Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There are a lot of black Jews.

 

http://www.blackjews.org/

Shhhh! Don't tell him Totally Rad. That's going to burst his bubble. :D

 

those aren't real jews. those are the descendants of the slaves of the israelites.

Did the long ago Isrealites have dark skin?

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Michelle Obama has a cousin who is a Black Jewish rabbi? How come I never heard of this? Is this a fabrication?

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

i think many people bring bigotry on themselves. they crave it. they love to feel like a persecuted martyr. it gives them a convenient excuse for their personal shortcomings.

 

Considering the mountain of hate mail and hate phone calls Griffin and his parents got from Southerners when he published Black Like Me, I'd say those letter-writers sure believed it. They did not write letters calling him a liar, those letters and calls damned him for letting the cat out of the bag.

 

Here is a bit of commentary on the book:

 

Summary

Griffin goes out to look for a job, but though he is articulate and well- dressed, no white employer is willing even to consider hiring him—no one seems to believe that he would really be competent. As he begins to sense white oppression more and more acutely, Griffin begins to resent his own blackness for causing him such pain, and even to resent other blacks because they share it. But he is unfailingly struck by the lengths to which Negroes will go to help one another. When he asks a black student for directions to a movie theater, the young man offers to take him there personally, even though it is more than two miles away. The student also offers to return for him at the end of the movie. Later, Griffin takes a walk through the white part of town, where he sees a well-known gourmet restaurant. Hungry, he nearly enters without thinking. Suddenly remembering that he is black, he realizes that he could never enter the restaurant except as a busboy.

 

 

Griffin sits down on a park bench for a moment of rest. A white man tells him that he should move. Thinking that the man is intervening to keep him from getting into trouble, he thanks him. Later, he realizes that the bench was not off-limits to blacks, and that the man simply wanted him to leave. Riding a bus through town, Griffin attempts to exit at his stop. The white bus conductor slams the door shut before he can disembark, and refuses to let him off for eight long blocks. Griffin is forced to walk back to his original stop.

 

After Griffin passes a week of futile job-hunting, Sterling Williams shows him a news story about a case in Poplarville, Mississippi, in which a black man named Mack Parker was lynched by group of whites. The FBI assembled a massive amount of incriminating evidence against the white men involved in the lynching, but the all-white jury refused to find them guilty. Mississippi has the reputation of being far worse for blacks even than New Orleans. Griffin decides that he must travel there at once. When he tries to cash his traveler's cheques, however, he is refused.

 

At last he finds a kind white woman in a Catholic bookstore who helps him. When he tries to buy his bus ticket, the white woman behind the counter gives him a look he calls the Hate Stare, and refuses to give him his change. At last, she hurls his change and his ticket onto the floor. After waiting in the room reserved for colored people, Griffin goes to board the bus. Whites are allowed to board first, then blacks. But one white army officer goes to the back of the line and waits for the blacks to board before taking his seat.

 

On the bus, Griffin is irked by the behavior of a young, well-dressed black man named Christophe, who treats the whites fawningly but looks upon the other Negroes with contempt. On the way to Mississippi, the bus stops in a small town for a break. The whites are allowed to get off the bus, stretch their legs, and use the restroom. The blacks are forced to remain on the bus. One black man angrily urinates on the floor of the bus in protest.

 

The journey resumes and as the bus drives through Poplarville, a black man named Bill Williams shows Griffin where the Parker lynching took place. Griffin gets off the bus in Hattiesburg and almost immediately, a group of young white men careens by. The men yell obscenities at him and pelt him with fruit. Disheartened, Griffin attempts to write a letter to his wife, but he is unable to do it. Remembering a central tenet of being a black man—that one must never look at a white woman if one can help it—Griffin is unable to bring himself to contact his own wife.

 

Dispiritedly, Griffin calls an acquaintance named P.D. East, a white newspaper editor who has devoted himself to the cause of racial justice, even to the extent that his life is in constant danger from white hate groups. East takes Griffin home with him. Griffin is already so accustomed to being black that he is embarrassed to ride in the front seat of East's car. East gives him the manuscript of his autobiography, The Magnolia Jungle, which details his long, uncompromising fight against racial prejudice. Griffin reads the book in its entirety that night.

 

Griffin meets East's wife Billie and their daughter. The East women lead a lonely life, almost completely ostracized by the white community around them. East tells Griffin that he has made a long study of white racism, and gives him a stack of books, clippings, and pamphlets. Reading through these materials, Griffin decides that the worst of all white racists are not necessarily the violent, ignorant men such as the ones who shouted at him from their car the previous night. Rather, the real evil stems from the supposed thinkers, the politicians, lawyers, and writers who produce propaganda justifying racial hatred and legislation enforcing it. It is men like this who poison all the others, directly causing the social conditioning that leads to the climate of racial conflict in the United States.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/blacklikeme/section3.rhtml

----------------------

 

Do you see? Even after only a few days of being "black," Griffin is made to feel inferior. He becomes depressed because of the treatment he receives. I remember reading in the book about what Griffin called the "Hate Stare" that he constantly got from whites.

 

All bs and kidding aside, I earnestly ask that you consider reading this, lews. If I thought the truth of it wouldn't come through to you, I'd not waste time asking. I promise you'll be amazed by it. It's nothing at all like you think it is. You seem to be very careful about whom and what you trust, and I'm asking you to trust me in saying that I think you have the ability to discern truth from falsehood, and that you'll know which one this book is.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shhhh! Don't tell him Totally Rad. That's going to burst his bubble. :D

 

Did the long ago Isrealites have dark skin?

no. they were the descendants of adam. the word adam is a derivative of a hebrew word meaning "rosy" or "to blush". only a caucasian

can blush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lews, are you saying that the Isrealites were slaves of the Egyptians, and then later on they had slaves themselves? I'm sorry, but I haven't studied this history very well.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lews, are you saying that the Isrealites were slaves of the Egyptians, and then later on they had slaves themselves? I'm sorry, but I haven't studied this history very well.

well, of course they had slaves. there are many laws in leviticus dictating how they were supposed to treat their slaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Considering the mountain of hate mail and hate phone calls Griffin and his parents got from Southerners when he published Black Like Me, I'd say those letter-writers sure believed it. They did not write letters calling him a liar, those letters and calls damned him for letting the cat out of the bag.

 

Here is a bit of commentary on the book:

 

Summary

Griffin goes out to look for a job, but though he is articulate and well- dressed, no white employer is willing even to consider hiring him—no one seems to believe that he would really be competent. As he begins to sense white oppression more and more acutely, Griffin begins to resent his own blackness for causing him such pain, and even to resent other blacks because they share it. But he is unfailingly struck by the lengths to which Negroes will go to help one another. When he asks a black student for directions to a movie theater, the young man offers to take him there personally, even though it is more than two miles away. The student also offers to return for him at the end of the movie. Later, Griffin takes a walk through the white part of town, where he sees a well-known gourmet restaurant. Hungry, he nearly enters without thinking. Suddenly remembering that he is black, he realizes that he could never enter the restaurant except as a busboy.

 

 

Griffin sits down on a park bench for a moment of rest. A white man tells him that he should move. Thinking that the man is intervening to keep him from getting into trouble, he thanks him. Later, he realizes that the bench was not off-limits to blacks, and that the man simply wanted him to leave. Riding a bus through town, Griffin attempts to exit at his stop. The white bus conductor slams the door shut before he can disembark, and refuses to let him off for eight long blocks. Griffin is forced to walk back to his original stop.

 

After Griffin passes a week of futile job-hunting, Sterling Williams shows him a news story about a case in Poplarville, Mississippi, in which a black man named Mack Parker was lynched by group of whites. The FBI assembled a massive amount of incriminating evidence against the white men involved in the lynching, but the all-white jury refused to find them guilty. Mississippi has the reputation of being far worse for blacks even than New Orleans. Griffin decides that he must travel there at once. When he tries to cash his traveler's cheques, however, he is refused.

 

At last he finds a kind white woman in a Catholic bookstore who helps him. When he tries to buy his bus ticket, the white woman behind the counter gives him a look he calls the Hate Stare, and refuses to give him his change. At last, she hurls his change and his ticket onto the floor. After waiting in the room reserved for colored people, Griffin goes to board the bus. Whites are allowed to board first, then blacks. But one white army officer goes to the back of the line and waits for the blacks to board before taking his seat.

 

On the bus, Griffin is irked by the behavior of a young, well-dressed black man named Christophe, who treats the whites fawningly but looks upon the other Negroes with contempt. On the way to Mississippi, the bus stops in a small town for a break. The whites are allowed to get off the bus, stretch their legs, and use the restroom. The blacks are forced to remain on the bus. One black man angrily urinates on the floor of the bus in protest.

 

The journey resumes and as the bus drives through Poplarville, a black man named Bill Williams shows Griffin where the Parker lynching took place. Griffin gets off the bus in Hattiesburg and almost immediately, a group of young white men careens by. The men yell obscenities at him and pelt him with fruit. Disheartened, Griffin attempts to write a letter to his wife, but he is unable to do it. Remembering a central tenet of being a black man—that one must never look at a white woman if one can help it—Griffin is unable to bring himself to contact his own wife.

 

Dispiritedly, Griffin calls an acquaintance named P.D. East, a white newspaper editor who has devoted himself to the cause of racial justice, even to the extent that his life is in constant danger from white hate groups. East takes Griffin home with him. Griffin is already so accustomed to being black that he is embarrassed to ride in the front seat of East's car. East gives him the manuscript of his autobiography, The Magnolia Jungle, which details his long, uncompromising fight against racial prejudice. Griffin reads the book in its entirety that night.

 

Griffin meets East's wife Billie and their daughter. The East women lead a lonely life, almost completely ostracized by the white community around them. East tells Griffin that he has made a long study of white racism, and gives him a stack of books, clippings, and pamphlets. Reading through these materials, Griffin decides that the worst of all white racists are not necessarily the violent, ignorant men such as the ones who shouted at him from their car the previous night. Rather, the real evil stems from the supposed thinkers, the politicians, lawyers, and writers who produce propaganda justifying racial hatred and legislation enforcing it. It is men like this who poison all the others, directly causing the social conditioning that leads to the climate of racial conflict in the United States.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/blacklikeme/section3.rhtml

----------------------

 

Do you see? Even after only a few days of being "black," Griffin is made to feel inferior. He becomes depressed because of the treatment he receives. I remember reading in the book about what Griffin called the "Hate Stare" that he constantly got from whites.

 

All bs and kidding aside, I earnestly ask that you consider reading this, lews. If I thought the truth of it wouldn't come through to you, I'd not waste time asking. I promise you'll be amazed by it. It's nothing at all like you think it is. You seem to be very careful about whom and what you trust, and I'm asking you to trust me in saying that I think you have the ability to discern truth from falsehood, and that you'll know which one this book is.

 

Just reading this excerpt makes me sad. I can't even imagine the hurt and pain Black people in the South lived with every day of their lives. It's amazing there weren't more Black people commiting suicide. I guess their faith in God kept them going.

 

well, of course they had slaves. there are many laws in leviticus dictating how they were supposed to treat their slaves.

That's right. We discussed this in another thread. Sorry :)

 

I've had a long day. Going to turn in now. It was nice talking to you folks. See you all tomorrow. :)

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh cry me a fùcking river. You kunts are going to ride this black sympathy shít for the next hundred years.

 

Lisa b. Wildfire how come blacks simply didn't move north if it was such a fùcking utopia for African Americans? Shít you had the pilgrims cross the Atlantic for religious freedom. But southern blacks could not leave the oppressive south for a better life up north?

 

How come the south still has the majority of black people?

 

 

 

Just reading this excerpt makes me sad. I can't even imagine the hurt and pain Black people in the South lived with every day of their lives. It's amazing there weren't more Black people commiting suicide. I guess their faith in God kept them going.That's right. We discussed this in another thread. Sorry :)I've had a long day. Going to turn in now. It was nice talking to you folks. See you all tomorrow. :)

Just goes to show you how dumb about this you truly are
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That makes me think they just don't want to know the truth. I wish every adult in America would read it.

 

I live in the south you two are moaning and bit hing about things the happened thirty years before I was born.

 

Why not show more concern for 8000 blacks killed by other blacks every year. But that's no interest to you right?

 

You people are a plague, not because your black but because you still spew shīt from thirty years ago as if it happens today.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it sad that people on this forum have their head buried so far up their ass they cannot recognize prejudice when it is in front of their face. To say like "chooser" does that slavery should play no part in black development as a culture, and that the Jim Crow laws of the south should be completely disregarded is ignorance in its truest form. Saying things like "there was no slavery in 1964" gave me a great laugh, really chooser you are just finding that out? I am not sure if it ignorance or just plain hatred or the need to feel you are better than someone of another race. It is not just chooser at least he admits that the book "Black Like Me" brought up horrible conditions that blacks lived in, his is just an ignorance of phycology and history.

 

There are black people who hate white's, and white's who hate blacks, what makes it tough for blacks is there are many more whites than blacks, and it is difficult for a minority to push its racist agenda onto a majority. Chooser does bring up half a good point when he talks about Japanese Americans being treated poorly and overcoming it, where he falls down on his point is he forgets that before ww2 Japanese were treated with the usual "he is different" attitudes by whites but they were not hanged, killed or beaten. WW2 of course changed that and Japanese were unfairly interned, however after WW2 it was a total turn around, we rebuilt their country, and this after they killed thousands of Americans, in fact they were treated much better than blacks in this country who fought against the Japanese.

 

So to say that racism is over in America is wishful thinking at best. In fact to say that racism is over in America is dangerous, ignorant and shows a total lack of historical thought, and makes observations about the future suspect at best.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a lot of "look how smart I am, taking all your stuff apart" over one website report.

 

Actually, it was more like "look how stupid you are for citing as proof the opinion of blacks and people like you from a highly biased source". :D

 

There are a couple of million others, you know. I just looked at a few, and surprise surprise, blacks suffer more at the hands of the US judicial system.

 

Millions? Are you prone to exaggeration?

 

Which ones did you specifically look at, Lisa, that convinced you of this?

 

Go ahead, cite specific ones and tell us what you think they prove.

 

 

 

First of all, that article does NOT contain anywhere near 129 supporting sources.

 

Don't you know what "Id." means?

 

Don't you know what the author means by "9 No Equal Justice at 44-45", for instance? :rolleyes:

 

And I'll be glad to take this source apart too, LisaB.

 

Obviously you didn't carefully look at it before linking it.

 

First of all, it's from 2000. A little dated, don't you think?

 

Second, guess who funded and released it?

 

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

 

Which as I already noted, is a quite biased organization.

 

Third, all you've essentially done is regurgitate the same claims that your first article made. I can prove that by simply noting this statement on page 186 in the introduction of the report:

 

 

Enforcement of criminal laws based on racial generalizations is not rational: The majority of crimes are not committed by minorities, and most minorities are not criminals — indeed, less than 10% of all black Americans are even arrested in a given year.

 

Do you see the similarity to what Clarence M. Dunnaville wrote in your first source, without attribution:

 

 

Disparate treatment within the criminal justice system is not rational. It is well established that the majority of crimes are not committed by minorities, and most minorities are not criminals —indeed, less than 10 percent of all black Americans are even arrested in a given year.

 

So right off the bat, we see that your latest source got the exact same thing wrong that the previous source did.

 

Because minorities DO commit most of the serious crimes in this country. Not whites.

 

And they do it even though they are the minority of the population.

 

The overwhelming problem with your latest source is that it concludes from the fact that there is a "racial imbalance" in prison and jails, that there is racism in our judicial system.

 

This is bogus logic. If blacks commit more crime than whites as a percentage of the populace (AND THEY DO), there will naturally be an imbalance in our prisons and jails.

 

The report can talk all it wants about racial profiling by cops, but the reality, nationwide, as already pointed out, is that cops stop blacks LESS often than the percentage of crime that they commit in the society. That's an indication that they DON'T profile.

 

This source tries to prove it's case that they do by focusing on drug crimes. They claim that because blacks are just 12% of the population and 13% of the drug users, the fact that backs are 38% of those arrested for drug offenses and 59% of convictions for drug offenses must mean they are profiled. But how do they know that blacks are only 13% of the drug users? By asking people if they use drugs. It's called self reporting. But is that reliable, particularly for black Americans? Perhaps not.

 

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/colin-flaherty/does-racism-really-cause-more-black-drug-arrests/

 

 

According to the medical journal Addictive Behaviors, “underreporting of cocaine was documented with urine testing validation as well where African Americans in comparison to Caucasians who were urine positive were about 6 times less likely to report cocaine use when other factors are controlled for.”

 

Down at Johns Hopkins, they tested self-reporting of marijuana use among African Americans: “A study of 290 African American men in Baltimore, Maryland undergoing treatment for hypertension showed that self-reporting of illicit drug use is unreliable. Only 48 of the participants reported drug use but urine drug tests revealed that 131 had used drugs. “

 

There's a reason your latest source provides no citation for this claim just as they provided no citation for the claim that whites commit more crime than minorities.

 

Because it's false.

 

And there may be other reasons to suspect the assertion that blacks get profiled when it comes to drug arrests.

 

In 2011, the San Francisco Police Department (a rather liberal group if there is such a thing as liberal cops) noted this (http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?recordid=686&page=3763 ):

 

 

In 2011, the SFPD made over 23,000 arrests, of which 14,000 were classified as misdemeanors. Today, Chief (Greg) Suhr reviewed all 11 misdemeanor marijuana arrest reports from 2011. All 11 misdemeanor marijuana charges were secondary to other charges, e.g., outstanding warrants, weapons possession, drunk in public, for which the person (four white males, three black males, two black females, one Hispanic male, and one white female) were arrested and booked. It is evident that the misdemeanor marijuana arrests cited in the article were made using sound police procedure pertaining to criminal activity and not by racial profiling.

 

Or take Missouri (http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/06/marijuana_racial_disparity_sam_dotson_aclu.php ) where blacks are on average 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. Is that evidence of profiling? Or is that because the ratio of black to white arrests in the city of St Louis (for instance) is 18 to 1. And when the suspects in all those other crimes are searched, if marijuana is found, those are simply reported as new crimes. So it's not unexpected that blacks would have more cases filed against them than whites for drug possession.

 

Do you understand why your source is using bogus reasoning? If blacks commit far more other types of crime than whites (AND THEY DO AS I'VE ALREADY PROVEN), that makes them far more likely to get picked up for drug charges as well. So disparities in drug arrests are not a good indicator of profiling. It's BAD SCIENCE your study's authors are using, Lisa. They either don't know what they are doing or they have an agenda and are dishonestly cherry pick *facts* that they think will further it. Can't you see that?

 

The next claim your source makes that is that when crimes are alleged, more blacks are charged than whites due prosecutorial discretion. It again tries to use the drug offense to prove this. But it does this without considering the other crimes that may have been charged. For example, if one is a prosecutor and a defendant commits several crime along with the drug charge, one might be less likely to ignore the drug charge. Don't you think? And we already know that blacks commit more other crimes … in cities like Los Angeles which your source cited as one of it's example.

 

The only source the authors of your latest study cited to prove a bias in the decision to prosecute in non-drug cases is a 1991 San Jose Mercury News article. Don't you think that's a little dated? According to Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, in America in Black and White, there is a 1993 Justice Department study that tracked the experience of more than 10,000 accused felons in America's 75 largest cities which found that only 66% of black defendants were actually prosecuted versus 69% of white defendants. And among those prosecuted, 75% of blacks were convicted, as compared to 78% of whites. Furthermore, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom's book cites a 1996 analysis of 55,000 big-city felony cases which found that black defendants were convicted at a lower rate than whites in 12 of the 14 federally designated felony categories.

 

And according to Heather MacDonald is “Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist?” (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_justice_system.html ), in 1997, liberal criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the literature on charging and sentencing, and concluded that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” and not racism, explained why proportionately more blacks than whites were in prison—and for longer terms. And MacDonald gives a mountain of other reasons to doubt the honesty and completeness of your latest source, Lisa. Read her article.

 

But for some reason I suspect you won't.

 

Because it rips apart the thesis of your latest source.

 

And I don't think you want that. :D

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just saying that whether or not you're right about what you say is irrelevant to the post I made. You responded to my post.

 

 

 

 

Here is what I said:

 

"If the white people of today are feeling guilty, then they are ignorant of human development and progress. That, in essence, says that they view the color of their skin as somehow instrumental in what went on well over 100 years ago, telling themselves that their race is a bad one. Acknowledgement of atrocities, empathy and sympathy for what happened are one thing, but self-blame and guilt should never be part of that."

 

People that are "still racist against them" are people doing people things. That's irrelevant to the point I made - that feeling guilty over what your race has done (or is doing, in some instances) is ignorant. Whatever fellow whites have done or are doing is no reason for ME to feel guilt. Should I feel guilt over Charlie Manson or Richard Speck - they were white, were they not? I can't help what bad people do to other people unless I'm on a jury judging those bad people. I can only advocate for improvement, but when I do that I'm merely called your everyday, run-of-the-mill racist. That's how people like you are blind. You simply don't want to acknowledge that the black community has to be the entity to change the plight of these people.

 

Right now, the black leadership, including Obama, is not doing one single thing to actually solve the problem. Constantly finding fault in others, blaming others, has not and will not turn this around. I know for a fact that if I were to find fault in others every time I failed at something, I'd do nothing BUT fail. The black community has fallen into an abyss that is largely no better than the one the white people had them in back in history. That abyss is something they have done little or nothing to correct. How do you expect white people to change it? The only things white people have done to help them out of it is give them this and that. And really, what else could others do? And has it shown progress? No, it hasn't. So where's the solution? Black leadership bearing down and not standing for the crime, the indifference to education, the fatherless homes, the welfare, and the attitude that prevails. There are a lot of black people that understand that, advocate for that, and want to really DO something about that abyss, but they get nowhere most every time, even to the extent of being called ugly, racist names. You explain that if you can.

 

There are attitudes and behaviors in Black America that undermine individuals efforts to succeed and those things should be addressed however this does not mean that our society always functions as it should in terms of fairness or opportunity. There is both a behavioral and structural dimension to the problems faced by blacks. More liberals and moderates are starting to realize this. If you look at the work of liberal minded scholars like William Julius Wilson this bears out. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do not get as much attention or credit for trying to be balanced. Neither does President Obama who aimed for a balanced and nuanced view of race in The Audacity of Hope. My problem with conservatives black, white, and other is their view that government has no role to play in addressing social problems especially race. Most conservatives wrongly believe its all the fault of blacks themselves. They are no different from some liberals or radical leftists who only see society to blame for the problems faced by blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I find it sad that people on this forum have their head buried so far up their ass they cannot recognize prejudice when it is in front of their face. To say like "chooser" does that slavery should play no part in black development as a culture, and that the Jim Crow laws of the south should be completely disregarded is ignorance in its truest form.

 

I find it sad that people on this forum (like you) are so Stuck On Stupid that they can't deal with the facts and reality of 1945, 1964 and today. They just can't deal with the truth in the Trayvon/Zimmerman case. Why is that, rt?

 

Saying things like "there was no slavery in 1964" gave me a great laugh, really chooser you are just finding that out?

 

I would chuckle that you still haven't accepted the fact that Trayvon wasn't the sweet innocent child all your news sources, black shucksters and Democratic demagogues claimed, and that you apparently think the WOP was good for blacks, if that was funny.

 

It's not.

 

It's sad.

 

It is not just chooser at least he admits that the book "Black Like Me" brought up horrible conditions that blacks lived in, his is just an ignorance of phycology and history.

 

... snip ...

 

Chooser does bring up half a good point when he talks about Japanese Americans being treated poorly and overcoming it, where he falls down on his point is he forgets that before ww2 Japanese were treated with the usual "he is different" attitudes by whites but they were not hanged, killed or beaten.

 

Oh really? And how are you so sure about this?

 

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/exhibits/ww2/after/back.htm

 

The former internees who did trickle back to their old homes during much of 1945 were often met with open hostility by white neighbors. Some found their homes looted and their orchards vandalized while others endured boycotts on the purchase of their fruits and vegetables or heard racial slurs or threats. A few were assaulted physically. Some merchants in the Hood River Valley refused to offer service to the returning Japanese Americans. Ralph Sherrieb put up a sign in the window of his rural grocery store that read: "PLEASE NOTICE: NO JAP TRADE." Sherrieb said that "we just don't recognize 'em around here." We don't want 'em and we tell 'em to stay away from us. So far as we are concerned, it's once a Jap, always a Jap." In a not uncommon refrain, the Hood River post of the American Legion called for the "total elimination of all alien Japanese and their sons and daughters of American citizenship from the Hood River area...and 'fair disposal' of property held by these people."

 

You say I don't know history but are you aware that the Teamsters Union was particularly opposed to resettlement of Japanese American released from the internment camps? Democratic Congressman Warren Magnuson, a longtime supporter of the Teamsters Union, lobbied the US military against resettlement, and warned ominously that his constituents were “violently opposed” to resettlement. John Steiner, secretary-treasurer of a local Teamsters Union and a Democrat told the media that "The Teamsters are campaigning to banish Japanese for the entire Pacific Coast ." Charles Doyle, the head of Seattle’s Central Labor Council, a Democrat, issued this warning: "you bring them back, we won’t be responsible for how many are hanging from the lamp posts."

 

If there wasn't widespread violence against Japanese Americans at that point, it was as much a result of their demeanor as anything else. They openly accepted the internment, suppressed any bitterness (certainly didn't teach it to their children"and quietly rebuilt their lives. They didn't ask or demand that others give them money, jobs or anything else. They concentrated on education and family. They didn't make themselves victims. And during the next 20 years they became the highest paid group in the US. And one of the best educated.

 

Now compare that to what happened to blacks starting in 1964. Blacks in general had made tremendous progress by then. Poverty rates were rapidly falling. There was a rapidly growing black middle class. Discrimination and racism were clearly headed downward. Then LBJ and Democrats decided to help things along ... with a massive infusion of money ... the War On Poverty. And as a direct result of that effort, starting from a much better economic and social position than that the internee in 1945, blacks proceeded to lose much of the economic and social progress they'd made as of 1964.

 

They became victims.

 

By 1984 they wanted to be viewed as victims.

 

It was self fulfilling.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh cry me a fùcking river. You kunts are going to ride this black sympathy shít for the next hundred years.

 

Lisa b. Wildfire how come blacks simply didn't move north if it was such a fùcking utopia for African Americans? Shít you had the pilgrims cross the Atlantic for religious freedom. But southern blacks could not leave the oppressive south for a better life up north?

 

How come the south still has the majority of black people?

 

 

 

Just goes to show you how dumb about this you truly are

 

There was, in fact, a huge movement of blacks to the North and other parts of the country.

 

 

The Great Migration was the movement of 6 million African Americans out of the ruralSouthern United States to the Northeast, Midwest, and West for most of the 20th century. Some historians differentiate between the first Great Migration (1910–1930), numbering about 1.6 million migrants who left mostly rural areas to migrate to northern and midwestern industrial cities, and, after a lull during the Great Depression, a Second Great Migration (1940 to 1970), in which 5 million or more people moved, including many to California and other western cities.[1]

Between 1910 and 1970, blacks moved from 14 states of the South, especially Alabama,Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas to the other three cultural (and census-designated) regions of the United States. More townspeople with urban skills moved during the second migration.[1] By the end of the Second Great Migration, African Americans had become an urbanized population. More than 80 percent lived in cities. A majority of 53 percent remained in the South, while 40 percent lived in the North and 7 percent in the West.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)

 

If you're saying blacks did not suffer in the South for many hundreds of years, you might as well graduate to denying that the Holocaust happened, too.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, it was more like "look how stupid you are for citing as proof the opinion of blacks and people like you from a highly biased source". :D

 

 

Millions? Are you prone to exaggeration?

 

Which ones did you specifically look at, Lisa, that convinced you of this?

 

Go ahead, cite specific ones and tell us what you think they prove.

 

 

 

First of all, that article does NOT contain anywhere near 129 supporting sources.

 

Don't you know what "Id." means?

 

Don't you know what the author means by "9 No Equal Justice at 44-45", for instance? :rolleyes:

 

And I'll be glad to take this source apart too, LisaB.

 

Obviously you didn't carefully look at it before linking it.

 

First of all, it's from 2000. A little dated, don't you think?

 

Second, guess who funded and released it?

 

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

 

Which as I already noted, is a quite biased organization.

 

Third, all you've essentially done is regurgitate the same claims that your first article made. I can prove that by simply noting this statement on page 186 in the introduction of the report:

 

 

 

Do you see the similarity to what Clarence M. Dunnaville wrote in your first source, without attribution:

 

 

 

So right off the bat, we see that your latest source got the exact same thing wrong that the previous source did.

 

Because minorities DO commit most of the serious crimes in this country. Not whites.

 

And they do it even though they are the minority of the population.

 

The overwhelming problem with your latest source is that it concludes from the fact that there is a "racial imbalance" in prison and jails, that there is racism in our judicial system.

 

This is bogus logic. If blacks commit more crime than whites as a percentage of the populace (AND THEY DO), there will naturally be an imbalance in our prisons and jails.

 

The report can talk all it wants about racial profiling by cops, but the reality, nationwide, as already pointed out, is that cops stop blacks LESS often than the percentage of crime that they commit in the society. That's an indication that they DON'T profile.

 

This source tries to prove it's case that they do by focusing on drug crimes. They claim that because blacks are just 12% of the population and 13% of the drug users, the fact that backs are 38% of those arrested for drug offenses and 59% of convictions for drug offenses must mean they are profiled. But how do they know that blacks are only 13% of the drug users? By asking people if they use drugs. It's called self reporting. But is that reliable, particularly for black Americans? Perhaps not.

 

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/colin-flaherty/does-racism-really-cause-more-black-drug-arrests/

 

 

 

There's a reason your latest source provides no citation for this claim just as they provided no citation for the claim that whites commit more crime than minorities.

 

Because it's false.

 

And there may be other reasons to suspect the assertion that blacks get profiled when it comes to drug arrests.

 

In 2011, the San Francisco Police Department (a rather liberal group if there is such a thing as liberal cops) noted this (http://sf-police.org/index.aspx?recordid=686&page=3763 ):

 

 

 

Or take Missouri (http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2013/06/marijuana_racial_disparity_sam_dotson_aclu.php ) where blacks are on average 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites. Is that evidence of profiling? Or is that because the ratio of black to white arrests in the city of St Louis (for instance) is 18 to 1. And when the suspects in all those other crimes are searched, if marijuana is found, those are simply reported as new crimes. So it's not unexpected that blacks would have more cases filed against them than whites for drug possession.

 

Do you understand why your source is using bogus reasoning? If blacks commit far more other types of crime than whites (AND THEY DO AS I'VE ALREADY PROVEN), that makes them far more likely to get picked up for drug charges as well. So disparities in drug arrests are not a good indicator of profiling. It's BAD SCIENCE your study's authors are using, Lisa. They either don't know what they are doing or they have an agenda and are dishonestly cherry pick *facts* that they think will further it. Can't you see that?

 

The next claim your source makes that is that when crimes are alleged, more blacks are charged than whites due prosecutorial discretion. It again tries to use the drug offense to prove this. But it does this without considering the other crimes that may have been charged. For example, if one is a prosecutor and a defendant commits several crime along with the drug charge, one might be less likely to ignore the drug charge. Don't you think? And we already know that blacks commit more other crimes … in cities like Los Angeles which your source cited as one of it's example.

 

The only source the authors of your latest study cited to prove a bias in the decision to prosecute in non-drug cases is a 1991 San Jose Mercury News article. Don't you think that's a little dated? According to Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, in America in Black and White, there is a 1993 Justice Department study that tracked the experience of more than 10,000 accused felons in America's 75 largest cities which found that only 66% of black defendants were actually prosecuted versus 69% of white defendants. And among those prosecuted, 75% of blacks were convicted, as compared to 78% of whites. Furthermore, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom's book cites a 1996 analysis of 55,000 big-city felony cases which found that black defendants were convicted at a lower rate than whites in 12 of the 14 federally designated felony categories.

 

And according to Heather MacDonald is “Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist?” (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_2_criminal_justice_system.html ), in 1997, liberal criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the literature on charging and sentencing, and concluded that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” and not racism, explained why proportionately more blacks than whites were in prison—and for longer terms. And MacDonald gives a mountain of other reasons to doubt the honesty and completeness of your latest source, Lisa. Read her article.

 

But for some reason I suspect you won't.

 

Because it rips apart the thesis of your latest source.

 

And I don't think you want that. :D

 

What do you suggest this society do to reduce black (and white) crime and promote racial harmony so we can get on with the business of living and not be saddled with the racism that is still quite strong, or don't you notice it from rightie posters to this board? Aren't you getting tired of seeing the president and his wife portrayed as apes, or called n------, or put down in several other insulting ways?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you suggest this society do to reduce black (and white) crime and promote racial harmony so we can get on with the business of living and not be saddled with the racism that is still quite strong, or don't you notice it from rightie posters to this board? Aren't you getting tired of seeing the president and his wife portrayed as apes, or called n------, or put down in several other insulting ways?

Hey Lisa, we're all still waiting for you, in the WalMart 1st Amendment thread, to back up you claim about those "city fathers" where you live who told companies they couldn't open up their business if they paid their employees too much...

 

Why'd you run away after making that ignorant claim? Am I going to have to follow you around and keep asking you to prove this statement?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those aren't real jews. those are the descendants of the slaves of the israelites.

 

Judaism originated in the middle east. There are plenty of non-whites there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are attitudes and behaviors in Black America that undermine individuals efforts to succeed and those things should be addressed however this does not mean that our society always functions as it should in terms of fairness or opportunity.

And no one said "always", did they? Still, what's the solution? People are going to be people and do what they interpret is in their own best interest. Perhaps that can be wrong as two left feet, but it's the real world in which we live. I know, for a fact, that blacks are ALL given the opportunity to graduate from high school and perhaps have a good chance at further educating themselves for a good start on a future. I also know, for a fact, that the majority of blacks could not care less about performing in the classroom. Been there, done that. Who is going to change that mindset? The white teachers? Miracle-working white teachers, perhaps. How is any teacher, black or white, going to get through to a kid whose parent (singular) doesn't give a damn about his performance? This is one example as to why I insist that black leadership has got to get in gear and take the responsibility for changing the mindset of the black community. You could wave a magic wand and make every white employer, jurist, teacher, and cop purely fair, honest, and forthright, but you wouldn't change what we have happening today.

 

There is both a behavioral and structural dimension to the problems faced by blacks. More liberals and moderates are starting to realize this. If you look at the work of liberal minded scholars like William Julius Wilson this bears out. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do not get as much attention or credit for trying to be balanced. Neither does President Obama who aimed for a balanced and nuanced view of race in The Audacity of Hope. My problem with conservatives black, white, and other is their view that government has no role to play in addressing social problems especially race.

The government has indeed been "playing the role" for decades now. Where has that gotten anyone? For one thing, the government of today has no interest in fairness, equity, or helpfulness. The interest of the government, via the politicians (both sides), is power in office. Perhaps you can cite how the government has held the people first in its doings, and I'll then get into a debate as to how it hasn't. Regardless of who is what or who is right, there is absolutely no evidence that government has had success in turning around this abyss I keep referring to.

 

 

Most conservatives wrongly believe its all the fault of blacks themselves. They are no different from some liberals or radical leftists who only see society to blame for the problems faced by blacks.

It's time to stop blaming and to act. I cannot act any further than I have as a teacher. As to the black students, I might have made a difference for perhaps 3 or 4% of them, something but not enough to change the culture - not by any means. What the left needs to do is stop blaming white conservatives as these bigots who simply hate blacks and want them kept out of American life. What we really want is for the blacks to stop being a blight on America, to START contributing to the American way of life, and to knock the chip off their shoulders. Where the fault lies is no longer relevant and it contributes nothing to the culture. The black leadership either wants the same for blacks as we do or it doesn't. If it does, it will take action to change the attitude, stop the blaming, instill value for education, stop the relentless fathering of babies out of wedlock, and foster the fitting in with a capitalist society rather than taking from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Judaism originated in the middle east. There are plenty of non-whites there.

also plenty of mediterranean and beduine caucasians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh cry me a fùcking river. You kunts are going to ride this black sympathy shít for the next hundred years.

 

Lisa b. Wildfire how come blacks simply didn't move north if it was such a fùcking utopia for African Americans? Shít you had the pilgrims cross the Atlantic for religious freedom. But southern blacks could not leave the oppressive south for a better life up north?

 

How come the south still has the majority of black people?

 

 

 

Just goes to show you how dumb about this you truly are

I started the thread to help explain President Obama's speech on race. He talked about how Blacks, especially men are treated different. This book was written in 1960, but it's still relevent today. I don't know why more Blacks didn't move to other parts of the country. There were many who did. Why should they have had to move to be treated right? They were United States citizens right there in the South.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it sad that people on this forum have their head buried so far up their ass they cannot recognize prejudice when it is in front of their face. To say like "chooser" does that slavery should play no part in black development as a culture, and that the Jim Crow laws of the south should be completely disregarded is ignorance in its truest form. Saying things like "there was no slavery in 1964" gave me a great laugh, really chooser you are just finding that out? I am not sure if it ignorance or just plain hatred or the need to feel you are better than someone of another race. It is not just chooser at least he admits that the book "Black Like Me" brought up horrible conditions that blacks lived in, his is just an ignorance of phycology and history.

 

There are black people who hate white's, and white's who hate blacks, what makes it tough for blacks is there are many more whites than blacks, and it is difficult for a minority to push its racist agenda onto a majority. Chooser does bring up half a good point when he talks about Japanese Americans being treated poorly and overcoming it, where he falls down on his point is he forgets that before ww2 Japanese were treated with the usual "he is different" attitudes by whites but they were not hanged, killed or beaten. WW2 of course changed that and Japanese were unfairly interned, however after WW2 it was a total turn around, we rebuilt their country, and this after they killed thousands of Americans, in fact they were treated much better than blacks in this country who fought against the Japanese.

 

So to say that racism is over in America is wishful thinking at best. In fact to say that racism is over in America is dangerous, ignorant and shows a total lack of historical thought, and makes observations about the future suspect at best.

Thank you very much, Riptorn. Beautiful post.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh Jesus, shut up.

No, I won't shut up and don't call me Jesus. LOL!

"Don't have enough strength in your own mind ... of course, this is not unusual for you."

 

I stop responding to threads when I realize that there's no point in continuing, that's all. Sorry.

IOW, you have no solution to the plight of the black community. Blaming is not helping anyone.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you suggest this society do to reduce black (and white) crime and promote racial harmony so we can get on with the business of living and not be saddled with the racism that is still quite strong, or don't you notice it from rightie posters to this board?

Why do you obstinately refuse to see that it's not society that must fix the problem.

 

It's what the black community itself must do.

 

Ignore what black shucksters say about racism.

 

Most of it is not true.

 

Stop accusing people of racism at the drop of a hat.No one wants to hire people that do that.

 

Stop being victims.

 

Take charge of their own lives and communities.

 

Stop putting up with gangs and gang culture.

 

Stop letting Democrats (like you) lead them around by the nose.

 

Stop expecting to be given things for free.

 

Start REALLY valuing family, fatherhood, work and education.

 

Stop majoring in ethnic studies, socialism and community organizing.

 

Start doing what Japanese Americans did after WW2.

 

If they don't they will never recover.

 

They will only end up wards of the state.

 

They will remain enslaved to black shucksters and the Democratic Party.

 

Simple as that, LisaB.

 

Thank you very much, Riptorn. Beautiful post.

There is no other phrase to describe you than *Stuck On Stupid*.
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was, in fact, a huge movement of blacks to the North and other parts of the country. The Great Migration was the movement of 6 million African Americans out of the ruralSouthern United States to the Northeast, Midwest, and West for most of the 20th century. Some historians differentiate between the first Great Migration (1910–1930), numbering about 1.6 million migrants who left mostly rural areas to migrate to northern and midwestern industrial cities, and, after a lull during the Great Depression, a Second Great Migration (1940 to 1970), in which 5 million or more people moved, including many to California and other western cities.[1]Between 1910 and 1970, blacks moved from 14 states of the South, especially Alabama,Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas to the other three cultural (and census-designated) regions of the United States. More townspeople with urban skills moved during the second migration.[1] By the end of the Second Great Migration, African Americans had become an urbanized population. More than 80 percent lived in cities. A majority of 53 percent remained in the South, while 40 percent lived in the North and 7 percent in the West.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American) If you're saying blacks did not suffer in the South for many hundreds of years, you might as well graduate to denying that the Holocaust happened, too.
There was, in fact, a huge movement of blacks to the North and other parts of the country. The Great Migration was the movement of 6 million African Americans out of the ruralSouthern United States to the Northeast, Midwest, and West for most of the 20th century. Some historians differentiate between the first Great Migration (1910–1930), numbering about 1.6 million migrants who left mostly rural areas to migrate to northern and midwestern industrial cities, and, after a lull during the Great Depression, a Second Great Migration (1940 to 1970), in which 5 million or more people moved, including many to California and other western cities.[1]Between 1910 and 1970, blacks moved from 14 states of the South, especially Alabama,Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas to the other three cultural (and census-designated) regions of the United States. More townspeople with urban skills moved during the second migration.[1] By the end of the Second Great Migration, African Americans had become an urbanized population. More than 80 percent lived in cities. A majority of 53 percent remained in the South, while 40 percent lived in the North and 7 percent in the West.[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American) If you're saying blacks did not suffer in the South for many hundreds of years, you might as well graduate to denying that the Holocaust happened, too.
Nobody said it didn't happen. But it happened many many years before I was born. It just amazes me your stuck in 1960....You wanna read all this stuff that happened thirty or forty years ago in south. Why don't you come down here and experience southern life instead if projecting this leftest whining racism BS. You know nothing as many posters routinely point out to you.I've been cracker honkey , first one in a black restrauant and last one served.Like I said if you were so concerned on blacks being mistreated you'd be concerned about the 8000 murdered every year by other blacks. Empowerment is not something given but something worked for or takenBlacks have done very little in the over all picture to get what they have today.

 

Nobody said it didn't happen. But it happened many many years before I was born. It just amazes me your stuck in 1960....You wanna read all this stuff that happened thirty or forty years ago in south. Why don't you come down here and experience southern life instead if projecting this leftest whining racism BS. You know nothing as many posters routinely point out to you.I've been cracker honkey , first one in a black restrauant and last one served.Like I said if you were so concerned on blacks being mistreated you'd be concerned about the 8000 murdered every year by other blacks. Empowerment is not something given but something worked for or takenBlacks have done very little in the over all picture to get what they have today.
And your link just stated what I said, a majority of blacks still lived in the south. You are a very uninformed person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • All lives matter.


  • Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


  • By teacher

    Being offended does not make one correct. 


  • By teacher

    Some few days before the next election Mr. Fools is gonna pin my horse thread. it's gonna be horrible, I shall endevour every day to bring some some fresh. 

     

    I still own this cat box.


  • By teacher

    "I'm coming to you for ask a quick favor."


  • By teacher

    "Anyone that places a color in front of their name is racist." That one is not mine, got it from another member. 


  • Where’s all the hot bitches? 


  • By teacher

    Kidding me? 


  • By nuckin futz

    How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • By nuckin futz

    How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • By nuckin futz

    Get me out of Chatbox!


  • By jefftec

    The chatbox stays expanded and is a nuisance blocking screen images. What setting is there to control/collapse chatbox?


  • By kfools

    Just click the no holds barred to collapse it.


  • By XavierOnassis

    diddle dee dee


  • By teacher

    Like Jesse Ventura said to all that would not take a chew in the movie "Predator." LF.org is a political debate forum. This chatbox just ups the opportunity to go at it. Ya'll have your political views, seems to me that ya'll should have thought these things out and be ready to battle. 


  • By teacher

    Is real time political debate a thing ya'll hide from? What do you morons do if you happen to run into some one with opposing political views on the street? 


  • By teacher

    I've never ran into anyone, in real life,  that said Obama lied. I run into folks that tell me Trump lies. I'm at work. I didn't bring it up. I don't reply, I'm representing a company. Not my place. 


  • By teacher

    Lookie there, all I have to do is get out and come back. Why is it that liberals, when they have a company man before them decide they that is the time they go off? Why would ya'll put a company man into that position? 


  • By teacher

    Chatbox is mine. 


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...