DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 27, 2008, 11:02:32 PM
-
Fairness on the ballot
By George Will
Come November, voters will decide on more than half a million federal, state and local officeholders and ballot initiatives. Ninety-nine percent of these decisions will matter less than will the five civil rights initiatives that might be on the ballots in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Missouri.
If the initiatives qualify for those states' ballots, all probably will pass. But the initiatives must surmount ferocious opposition from defenders of racial preferences, such as the politicians who administer and benefit from Missouri's racial spoils system. The crux of the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (MoCRI) would amend that state's constitution to say: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting."
Similar language has been approved by voters in California (in 1996), Washington state (1998) and Michigan (2006). California's initiative passed 55 percent to 45 percent, even though opponents outspent supporters 13 to 1. Washington's initiative won 58 to 42 against 10-to-1 spending. Michigan's initiative won 58 to 42, although supporters were outspent 5 to 1. Those spending disparities understate the initiatives' disadvantages, because in each state, opponents were assisted by the "diversity" industry that administers racial preferences in the public and private sectors.
Missouri law requires the secretary of state to draft a summary of an initiative, which appears on the ballot "in the form of a question using language neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure." The following, not the MoCRI language quoted above, is what the state's Democratic secretary of state and Democratic attorney general proposed to put on the ballot:
"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?"
Well. The phrase "affirmative action" came into vogue in the years after the 1976 Democratic platform endorsed "compensatory opportunity." That obfuscating phrase appeared immediately after the platform said "we must insure that all citizens are treated equally before the law." Advocates of affirmative action have long denied that it involves racial preferences. Now Missouri is insisting that a ban on such preferences would eliminate all affirmative action.
Ward Connerly, the man organizing this year's five initiatives to promote colorblind governance, disagrees. A California businessman and former member, for 12 years, of the University of California Board of Regents, he stresses that many affirmative action measures, such as outreach to recruit students and employees from economically disadvantaged and isolated groups, do not require racial preferences.
MoCRI supporters went to court, arguing that the two Democrats' "explanation" of their amendment is couched in language that is "convoluted, ambiguous and muddled" and is "prejudicial, conclusory and untrue." They said that banning racial discrimination in the form of racial preferences does not ban programs to eliminate discrimination. They noted that MoCRI does not "allow" preferential treatment; rather, it would not obstruct receipt of federal funds tied to federal requirements. And the secretary of state and the attorney general's "explanation" of MoCRI does not explain that MoCRI authorizes granting preferential treatment on the basis of age, disability or status as a veteran.
The judge largely sided with MoCRI's supporters, ordering this ballot language: "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to: Ban state and local government affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment in public contracting, employment, or education based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, unless such programs are necessary to establish or maintain eligibility for federal funding or to comply with an existing court order?" The two Democrats, aware that similar language has won landslides in three other states, are appealing the decision.
The conventions that govern America's racial discourse derive from the odious "one drop" rule. According to it, anyone with any admixture of black ancestry ? one drop of black "blood" ? is black. So, Connerly is an African American. One of his grandparents was of African descent, one was Irish, a third was Irish and American Indian, and the fourth was French Canadian. Two of the grandchildren of Connerly and his Irish wife have a Vietnamese mother. Are these grandchildren African Americans?
Will the superstitions surrounding race ever fade away? Not before governance is cleansed of the sort of race-based policies opposed by Connerly, who intimately knows the increasing absurdity of racial classifications and the folly of government preferences based on them.
The Folly of Reverse Discrimination/RACISM (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will012708.php3)
-
I agree! No preferences based on race, colour, religion, etc. A truly colour-blind society.
Except of course, in the jails and penitentiaries of the nation.
http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199904/prison.html
-
Why wouldn't we have such there? Ohhhh, trying to pull the ol predominantly black/minority card? I'll actually go with the more practical broke the law and went to jail card. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200
-
<<I'll actually go with the more practical broke the law and went to jail card. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200>>
Right. And it's just pure coincidence that so many of those "law-breakers" are black.
-
If you have some facts to validate some other theory outside of the #'s of who's actually incarcerated, by all means, share them.
-
Except of course, in the jails and penitentiaries of the nation.
Why wouldn't we have such there? Ohhhh, trying to pull the ol predominantly black/minority card? I'll actually go with the more practical broke the law and went to jail card. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200
Right. And it's just pure coincidence that so many of those "law-breakers" are black.
I hope that I'll be forgiven for sidestepping the racial issues on this, other than to say that I think the disproportion is mostly rooted in our "for profit" justice system. Let me explain. A black person is more likely to be at an economic disadvantage (for whatever reason), and unable to afford the $10K retainer for a good, competent criminal attorney, and have to rely on an overworked, underpaid public defender. If you don't have the money, forget about a decent attorney, you might as well plead out your case.
That said, one issue that I haven't seen addressed recently, especially on the campaign, is why the hell we have the highest incarceration rate (per capita) of any country in the world. No doubt there are an assortment of reasons for this, but shouldn't we start thinking about this? Imagine the quality of living for everyone if we could cut this in half and put those people in the workforce, and have them paying taxes instead of sucking them up for incarceration costs. Imagine the savings if we didn't have to keep building new prisons, hiring people to staff them, hiring parole officers for when they're released.
It's time to address this. The loss of manpower alone is criminal.
Link: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/world-prison-population-list-2005.pdf (http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/world-prison-population-list-2005.pdf)
-
<<A black person is more likely to be at an economic disadvantage (for whatever reason), and unable to afford the $10K retainer for a good, competent criminal attorney, and have to rely on an overworked, underpaid public defender. If you don't have the money, forget about a decent attorney, you might as well plead out your case.>>
I see. So basically, it's not the justice system that discriminates against blacks, it's the economic system.
sirs will love you for that.
-
Fatman has a point.
Rich guy hires a lawyer poor guy pleas.
Wonder what percentage of crimes are drug related.
-
<<Fatman has a point.>>
Hey, I agreed with Fatman.
<<Rich guy hires a lawyer poor guy pleas.>>
So many rich guys are white, so many poor guys are black. Coincidence, I'm sure.
<<Wonder what percentage of crimes are drug related.>>
Wonder how many of the drug-related crimes are victimless. Also wonder how many white kids busted for drugs go on to trial as opposed to black kids busted for drugs. There were actually studies conducted in Ontario showing that police are three times more likely to send a black kid to trial on drug possession charges than a white kid. But I guess you Americans have gotten past all that, haven't you?
-
Fatman has a point. Rich guy hires a lawyer poor guy pleas. Wonder what percentage of crimes are drug related.
Precisely.....how was it that a murdering ex-football player can be playing all kinds of rounds of golf, when he's not storming into hotel rooms?? Fatman & Bt are both functioning on the reality plane here, and it's indeed appreciated
-
<<Fatman has a point.>>
Hey, I agreed with Fatman.
<<Rich guy hires a lawyer poor guy pleas.>>
So many rich guys are white, so many poor guys are black. Coincidence, I'm sure.
<<Wonder what percentage of crimes are drug related.>>
Wonder how many of the drug-related crimes are victimless. Also wonder how many white kids busted for drugs go on to trial as opposed to black kids busted for drugs. There were actually studies conducted in Ontario showing that police are three times more likely to send a black kid to trial on drug possession charges than a white kid. But I guess you Americans have gotten past all that, haven't you?
Being rich works for blackpeople too.
As an experiment lets have an open society where little is forbidden to say and do and the possibility of wealth generation has no limit then start seveal diffrent groups off at diffrent levels of wealth in the beginning, see how long (how many generations) are require for the disprate groups to diffuse into one another and across the scale of wealth possession.
There are at this point just as many poor white people as there are poor black people .
-
Wonder how many of the drug-related crimes are victimless. Also wonder how many white kids busted for drugs go on to trial as opposed to black kids busted for drugs. There were actually studies conducted in Ontario showing that police are three times more likely to send a black kid to trial on drug possession charges than a white kid. But I guess you Americans have gotten past all that, haven't you?
Did the study compare prior arrests in this compilation?
I don't know how it is up your way but in the metro Atlanta area we have what are known as revenue enhancement days.These are days when the cops are writing tickets to reach quotas and will pull you over for just about anything. Justice for profit is in full bloom those days. If they find a joint in the ashtray, well that's just gravy.
-
Why are so many Black folks in jail?
They did it.
-
<<Precisely.....how was it that a murdering ex-football player can be playing all kinds of rounds of golf, when he's not storming into hotel rooms?? Fatman & Bt are both functioning on the reality plane here, and it's indeed appreciated>>
Hey, we all agree. This is nice. Criminal justice is a commodity. It's bought and sold. The more justice you can afford, the more you get. Economic justice, though, seems to be a racial thing. The whites have it, the blacks don't.
All I did was connect the one to the other.
-
define economic justice.
-
<<Being rich works for blackpeople too.>>
Being rich works for all kindsa people. That's what's so nice about money. It's colour-blind.
<<As an experiment lets have an open society where little is forbidden to say and do and the possibility of wealth generation has no limit then start seveal diffrent groups off at diffrent levels of wealth in the beginning, see how long (how many generations) are require for the disprate groups to diffuse into one another and across the scale of wealth possession.>>
I dunno, this experiment has been running since 1865 and the whites are still way ahead of the blacks.
<<There are at this point just as many poor white people as there are poor black people .>>
I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, it's no ringing endorsement of the American Way - - the blacks, who are about 13% of the general population, would make up 50% of the nation's poor.
-
<<I'll actually go with the more practical broke the law and went to jail card. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200>>
Right. And it's just pure coincidence that so many of those "law-breakers" are black.
This is indeed a fact. Why? No, really why? No cliches, please.
-
<<There are at this point just as many poor white people as there are poor black people .>>
I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, it's no ringing endorsement of the American Way - - the blacks, who are about 13% of the general population, would make up 50% of the nation's poor.
Actually, it's not true. There are lots more poor whites than poor blacks.
-
<<Did the study compare prior arrests in this compilation?>>
Excellent question. Prior arrests and criminal records were factored into the study. The difficulty with them was that they too could have been influenced by racial factors. Although they would obviously affect police decisions to lay charges.
I don't recall the details of that particular study but they were front-page news in the Toronto Star for about a week. (The Star sponsored the study but they hired top-notch people to conduct it.) Logically, you could avoid the influence of priors by studying the case histories of "clean" blacks and whites only, but I really don't recall how this particular study dealt with the issue.
-
<<define economic justice.>>
Race and religion (and sexual orientation and place of origin and political opinions and family) play no role in determining one's economic opportunities or the livelihood one earns. Everybody in the country entitled to a certain base-line level of economic support with access to basic decent food, shelter, health care and standard of living regardless of individual productivity. And free trips to Miami Beach every winter paid for by special taxes on the top 1/2 of 1 per cent.
-
Let me know when you want to discuss the issue seriously.
-
You realize all this is just crap, right? Namely, people are responsible for their own actions. If you were abused by your parents when you were young, eventually you must accept that fact and move on or scream "Worries me! Worries me!" or "It's not my fault!" or "See, I robbed that store at gunpoint because I was economically disadvangaed as a child". Grow up, people! By "buying" into this, you are enbaling them!
Crap, pure unadulterted bovine excrement.
-
<<This [higher rates of incarceration for blacks] is indeed a fact. Why? No, really why? No cliches, please.>>
IMHO, it's part of the legacy of slavery. Destruction of black families, systemic conditioning of acceptance of inferiority, generations of abysmally poor education, generations of lynch law leading to lives lived in fear, stress, frustration, humiliation and chronically poor parenting skills and lack of opportunities in early child deveopment all combine to a mind-set which, although diminishing over time, still affects large portions of the black community. Shaneequa never had a chance because her mother never had a chance because her mother never had a chance . . . all the way back to the days of slavery, which really is just four or five generations. I was in high school when the last surviving member of the G.A.R. died, and at that time he was survived by four Confederate veterans. The widow of the last Confederate veteran died in the 1970s. (Excellent book by Tony Horowitz, Confederates in the Attic, deals with the traces of the Civil War surviving into our modern culture. I remember during the Viet Nam war, Secretary of State Dean Rusk casually mentioned his being the grandson of Confederate veterans and I remember thinking, Jesus! I could have a conversation with a man who recalls discussing the Civil War with guys who were actually there. It's gonna take a long time for all that shit to work its way out of the system. Affirmative action was a way of making it disappear faster. Of course it resulted in a lot of injustice to innocent whites. There's a price to be paid for everything. Without affirmative action there would be injustice to the innocent grandchildren and great-grandchildren of slaves. It's always been a tough call.
-
<<Let me know when you want to discuss the issue seriously. >>
That was serious. Last line only excepted.
-
<<You realize all this is just crap, right? Namely, people are responsible for their own actions. If you were abused by your parents when you were young, eventually you must accept that fact and move on or scream "Worries me! Worries me!" or "It's not my fault!" or "See, I robbed that store at gunpoint because I was economically disadvangaed as a child". Grow up, people! By "buying" into this, you are enbaling them!>>
No, I don't realize it's all crap. I think your analysis of the situation is childishly simplistic (as are almost all right-wing POVs) and just cavalierly ignores reams of published studies on the subject. Early childhood development DOES have a significant effect on parenting skills, which obviously will be passed on to the next generation. Deny it all you like, there is no scientific evidence to support you. And the stats on rates of incarceration by race throw it all back in your face.
Yes people are responsible for their own actions and the slave owners and slave traders of Amerikkka have a lot to be responsible for. Their heirs inherited that responsibility and it's not surprising that they try to weasel out of it any way they can, but their standard line of everyone responsible for his own actions is unintentionally hilarious. Who the fuck is responsible for the slave-masters' actions if not their heirs, the people who inherited the slave-built foundations from them?
-
That there is a disproportion of blacks to whites in the prison population is indisputable, though I'm not going to pretend to know why that is (other than the reasoning I put out in the original post). However, even in predominantly white states (Montana, Idaho, Alaska, etc.) the incarceration rates are still high. Rich, in an above post, asks why the black man is in jail, then answers himself by saying that he did the crime. That's fine and dandy and all, but the chances are the white guy did it too, he could just afford a better attorney, and therefore a better defense. While there is some good debate going on as to economic injustice in black vs white, the only one I've seen touch on the incarceration issue as a whole is BT, who pointed out drug crimes and "revenue enhancement".
We have seizure laws allowing police and governments to confiscate vehicles, land, houses, cash, valuables. This is the ultimate "revenue enhancement". I think that the cop was in the stall next to Larry Craig not in order to really cut back the bathroom sex rate, but to get more money for the police. The whole system is for profit, the police benefit, the attorneys benefit, the government benefits, the prison and related industries benefit. The only ones who don't benefit are the convicted and society as a whole.
Personally, I do a lot of prison outreach volunteer work with my local St. Vincent De Paul and Catholic Community Services charities. I see the effect of people getting out of prison with no job skills, no rehabilitation (for most), nowhere to go, no employment or housing opportunities. Until we as a society and culture begin to address some of the issues leading to incarceration, and what to do with the incarcerated, this is a circle that won't be unbroken.
I don't know about other states or the Federal prison system BT, but here is the crime breakdown for incarceration in Washington State (these are rough estimates, not exact, and I don't have any data regarding prior arrests).
Property Crimes: Burglary, theft, arson, fraud etc. 25%
Sex Crimes: Molestation, rape, kidnapping etc. 20%
Personal Crimes: Assault, homicide, manslaughter 25%
Drug Crimes: Possession, distribution, manufacturing 30%
If you include the effects of drugs on the other crime categories, then drug crimes would be drastically higher, i.e. the burgler who steals to support a habit, the killing of a drug dealer, things like that.
So, an open question to the forum: Is there a better way to correct the problems of society than to incarcerate high numbers of citizens?
-
Well, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that it's "cool" among the young black community to make poor grades in school and get involved with illegal drugs.
-
I, for one, do not dispute the numbers. But, I am tired of hearing the same crap. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps, O Disadvantaged. Bill Cosby tried to address this and got ridiculed.
Excuses don't mean squat. Results do.
-
>>Rich, in an above post, asks why the black man is in jail, then answers himself by saying that he did the crime. That's fine and dandy and all, but the chances are the white guy did it too, he could just afford a better attorney, and therefore a better defense.<<
I don't buy the "more money means means no jail" excuse. Have you ever seen, or spoken to members of the White population in prison? They are in there for the same reasons the Black inmates are in there. They did it. It's not about money. Prison populations are made up of the same kind of people whether they're White or they're Black. Guilty people. Criminals. Usually habitual criminals. It's true that Blacks make up more than half of most prison populations. Because they did it. Feel free to address the reasons for the percentage of crimes committed by Blacks if you like, but they did it. Of course there are examples of good lawyers getting the guilty off the hook, but that is rare in our system. Black, White, Hispanic, male, female, chances are good that if you're in prison you committed a crime. Probably more than once.
-
Well, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that it's "cool" among the young black community to make poor grades in school and get involved with illegal drugs.
I'm in agreement ami. How do we fix this? Our answers thusfar seem only to perpetuate the problem.
I, for one, do not dispute the numbers. But, I am tired of hearing the same crap. Pick yourself up by your bootstraps, O Disadvantaged. Bill Cosby tried to address this and got ridiculed.
I'm a big fan of the work that Bill Cosby has tried to do, and I certainly don't ridicule his efforts. You may be tired of hearing the same crap, but how do we change the cycle? Or am I correct in my opinion that you don't believe the cycle needs to be changed? If so, why?
I don't buy the "more money means means no jail" excuse.
The great thing about this country is that you don't have to buy it. However, your tax dollars are. More money might not mean no jail, but it usually translates into reduced crimes and sentences.
Have you ever seen, or spoken to members of the White population in prison?
What part of the volunteer prison outreach didn't you understand? I speak to prisoners and felons on a regular basis. Washington state is mostly white, especially outside of the Snohomish-King-Pierce county areas. I live in Skagit county, predominantly white, with the occasional Hispanic. So yes, I've spoken to members of the white population in prison.
They are in there for the same reasons the Black inmates are in there. They did it. It's not about money. Prison populations are made up of the same kind of people whether they're White or they're Black. Guilty people. Criminals. Usually habitual criminals. It's true that Blacks make up more than half of most prison populations. Because they did it. Feel free to address the reasons for the percentage of crimes committed by Blacks if you like, but they did it. Of course there are examples of good lawyers getting the guilty off the hook, but that is rare in our system. Black, White, Hispanic, male, female, chances are good that if you're in prison you committed a crime. Probably more than once.
I'm not going to dispute this statement, because it's mostly true (other than the part about money having nothing to do with it). However, it does nothing to answer my main question, how do we fix it? Mandatory sentencing isn't cutting the crime rate, only adding to the problem. We brand these peoples as felons, making it difficult if not impossible to find employment or housing, then expect them to reintegrate into society and pull themselves up by the bootstraps. How do you do that when you can't get a job or a home? So these people with no resources, no skills, reoffend and end up back in the pen, where you and I get to pay for their upkeep. Then they get out and do the same thing again. Is it any wonder that they're habitual? I'm not disputing that it's not impossible for these people to dig themselves out of the hole they're in. I've seen it first hand. However, most of the people successful at this have some form of resources, job skills, something that they can build on. It seems to me that a lot of us are focused on the punishment aspect, an aspect that hasn't been proven to be an effective deterrent, and minimized any form of rehabilitation, believeing it to be a reward for bad behavior, when in truth these efforts tend to cut recidivism. I'd think it be in all of our best interests, regardless of political persuasion, to take an objective look at the whole aspect of the criminal justice system.
-
<<Well, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that it's "cool" among the young black community to make poor grades in school and get involved with illegal drugs.>>
Yes, and why is that?
-
I'm in agreement ami. How do we fix this? Our answers thusfar seem only to perpetuate the problem.
Until attitudes change, not much. Look at what happened with Bill Cosby when he suggested making changes.
-
<<They are in there for the same reasons the Black inmates are in there. They did it.>>
Brilliant analysis. Everyone's in prison for committing a crime. Shit, I thought most of them were taking a shortcut to church when the doors slammed shut on them by accident. Now I realize they're all nothing but a bunch of fucking criminals. Wow.
The point is to recognize how many people are out of jail because (a) the cops declined to prosecute them, (b) the prosecutor dropped the case or pled them out with a walk or (c) their high-price lawyer got 'em off.
The issue isn't why these guys are in jail, it's why so many whites get passes and so many blacks don't.
-
For about four years, I taught classes at Dede Correctional, an average security (neither minimum nor maximum) facility in South Dade County. Most of the inmates were ineligible for the college degree program, because they lacked a HS diploma or GED, so we got the best prepared of the population, and those who actually were most sincere about trying to make a go of it once they were out. About 45% of those in the program were White, about 55% Black, and of the White and Blacks, about 40% were Hispanic.
The vast majority were in jail because of something dealing with drugs, most often small-time streetcorner hoods, many of whom were caught doing something else (driving someone else's car without permission, boosting stolen merchandise, etc.) and then were discovered to be holding drugs in quantities greater than those one might carry around for personal use. It seemed to me that they had generally gotten away with a lot of crime before they did something amazingly stupid and got busted. ( I am reminded of the show COPS, in which the criminals are incredibly stupid, and the cops in question should all be subjected to the sort of dumbassed smartalek remarks that they seem to pride themselves on). Generally, they complained that the specific crime they were stopped for that led to their bust was not one they were actually guilty of, and all seemed to feel that they were in jail so as to support a large number of wardens, jailers, drug cops, prosecutors and judges which everyone would be better off without.
We have far too many people incarcerated in the US- more than anywhere else of the planet. I think the problem is that we place far too much emphasis on people who use drugs to escape reality, and we'd be a lot better off to treat drug addiction as a medical, rather than a criminal problem, since at the root of it, cocaine and heroin addictions are medical diseases that can be treated clinically a lot more effectively by doctors than by jailers. Marijuana is not much of a threat to anyone, other than as a lung irritant, and decriminalizing it would also be the best way to proceed.
Rape, burglarly, theft of all types seem to be more often drug-related than not.
-
>>The issue isn't why these guys are in jail, it's why so many whites get passes and so many blacks don't.<<
Well Uncle Mike, how many Whites do get passes, and how many Blacks don't?
-
<<Well Uncle Mike, how many Whites do get passes, and how many Blacks don't?>>
I dunno. In the Toronto Star survey, it was three times as many whites as blacks getting passes, but I don't remember the totals, it was the ratios that were the significant part of the study anyway.
-
>>I dunno.<<
If you don't know, how can you make such a blanket statement? What's the evidence?
-
<<Fatman has a point.>>
Hey, I agreed with Fatman.
<<Rich guy hires a lawyer poor guy pleas.>>
So many rich guys are white, so many poor guys are black. Coincidence, I'm sure.
<<Wonder what percentage of crimes are drug related.>>
Wonder how many of the drug-related crimes are victimless. Also wonder how many white kids busted for drugs go on to trial as opposed to black kids busted for drugs. There were actually studies conducted in Ontario showing that police are three times more likely to send a black kid to trial on drug possession charges than a white kid. But I guess you Americans have gotten past all that, haven't you?
Being rich works for blackpeople too.
As an experiment lets have an open society where little is forbidden to say and do and the possibility of wealth generation has no limit then start seveal diffrent groups off at diffrent levels of wealth in the beginning, see how long (how many generations) are require for the disprate groups to diffuse into one another and across the scale of wealth possession.
There are at this point just as many poor white people as there are poor black people .
I do not know if your figure stated here is accurate, but there is a larger observation.
It is a very good thing for those few who now control more and more of the money that those two elements, both having poorness or poverty as their common denominator, are divided.
Divided they will not stand, but united they would. Divided they are controllable, and provide little threat. United is another bear, much less teddy.
Smart folks, those, keeping us divided on racial issues.
I see a day when that manipulated division will fall.
Not to over-squeeze the claim, but South Carolina, of all places, has become a cog in that wheel now.
Has the dying beast suddenly blinked?
And Bill Clinton, now recognized for his efforts to divide along racial lines, however subtly attempted, may have helped bring that day sooner than later.
The hipster making all a little hipper.
Toni Morrison now an unplayed violin.
He may also have shitcanned Hillary's chances to let him run the country again, however unofficially.
Everywhere, from little nowheres, little bubbles of hope for change are coming to the top. The grass roots are starting to sing.
Poor Domer.
What a cold, unfair conflict for him now has to be the division of his precious, heartfilled tout of the commodity of simple and real hope, and juxtapositioned in conflict rather than tied in unity with that well of hope is the exposed decadence of Democratic Party conventionality, here portrayed in front of the footlights but poorly, scripted by Bill, mimed by Hillary, and panned by critics suddenly awakened from their usually banal, routine criticisms.
-
<<If you don't know, how can you make such a blanket statement? What's the evidence?>>
The evidence is the incarceration rates themselves. Either the system is so economically inequitable that it forces blacks into doing more crimes than whites, or the crime rates are equal between the races but the whites' economic advantage gets more of them off, or the black male is inherently more criminally inclined than the white male and therefore not only commits more crimes but would commit more crimes even if playing on a level economic playing field. So take your pick:
(a) systemic economic inequality;
(b) systemic legal inequality (deriving from economic inequality); or
(c) racial inferiority;
I pick a combination of (a) and (b); a racist and fascist like you would have to either pick (c) or deny the inequality of incarceration rates.
that's why I laugh whenever a FACT comes up that you try to spin around, weave around, get over, get under . . . and of course you can't. The inequalities even today in the American social fabric are gigantic, they stem directly from the institutions of slavery and white racism, in in the midst of a forest of denial stands this huge boulder, this gigantic rock that just ain't goin' nowhere, the incarceration rates of black Americans and white Americans. So, uh, just out of curiosity . . . how DO you plan to explain them?
-
Well Mike, a dumass fuck (name pre-approved by brass) like your commie self has no other way to reason other than the standard racist, fascist playbook. It can't be their fault now can it Mikey. They're to inferior to be responsible for their crimes huh? If they'd just stay on the leftist plantation and take what you benevolent White Liberal hand to them they wouldn't be in prison would they. It must be unfair, because live is unfair to you, right Uncle Mike? Shit Uncle Mike, you know as much about the Prison population as you do about Fascism...nothing.
When the revolution comes Uncle Mike and his blood thirsty followers (all 100 of them) will set things right. You'll make sure they do as they're told won't you Uncle Mike. Keep 'em steppin' and fetchen on the plantation.
Or you just must line them up and shoot them, right? I mean after 60 million, what's a few million more?
-
I do not know if your figure stated here is accurate, but there is a larger observation.
It is a very good thing for those few who now control more and more of the money that those two elements, both having poorness or poverty as their common denominator, are divided.
Divided they will not stand, but united they would. Divided they are controllable, and provide little threat. United is another bear, much less teddy.
Smart folks, those, keeping us divided on racial issues.
I see a day when that manipulated division will fall.
Not to over-squeeze the claim, but South Carolina, of all places, has become a cog in that wheel now.
Has the dying beast suddenly blinked?
And Bill Clinton, now recognized for his efforts to divide along racial lines, however subtly attempted, may have helped bring that day sooner than later.
The hipster making all a little hipper.
Toni Morrison now an unplayed violin.
He may also have shitcanned Hillary's chances to let him run the country again, however unofficially.
Everywhere, from little nowheres, little bubbles of hope for change are coming to the top. The grass roots are starting to sing.
Poor Domer.
What a cold, unfair conflict for him now has to be the division of his precious, heartfilled tout of the commodity of simple and real hope, and juxtapositioned in conflict rather than tied in unity with that well of hope is the exposed decadence of Democratic Party conventionality, here portrayed in front of the footlights but poorly, scripted by Bill, mimed by Hillary, and panned by critics suddenly awakened from their usually banal, routine criticisms.
I like the way you write , symetry and layers and allusions ,
... but I remember Domer going on record as an Obama supporter , why would recent events bother him?
-
<<It can't be their fault now can it Mikey. >>
No, I think circumstances ganged up on them. They started out in life with too many strikes against them, no proper parenting, no guidance, no opportunities, and what you see is what you get. It's a miracle that some of them found the way out, they would all have an excuse if they didn't.
<<They're to inferior to be responsible for their crimes huh?>>
Nope, whites raised the same way would contribute the same numbers to the inmate population.
<< If they'd just stay on the leftist plantation and take what you benevolent White Liberal hand to them they wouldn't be in prison would they. >>
There is no leftist plantation. Exists only in your diseased mind.
<<It must be unfair, because live is unfair to you, right Uncle Mike? >>
Life's been more than fair to me, Rich. I started out with advantages that I don't think one in a hundred black inmates would have had. So did you, if I'm not mistaken.
<<Shit Uncle Mike, you know as much about the Prison population as you do about Fascism...nothing.>>
I know. That's why I come to this forum, Rich, so I can learn from the real experts. Guys like you. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
When the revolution comes Uncle Mike and his blood thirsty followers (all 100 of them) will set things right. You'll make sure they do as they're told won't you Uncle Mike. Keep 'em steppin' and fetchen on the plantation.
Or you just must line them up and shoot them, right? I mean after 60 million, what's a few million more?
-
...Nope, whites raised the same way would contribute the same numbers to the inmate population.
There was a time when chain gangs did the work of the county and state , and when offenders were scarce arrests for smaller offenses became more common till quotas were filled.
In those days Families clung close together because the family members needed each other , it really was them against the world.
Black families (my father told me from first hand observation) were especially close and tended to gather their resources to get things done.
Things have become less blatantly unfair and precarious , wealth is easier than it used to be to find , and an illusion pervades the society black white and otherwise that families don't need to stay together and help one another. I think this is an illusion and that threats are still out there in the world , but they are more subtle .
-
Dispensing with Uncle Mike for a moment, we all know income has nothing to do with crime. To folks like Mike, blacks are preordained to be criminal because life is "stacked against them." They don't have a choice, because they're Black. They aren't capable of doing anything else, because they're Black. To Uncle Mike, the White man is wholly evil and delights in the natural condition of Black folks and does everything they can to keep them poor, drug addicted, and in jail.
Who do we really blame here? Afterall, the justice system sees a Black person and since they can't linch them outright, simply gives the good defense lawyers to the White folk, and gives the incompetent ones to the lowly Black folk because afterall, they don't know any better do they.
Brother ...
If you've ever visited a prison (I have), you know that the vast majority of inmates, White, Black, or Hispanic, are almost always poor, come from broken homes, and are gang affiliated. Almost all of them are repeat offenders, and they all DID IT. Once again, these aren't your short timers, under a year, these are people who are doing serious time for serious crimes.
So if you want to be a good communist and repeat what they want you to hear, believe Uncle Mike; Blacks are in jail because the White man, the Conservative White man, wants them there and they can't help themselves simply because they're Black and can't figure out how to avoid prison. Why not? Would a communist lie?
:D
-
For about four years, I taught classes at Dede Correctional, an average security (neither minimum nor maximum) facility in South Dade County. Most of the inmates were ineligible for the college degree program, because they lacked a HS diploma or GED, so we got the best prepared of the population, and those who actually were most sincere about trying to make a go of it once they were out. About 45% of those in the program were White, about 55% Black, and of the White and Blacks, about 40% were Hispanic.
The vast majority were in jail because of something dealing with drugs, most often small-time streetcorner hoods, many of whom were caught doing something else (driving someone else's car without permission, boosting stolen merchandise, etc.) and then were discovered to be holding drugs in quantities greater than those one might carry around for personal use. It seemed to me that they had generally gotten away with a lot of crime before they did something amazingly stupid and got busted. ( I am reminded of the show COPS, in which the criminals are incredibly stupid, and the cops in question should all be subjected to the sort of dumbassed smartalek remarks that they seem to pride themselves on). Generally, they complained that the specific crime they were stopped for that led to their bust was not one they were actually guilty of, and all seemed to feel that they were in jail so as to support a large number of wardens, jailers, drug cops, prosecutors and judges which everyone would be better off without.
We have far too many people incarcerated in the US- more than anywhere else of the planet. I think the problem is that we place far too much emphasis on people who use drugs to escape reality, and we'd be a lot better off to treat drug addiction as a medical, rather than a criminal problem, since at the root of it, cocaine and heroin addictions are medical diseases that can be treated clinically a lot more effectively by doctors than by jailers. Marijuana is not much of a threat to anyone, other than as a lung irritant, and decriminalizing it would also be the best way to proceed.
Rape, burglarly, theft of all types seem to be more often drug-related than not.
I agree, XO.
Our previous Governor wanted to legalize Marijuana but it didn't fly.
The vast majority were in jail because of something dealing with drugs, most often small-time streetcorner hoods, many of whom were caught doing something else (driving someone else's car without permission, boosting stolen merchandise, etc.) and then were discovered to be holding drugs in quantities greater than those one might carry around for personal use. It seemed to me that they had generally gotten away with a lot of crime before they did something amazingly stupid and got busted. ( I am reminded of the show COPS, in which the criminals are incredibly stupid, and the cops in question should all be subjected to the sort of dumbassed smartalek remarks that they seem to pride themselves on).
The students I have who are children of gang members have little chance in heck of making a future for themselves from the start....so of course they are going to end up in the situation you speak of here. ...they are raised in an environment of such reality and have been given very little else in terms of stability and livlihood....
I still say we must try harder to give these "future criminals" and gang bangers a chance to make something of themselves before it's too late...instead of giving up on them and sending them to BD classes or D homes. Pre pre teen....3.4th graders need to have major intervention...but I hear of no candidate to reply to such a need. Crime costs us all.
Anyway....I think that we have to try something different...the same crap is happening all over the country and our jails are taxed along with our wallets.
It's a tough job to reach those kids/families...but if we tried harder, perhaps the
-
Dispensing with Uncle Mike for a moment, we all know income has nothing to do with crime.
By your own admission: you know that the vast majority of inmates, White, Black, or Hispanic, are almost always poor,
The only crime sector where income has been demonstrably proven not to be an influence on crime are sex crimes and some personal crimes. The huge majority of property crimes are income driven. While I am glad that you have visited a prison and seen things firsthand, how many times have you been there? I go once every week or two weeks. I don't dispute that the majority of criminals "did it". No one has answered my question though, of how do we stop them from "doing it" again? Is it morally acceptable to you to continue to lock people up like animals, until we have the highest rate in the world? Higher than Communist China? Higher than Russia or any of the former Soviet Republics? Don't you think that we as a nation can do a hell of a lot better than this?
All I see is apathy. It's kind of like when I visit a prison. I see the same thing.
-
<<Dispensing with Uncle Mike for a moment, we all know income has nothing to do with crime. >>
Common sense alone would tell you that income, along with poor parenting and other factors most definitely DO have something to do with crime.
<<To folks like Mike, blacks are preordained to be criminal because life is "stacked against them." >>
Amazing. For once Rich doesn't twist my words, he says it better than I did. Thanks, Rich.
<<They don't have a choice, because they're Black. They aren't capable of doing anything else, because they're Black. >>
Ooops, Rich is back to twisting my words again. Sorry, Rich, it's not that they are black, period. It's that they are black AND living out the trans-generational legacy of white racism, i.e. , of slavery and Jim Crow. They are black AND they are blacks living in a white society which is in the midst of a long transition from a racist to a non-racist society.
<<To Uncle Mike, the White man is wholly evil and delights in the natural condition of Black folks and does everything they can to keep them poor, drug addicted, and in jail.>>
No, only some Whites are as you described them. I think it's more ignorance than evil. You seem to be a good example of that - - you reach for ignorant, highly simplistic explanations of very complex events, probably because you don't like to acknowledge the white man's past sins against blacks. So - - "they're in jail because they did bad things. They did bad things because they made bad choices." No analysis whatsoever of the effects of slavery on the great-grandparents' self-image and self-esteem, the effect of white racist total subjugation from generation to generation of black Americans, the effect on ego, on self-image, on self-confidence, on parenting skills. That blacks DID manage to overcome such obstacles and live lives of worth and dignity is a miracle. That many didn't should come as no surprise to anyone. Generation after generation of black males raised to step off the sidewalk when a white approaches, that they could be horribly lynched for looking the wrong way at a white woman. That the law would never lift a finger to protect them.
You want to remain willfully ignorant of these factors. Ignore them, ridicule them or trivialize them. But there is nothing trivial about any of them. They would have a significant effect on any human being, yourself included. And they DID have an effect on American blacks. An effect that still shows today in the stats that prove every word you say on the subject just can't be true. You can't explain away those stats.
<<Who do we really blame here? Afterall, the justice system sees a Black person and since they can't linch them outright, simply gives the good defense lawyers to the White folk, and gives the incompetent ones to the lowly Black folk because afterall, they don't know any better do they.>>
You know as well as anyone else in this forum that overall, the whites have access to much better and much higher-priced lawyers than the blacks because whites have more money. So why pretend otherwise? You're only making a fool of yourself, while fooling absolutely no one.
<<Brother ...
If you've ever visited a prison (I have), you know that the vast majority of inmates, White, Black, or Hispanic, are almost always poor, come from broken homes, and are gang affiliated.>>
I've been in prisons many times and I don't know any such thing. There are gangs in and out of prison, that is true. But unless I saw a credible survey with numbers to support your allegations, I would never go out on a limb and say that "the vast majority" are gang-affiliated.
<<Almost all of them are repeat offenders, and they all DID IT. Once again, these aren't your short timers, under a year, these are people who are doing serious time . . . >>
Nobody says different, if you're talking penitentiary. And your point is . . . ?
<< . . . for serious crimes.>>
Well, I just don't know how "serious" some of those "crimes" are. Some are victimless, like trafficking in drugs. Any conservative worth his salt knows that a trafficker in drugs is just satisfying a market, a market that the nanny state has decreed is "bad for your mental or physical health." Far as I'm concerned, federal anti-drug law is just federal mind-control and an attempt by the believers in one version of reality to crush their competition. They have a different version of reality to peddle and they are being criminalized. That's psycho-fascism.
<<So if you want to be a good communist and repeat what they want you to hear, believe Uncle Mike; Blacks are in jail because the White man, the Conservative White man, wants them there and they can't help themselves simply because they're Black and can't figure out how to avoid prison. Why not? Would a communist lie?>>
That's just such a fucking distortion of my words I'm not even going to waste the time of responding to it. I'll return the favour, though: So if you want to be a good Nazi like Uncle Rich, believe that the explanation for the high rates of black incarceration lies not in economics or the failures of the justice system or the legacy of slavery, but know that there are such high numbers of blacks (Rich prefers to call them "niggers") in jail because they are genetically programmed to commit very high levels of criminal activity and also they have smaller brains, which means that they can't figure out how to avoid capture. Uncle Rich believes that in every sense of the word "inferior," blacks are an inferior race. In the words of Rich's hero, Adolf Hitler, blacks are "untermenschen" or sub-humans and a world without any of them would be a better world. You can take Rich's word on this - - would a Nazi lie to you?
-
<<Dispensing with Uncle Mike for a moment, we all know income has nothing to do with crime. >>
Common sense alone would tell you that income, along with poor parenting and other factors most definitely DO have something to do with crime.
Do you consider white collar crime to be tolerable, or rare?
-
<<Do you consider white collar crime to be tolerable, or rare?>>
How can a crime which takes away people's life savings be "tolerable?" How is tax evasion tolerable when all the rest of us have to pay more so that the criminal can get away with paying less? It's tolerable to steal out of my fucking pocket? Out of YOURS, maybe, but out of mine, never. ;)
Anything that's reported more than several times a year can't be rare. I think it's common and growing.
-
>>The only crime sector where income has been demonstrably proven not to be an influence on crime are sex crimes and some personal crimes. The huge majority of property crimes are income driven.<<
Just because they?re income driven doesn?t mean being poor is the motivation. The easy way out is the motivation and lack of adult supervision is a contributing factor. There have always been poor people, and they did not resort to crime at the rate we see today.
>>While I am glad that you have visited a prison and seen things firsthand, how many times have you been there? I go once every week or two weeks.<<
I don?t recall exactly. I used to go once a month, but I have only been perhaps 3 times last year. I do however drop off my old magazines every two months or so (county jail).
>>I don't dispute that the majority of criminals "did it". No one has answered my question though, of how do we stop them from "doing it" again?<<
By locking them up. What else can you do? These people are increasing dangerous and are repeat offenders. We offer all kinds of social programs to help people. Some people take advantage of them and they work, other don?t even try. Richard Nixon toyed with the idea of giving every man woman and child $million. Would that work? I doubt it. Money isn?t the problem, morality is.
>>Is it morally acceptable to you to continue to lock people up like animals, until we have the highest rate in the world?<<
What?s the alternative? We have tried just about everything there is to try. We?ve thrown billions and billions of dollars at the problem and it?s only gotten worse.
>>Don't you think that we as a nation can do a hell of a lot better than this?<<
I?d love to. Any ideas?
>>All I see is apathy. It's kind of like when I visit a prison. I see the same thing.<<
I have every sympathy for people who?s freedom has been taken away. It?s something I wouldn?t wish on anybody. It can ruin a person.
-
<<Do you consider white collar crime to be tolerable, or rare?>>
How can a crime which takes away people's life savings be "tolerable?" How is tax evasion tolerable when all the rest of us have to pay more so that the criminal can get away with paying less? It's tolerable to steal out of my fucking pocket? Out of YOURS, maybe, but out of mine, never. ;)
Anything that's reported more than several times a year can't be rare. I think it's common and growing.
Yes , and most of it is motiated by greed rather than need.
-
<<Yes , and most of it [white collar crime] is motiated by greed rather than need.>>
Well, plane, I have to say as one who has visited at least three jails and penitentiaries in this province quite a few times, the number of white collar criminals locked up there is not very impressive. Let's just say that if there were a riot in the general population any of the prisons I visited, and the white-collar criminals were pitted against the street criminals, you should put your money on the street criminals because the white collars would be very, very badly out-numbered.
The vast majority of the crime and of the criminals in North America are not white collar.
Furthermore, you are making a big mistake by looking only at the motivation of the crime. Poverty is not only the immediate stimulus of most crimes, it destroys alternative life styles to crime. Racism by destroying black self-respect makes good parenting impossible for some individuals (other stronger individuals overcome it, true enough, and more power to them!) but if you consider humanity a spectrum of strong to weak, those who are not strong, if black, will succumb to the degradation that racism engenders, and be incapable of good parenting. Whites who are not strong will never be put to the same test, and so many more of them will still be capable of good parenting.
I just get the sense of you twisting and dodging any suggestion of responsibility. As if institutions like slavery and Jim Crow, which are so soul-destroying, could come and go in one generation and leave no trace thereafter. You just don't want to face up to certain basic truths. Easier to blame the victims.
-
<<Yes , and most of it [white collar crime] is motiated by greed rather than need.>>
Well, plane, I have to say as one who has visited at least three jails and penitentiaries in this province quite a few times, the number of white collar criminals locked up there is not very impressive. Let's just say that if there were a riot in the general population any of the prisons I visited, and the white-collar criminals were pitted against the street criminals, you should put your money on the street criminals because the white collars would be very, very badly out-numbered.
The vast majority of the crime and of the criminals in North America are not white collar.
Furthermore, you are making a big mistake by looking only at the motivation of the crime. Poverty is not only the immediate stimulus of most crimes, it destroys alternative life styles to crime. Racism by destroying black self-respect makes good parenting impossible for some individuals (other stronger individuals overcome it, true enough, and more power to them!) but if you consider humanity a spectrum of strong to weak, those who are not strong, if black, will succumb to the degradation that racism engenders, and be incapable of good parenting. Whites who are not strong will never be put to the same test, and so many more of them will still be capable of good parenting.
I just get the sense of you twisting and dodging any suggestion of responsibility. As if institutions like slavery and Jim Crow, which are so soul-destroying, could come and go in one generation and leave no trace thereafter. You just don't want to face up to certain basic truths. Easier to blame the victims.
How are "race relations" in Canada between the invading whites and the natives?
-
<<How are "race relations" in Canada between the invading whites and the natives?>>
I think they're really sad. The natives have much higher rates of alcoholism, substance abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome, teenage suicide and there's nothing to be done about it.
There was a whole generation of them taken from their families and raised in residential schools where they weren't allowed to speak their own language, follow their own customs or religions and in addition were beaten, sexually abused and basically fucked up for life.
In Alberta there were Indians murdered by cops for fun. A few years ago, the cops in Edmonton or Calgary were caught taking Indians for "starlight cruises" - - usually drunks, but one time a mouthy, scrappy teenager. They dropped them off in the middle of nowhere on a night when the temperature could be 30 or 40 below zero, and the guy would be found frozen to death on the outskirts of the city the next day. The mistake they made with the teenager was that they left a witness. Don't worry, nothing much happened to the cops. It never does.
I read somewhere that the difference between Canada and the U.S.A. was that both fucked the Indians and stole all their land, but that in Canada, once the "deal" was made, it was generally respected. What was theirs was theirs. In the U.S.A., if oil or gold was discovered on the reservation, the whites would steal again from the Indians and "renegotiate" the treaty by force. I just don't know if that's true or not. It was in a Canadian newspaper or magazine. Maybe the Canadians were just as bad.
Sometimes whites want to develop land that Indians claim is sacred and the Indians try to block the roads. This is usually a long way from the city but it does pit the whites of small towns against Indians from the nearest reserve, assisted by militants like the Mohawk Warriors (who I think operate on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border.)
-
I am certainly not an expert in this arena, but why can't something be done in this on both sides of the border?
Perhaps someone needs to come in who isn't caught by that paradigm and think outside the box and come up with a solution. I have no idea what might be done. My simple "white" says "Why not take an automobile plant, or similar successful endeavor, and take it from where it is, or negotiate with Toyota or whomever for a new plant, and put it in a reservation and spend the bucks to properly train the natives to be successful at it?"
Any ideas?
-
Yeah - -casinos.
In a nutshell, it's a societal problem based on a huge historical injustice that resulted in damaged human beings with terrible self-image producing terrible parenting skills and an intergenerational transfer of the problem.
Again, just as with the blacks, I think that early childhood development programs are the key to the problem and would go a long way toward rolling it back, but there just isn't the funding available.
Our priorities are fucked up, because they're "only children" and they're not even "our" children. We have to keep an army in Afghanistan, YOU have to keep armies in both Afghanistan AND Iraq, the funds for which are limitless. For the kids? Fuck 'em, they're not even white kids so who gives a shit?
-
<<Yes , and most of it [white collar crime] is motiated by greed rather than need.>>
Well, plane, I have to say as one who has visited at least three jails and penitentiaries in this province quite a few times, the number of white collar criminals locked up there is not very impressive. Let's just say that if there were a riot in the general population any of the prisons I visited, and the white-collar criminals were pitted against the street criminals, you should put your money on the street criminals because the white collars would be very, very badly out-numbered.
The vast majority of the crime and of the criminals in North America are not white collar.
Furthermore, you are making a big mistake by looking only at the motivation of the crime. Poverty is not only the immediate stimulus of most crimes, it destroys alternative life styles to crime. Racism by destroying black self-respect makes good parenting impossible for some individuals (other stronger individuals overcome it, true enough, and more power to them!) but if you consider humanity a spectrum of strong to weak, those who are not strong, if black, will succumb to the degradation that racism engenders, and be incapable of good parenting. Whites who are not strong will never be put to the same test, and so many more of them will still be capable of good parenting.
I just get the sense of you twisting and dodging any suggestion of responsibility. As if institutions like slavery and Jim Crow, which are so soul-destroying, could come and go in one generation and leave no trace thereafter. You just don't want to face up to certain basic truths. Easier to blame the victims.
Doesn't fit the reality.
Jim Crow used to have the force of law , Racism used to be unabashed and very common.
During that period the Parenting skill of black parents was more effective.
During that period fewer Black people were locked up , fewer were murdered .
Now the law is not an enemy of Black folk , racists are opressed and low on public approval.
If racism were the cheif cause of Black people being locked up , you would expet that even small improvement in race relations would result in reductions in incarceration , but as racism looses clout and White suprimacy is on its way to the dustbin of history he number of black people locked up is still riseing .
A lot of white people are getting locked up too , everyone is setting records.
Blameing racism is a knee jerk , something elese is getting worse at the same time as racism is weakening.
-
<<Jim Crow used to have the force of law , Racism used to be unabashed and very common.
<<During that period the Parenting skill of black parents was more effective.
<<During that period fewer Black people were locked up , fewer were murdered .>>
Well, you missed two points:
1. White people were better parents then too. Fewer whites were locked up, fewer were murdered. Different times.
2. In the old days, blacks were taught to know their place, not to look whites in they eye, to go to the end of the line, the back of the bus, never to complain about it and never to raise hell. Fear kept them in line. Lynchings helped.
What you can't get away from is the tremendous lack of self-esteem that existed for generations - - they were taught to step off the sidewalk for a white man or woman, even if they were 73 and the white person was 12. I couldn't even count the ways they were taught their "inferiority." And the strong ignored it and lived lives of dignity and self-respect. But how many came through it with the sense of hopelessness, of "why bother?" convinced that the only thing they were good for was the most menial of trades, convinced in their bones that they would never amount to nuthin. And on top of that, poverty, ignorance, lack of educational opportunities, malnutrition, lead poisoning. And those children growing up to be parents and produce yet another generation of the same.
-
<<Jim Crow used to have the force of law , Racism used to be unabashed and very common.
<<During that period the Parenting skill of black parents was more effective.
<<During that period fewer Black people were locked up , fewer were murdered .>>
Well, you missed two points:
1. White people were better parents then too. Fewer whites were locked up, fewer were murdered. Different times.
I agree , how was this lost?
2. In the old days, blacks were taught to know their place, not to look whites in they eye, to go to the end of the line, the back of the bus, never to complain about it and never to raise hell. Fear kept them in line. Lynchings helped.
True , but this should include unjust arrest and incarcration for racist reasons , which you would suppose to happen less now. Did repression and fear for an underclass do a good thing for the society as a whole? Heaven forbid that theworst racist rant be so proven true.
What you can't get away from is the tremendous lack of self-esteem that existed for generations - - they were taught to step off the sidewalk for a white man or woman, even if they were 73 and the white person was 12. I couldn't even count the ways they were taught their "inferiority." And the strong ignored it and lived lives of dignity and self-respect. But how many came through it with the sense of hopelessness, of "why bother?" convinced that the only thing they were good for was the most menial of trades, convinced in their bones that they would never amount to nuthin. And on top of that, poverty, ignorance, lack of educational opportunities, malnutrition, lead poisoning. And those children growing up to be parents and produce yet another generation of the same.
I beleive a lot of people who were forced to show deference , knew in their heart that the situation was basicly unfair , and uneeded. Probly every one of them that was of above advradge intelligence had met a few priveledged class people of below advradge intelligence , but they must have done what survival required.
But given just a little chance to and these people gathered up a large number of heros from amoung themselves , and made peacefull resistance work . The boycot of Busses and the sit in of diners and the massive marches required a high degree of courage. What lesser courage is required to merely stay out of the hands of the penal system?
-
The boycot of Busses and the sit in of diners and the massive marches required a high degree of courage. What lesser courage is required to merely stay out of the hands of the penal system?
=====================================================
Bus boycotts and lunch counter demonstrations did require courage, but they also required organization at a determined time and place, and were effective because of the social opposition of the rest of the nation to the Jim Crow sheriffs who beat up the demonstrators . It isn't possible to organize the few people that are attracted to commit a thousand different crimes in a hundred cities over a long period. You are attempting to compare things that cannot be compared.
-
The boycot of Busses and the sit in of diners and the massive marches required a high degree of courage. What lesser courage is required to merely stay out of the hands of the penal system?
=====================================================
Bus boycotts and lunch counter demonstrations did require courage, but they also required organization at a determined time and place, and were effective because of the social opposition of the rest of the nation to the Jim Crow sheriffs who beat up the demonstrators . It isn't possible to organize the few people that are attracted to commit a thousand different crimes in a hundred cities over a long period. You are attempting to compare things that cannot be compared.
Don't forget that peacefull protest didn't waste local support either.
But that is beside the point.
You were seeming to say that the humanity was beaten out of these people and thus they must become criminals .
Yet heroism was not rare amoung them back then when opression was more immediate , and criminality was less common.
I am calling into question your explaation for Black crime as being directly related to racism ,there have tobe other factors that mak more diffrence , elese improvements see since the 50s would necessacerily have improved incarceration rates.
White supremeicists used to boldly state that without the repression , Negro people would be dangerous to white people , I really want to say they were wrong . What are you sayng to assert that the opression they had in those days kept them out of prison?
-
<<White supremeicists used to boldly state that without the repression , Negro people would be dangerous to white people , I really want to say they were wrong . What are you sayng to assert that the opression they had in those days kept them out of prison?>>
Why do you "really want to say they were wrong?" Do you mean if they were telling the truth, you would try to hide it?
What do you think? WERE they wrong or weren't they?
-
The Black people who dedicate themselves to crime mostly are a threat to other Black people. When all it took was wandering around unemployed would get a Black person arrested for loitering and a place on the chain gang, there were a lot fewer young Black people running about free, and it is always the young (15-30 or so) that commit most crimes in any society. So there is a high probability that there were fewer crimes committed against Whites or Blacks by said criminals.
-
<<I agree , how was this [the parenting skills of past generations] lost?>>
I believe a lot of it is due to the North American economy. A continuing decline in real income for the working class adds a lot of stress and leads to more mums working outside the home. And, I have to admit, the liberalization of the divorce laws that began in the 1960s. A combination of long work weeks, declining purchasing power, inadequate vacation time, working mums and divorce seems to have really fucked up a lot of kids.
Parenting is one of the most important jobs any human being can do, and it's NOT a part-time job. Really efficient individuals can manage to balance parenting with career but I think the majority of parents just aren't up to it.
-
<<White supremeicists used to boldly state that without the repression , Negro people would be dangerous to white people , I really want to say they were wrong . What are you sayng to assert that the opression they had in those days kept them out of prison?>>
Why do you "really want to say they were wrong?" Do you mean if they were telling the truth, you would try to hide it?
What do you think? WERE they wrong or weren't they?
You are telling me thay were right.
I don't think so , I don't think that repression is nessacery to safety , nor even really good for it.
Good will is good for safety , violence can draw reprecussion for more than a generation.
-
<<You are telling me thay were right.>>
No, you just made that up. I never said that Jim Crow was justified. That is 100% you, trying to twist my words.
<<I don't think so , I don't think that repression is nessacery to safety , nor even really good for it.>>
I'm going to disagree with you. I believe repression will increase public safety but at an unacceptable cost to our social fabric. Our society has vital interests in many areas, public safety being only one of them (but admittedly a very important one.)
<<Good will is good for safety , violence can draw reprecussion for more than a generation.>>
And now I'm going to agree with you.
-
<<You are telling me thay were right.>>
No, you just made that up. I never said that Jim Crow was justified. That is 100% you, trying to twist my words.
<<I don't think so , I don't think that repression is nessacery to safety , nor even really good for it.>>
I'm going to disagree with you. I believe repression will increase public safety but at an unacceptable cost to our social fabric. Our society has vital interests in many areas, public safety being only one of them (but admittedly a very important one.)
<<Good will is good for safety , violence can draw reprecussion for more than a generation.>>
And now I'm going to agree with you.
They say that repressing the Black citizen is good for safety , then " believe repression will increase public safety but at an unacceptable cost "
so do you.
No you didn't say it was just , I don't suspect you of meaning anything like that.
Looking back thru the generations , I understnd Denmark Vessy and Nat Turner , but their effort was a complete boomerang. I get the argument for repression too , but I think of it as a long term looser , because as you and I agree , it is not just.
-
plane, the way you phrased it was: "You are telling me they were right."
They were not right. I never told you they were right. Increasing public safety at an unacceptable cost in injustice and sacrificed freedoms cannot be right.
I think maybe you were confused between two separate issues: (a) whether repression does or does not increase public safety and (b) whether it's right to increase public safety by unjust oppression of minorities and sacrifice of basic freedoms. You took my affirmative on issue (a) as an affirmative on (b) as well.
-
plane, the way you phrased it was: "You are telling me they were right."
They were not right. I never told you they were right. Increasing public safety at an unacceptable cost in injustice and sacrificed freedoms cannot be right.
I think maybe you were confused between two separate issues: (a) whether repression does or does not increase public safety and (b) whether it's right to increase public safety by unjust oppression of minorities and sacrifice of basic freedoms. You took my affirmative on issue (a) as an affirmative on (b) as well.
Opression both works and doesn't I guess.
Does this depend on the timescale?
Thomas Jefferson discussed the situation he was facing as he gained power in a society that was struggleing for survival.
He opined that te removal of Indian from proximity of White settlement was necessacery , not that it was just, but that it increased safety.
He compared the situation of Negro slavery to holding a wolf by the ears , you don't like doing it but you can't stop without being bit.
He actually argued that the situaion was so unjust that the offended people couldn't forgive and couldn't make peace , the system was too unjust to end.
Thomas was one of the best of us that there has ever been , an American of such insight that he formed the mold of our ideals , but this stuff had him stuck in dissonance , equivocateing to himself even as he knew he was.
Was he right really? Did these injustaces need to continue untill five more generations had grown out of the situation?
-
<<Thomas [Jefferson]was one of the best of us that there has ever been , an American of such insight that he formed the mold of our ideals , but this stuff had him stuck in dissonance , equivocateing to himself even as he knew he was.>>
IMHO, it's best to think of Jefferson as a great man with some very great flaws. In the end, you just can't reconcile them. It isn't as if he was totally ignorant of the problem. There was already an anti-slavery movement in Britain, very active and committed, but then its leaders never came up with anything like the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, which has probably inspired more idealistic political action than any other document in history.
But those anonymous English Quakers put him to shame on actual human rights and the slavery issue, which directly contradicted "all men are created equal."
Jefferson was what he was. Instead of idolizing him unconditionally, I think we should honour what was good in him and condemn what was bad.
-
<<Thomas [Jefferson]was one of the best of us that there has ever been , an American of such insight that he formed the mold of our ideals , but this stuff had him stuck in dissonance , equivocateing to himself even as he knew he was.>>
IMHO, it's best to think of Jefferson as a great man with some very great flaws. In the end, you just can't reconcile them. It isn't as if he was totally ignorant of the problem. There was already an anti-slavery movement in Britain, very active and committed, but then its leaders never came up with anything like the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, which has probably inspired more idealistic political action than any other document in history.
But those anonymous English Quakers put him to shame on actual human rights and the slavery issue, which directly contradicted "all men are created equal."
Jefferson was what he was. Instead of idolizing him unconditionally, I think we should honour what was good in him and condemn what was bad.
http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm
William Wilberforce was not anonymous , but you are right , the abolition movement was a generation earlyer in England and successfull without causeing a civil war.
The Abolitionists in the US wound up fighting in the US , the Abolitionists of England fought all over the Globe.
-
Jefferson was what he was. Instead of idolizing him unconditionally, I think we should honour what was good in him and condemn what was bad.
Well, he did free all of his slaves.