree though . . . the research probably hasn’t been done. Research on racial issues . . . especially if it reaches conclusions that are politically incorrect . . . are not welcome in US academia.

For example . . . try finding research that compares IQ, testosterone level and lean muscle mass across ethnic groups. There’s very little on the subject.

Try finding research that explains the dominance of black athletes in certain sports.

The point is . . . we can’t talk about it.

99

JJJJ,

[quote]JJJJ wrote:
makkun wrote:
My argument was not to disprove your point that black people are more violent or say anything about NO; it was made to disprove your example (italics by me) as incorrect. And it did. That’s all.

So far, I have seen no proper sources for your main hypothesis, and have to say TSB until you can provide any. Which I doubt. I would really recommend you rethink your position, as it is not congruent with the scientific research on this topic.

Makkun

MAKKUN . . . point taken. My statement in italics is badly written. Let me re-write it this way: “In all the disasters I have read about in Asian societies, I have never seen an example where Search & Rescue first had to secure the area and protect the rescuers from the people they were trying to rescue!”

The example you cited is a good example of political majorities scapegoating minorities. It was a popular tactic in 1920s Japan and 1930s Germany. And we saw it in this country against the Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

But I hope you understand that dynamic does nothing to explain what’s happening in NO.[/quote]

No, but as stated earlier, I did not give the Kantou earthquake as an example for explaining NO - you opened that one up by pointing out to the “Asian” example.

But, that is not the topic of the discussion you started with the presumption that “blacks” are more violent than “whites”. That is indeed an old racist argument, and you should refrain from wielding it if you want to be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with being PC, it is simply a false correlation. That can happen, but many posters here have given proper counter arguments, which you should take to heart.

Makkun

100

Here’s a true story for some of you. My mom and I moved to Lake Grove N.Y. when I was about 10 years old. It’s a mostly white area. When I was 16 my freinds and I went to an earring shop in the mall. We had very little money and were just looking. When we got in the car to leave my freind (a white guy) pulls out a pockect full of earrings. I said “I didn’t know you bought those”. He replied “I stole them. I knew all the security people would be watching you”.