DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on November 28, 2007, 11:10:32 PM
-
Sean Taylor's death a grim reminder for us all
Jason Whitlock / FOXSports.com
Posted: 1 hour ago
There's a reason I call them the Black KKK. The pain, the fear and the destruction are all the same.
Someone who loved Sean Taylor is crying right now. The life they knew has been destroyed, an 18-month-old baby lost her father, and, if you're a black man living in America, you've been reminded once again that your life is in constant jeopardy of violent death.
The Black KKK claimed another victim, a high-profile professional football player with a checkered past this time.
No, we don't know for certain the circumstances surrounding Taylor's death. I could very well be proven wrong for engaging in this sort of aggressive speculation. But it's no different than if you saw a fat man fall to the ground clutching his chest. You'd assume a heart attack, and you'd know, no matter the cause, the man needed to lose weight.
Well, when shots are fired and a black man hits the pavement, there's every statistical reason to believe another black man pulled the trigger. That's not some negative, unfair stereotype. It's a reality we've been living with, tolerating and rationalizing for far too long.
When the traditional, white KKK lynched, terrorized and intimidated black folks at a slower rate than its modern-day dark-skinned replacement, at least we had the good sense to be outraged and in no mood to contemplate rationalizations or be fooled by distractions.
Our new millennium strategy is to pray the Black KKK goes away or ignores us. How's that working?
About as well as the attempt to shift attention away from this uniquely African-American crisis by focusing on an alleged injustice the white media allegedly perpetrated against Sean Taylor.
Within hours of his death, there was a story circulating that members of the black press were complaining that news outlets were disrespecting Taylor's victimhood by reporting on his troubled past
No disrespect to Taylor, but he controlled the way he would be remembered by the way he lived. His immature, undisciplined behavior with his employer, his run-ins with law enforcement, which included allegedly threatening a man with a loaded gun, and the fact a vehicle he owned was once sprayed with bullets are all pertinent details when you've been murdered.
Marcellus Wiley, a former NFL player, made the radio circuit Wednesday, singing the tune that athletes are targets. That was his explanation for the murders of Taylor and Broncos cornerback Darrent Williams and the armed robberies of NBA players Antoine Walker and Eddy Curry.
Really?
Let's cut through the bull(manure) and deal with reality. Black men are targets of black men. Period. Go check the coroner's office and talk with a police detective. These bullets aren't checking W-2s.
Rather than whine about white folks' insensitivity or reserve a special place of sorrow for rich athletes, we'd be better served mustering the kind of outrage and courage it took in the 1950s and 1960s to stop the white KKK from hanging black men from trees.
But we don't want to deal with ourselves. We take great joy in prescribing medicine to cure the hate in other people's hearts. Meanwhile, our self-hatred, on full display for the world to see, remains untreated, undiagnosed and unrepentant.
Our self-hatred has been set to music and reinforced by a pervasive culture that promotes a crab-in-barrel mentality.
You're damn straight I blame hip hop for playing a role in the genocide of American black men. When your leading causes of death and dysfunction are murder, ignorance and incarceration, there's no reason to give a free pass to a culture that celebrates murder, ignorance and incarceration.
Make your voice heard...
This story has touched off some very spirited debate. If you would like to join in, it is being discussed on our community page.
Of course there are other catalysts, but until we recapture the minds of black youth, convince them that it's not OK to "super man dat ho" and end any and every dispute by "cocking on your bitch," nothing will change.
Does a Soulja Boy want an education?
HBO did a fascinating documentary on Little Rock Central High School, the Arkansas school that required the National Guard so that nine black kids could attend in the 1950s. Fifty years later, the school is one of the nation's best in terms of funding and educational opportunities. It's 60 percent black and located in a poor black community.
Watch the documentary and ask yourself why nine poor kids in the '50s risked their lives to get a good education and a thousand poor black kids today ignore the opportunity that is served to them on a platter.
Blame drugs, blame Ronald Reagan, blame George Bush, blame it on the rain or whatever. There's only one group of people who can change the rotten, anti-education, pro-violence culture our kids have adopted. We have to do it.
According to reports, Sean Taylor had difficulty breaking free from the unsavory characters he associated with during his youth.
The "keepin' it real" mantra of hip hop is in direct defiance to evolution. There's always someone ready to tell you you're selling out if you move away from the immature and dangerous activities you used to do, you're selling out if you speak proper English, embrace education, dress like a grown man, do anything mainstream.
The Black KKK is enforcing the same crippling standards as its parent organization. It wants to keep black men in their place ? uneducated, outside the mainstream and six feet deep.
In all likelihood, the Black Klan and its mentality buried Sean Taylor, and any black man or boy reading this could be next.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7499442?print=true
-
actually not quite a black issue
the trouble in most races is usually from within.
ex. native americans still have internal conflicts.
I see this happen in alot of races
particularly philipinos.
I got no idea why this happens but it definately something that`s keep anyone race becoming dominate (globally speaking)
ex.muslims(not a race but a group)
-
I question the term "Black KKK". There are no organizations killing Black people because they are black. These are simply gangsters. Just as the Mafia is not an Italian KKK, the se guys are not any sort of "Black KKK".
-
I question the term "Black KKK". There are no organizations killing Black people because they are black. These are simply gangsters. Just as the Mafia is not an Italian KKK, the se guys are not any sort of "Black KKK".
The Origional KKK was just a gang , it went a long way ,but it was a losely organised bunch of like minded people.
-
<<The Origional KKK was just a gang , it went a long way ,but it was a losely organised bunch of like minded people.>>
"Just" a gang? Most gangs are organized around the profit motive. This one had a political philosophy, to keep the blacks down, and it enforced its will across the South. Lynch law was the law of the South and not even F.D.R. could buck it. Klan support was a sure-fire guarantee of election for most Southern politicians, and it spread into the midwest, to Indiana and Michigan as well.
al Qaeda is "just a gang." It didn't even go as far as the Klan in terms of how many people it killed or how many Amerikkkan politicians it exercised its influence over. It's a loosely organized bunch of like-minded people, a lot looser than the Klan, which actually was fairly highly organized with its Klaverns and Kleagles, its Grand Cyklops, Klabees, Kludds and Ghouls. Quite a little hierarchy here.
plane, I get the distinct impression that you are a racist sympathizer, not because you come out in open support of racist organizations like the Klan, but because you support them by minimizing their misdeeds. If the Klan is really bad, then Amerikkka is really bad for tolerating it as long as it did. But Amerikkka isn't bad, it's good (at least in your see-no-evil eyes) - - so the only way out of that one is for the Klan not to be so bad either. It's "just a gang." And what country doesn't have gangs? Then, Amerikkka, which gave birth to it and watched it grow to full size, can't be so bad either.
The real hypocrisy of your position becomes apparent when one considers your attitude towards a NON-Amerikkkan terrorist organization, al Qaeda. Even though they are MUCH more "gang-like" than the Klan, which was a quasi-political organization whose tentacles reached up into the Supreme Court of the U.S.A., almost every Southern statehouse, prosecutor's office, Sheriff and deputy, you would NEVER dismiss al Qaeda as "just a gang" because they are dedicated to the destruction of Amerikkka, not an organic part of the country and its history like the Klan is.
-
actually using the klan reference is kinda funny
because one of the main reason for it`s downfall is from internal strife.
oakland was at one time klan central,but it`s member keep stealing from each other.
pretty much any organization is subject to in-fighting.
-
al Qaeda is "just a gang." It didn't even go as far as the Klan in terms of how many people it killed
So what has one done that the other has not?
I don't see the reason to prefer one of them.
-
<<So what has one done that the other has not?>>
Wrong question. It isn't what one or the other has done that will make a gang of them. Neither of them has done anything the U.S. Army has never done, thats for sure.
Your choice of the words "just a gang" to describe the KKK was a means of minimizing them to make Amerikkka look better; "gang" status depends on objectives (political or purely mercenary,) degree of acceptance in civil society and the local power structure, degree of formal internal organization and portrayal in the local and national media.
-
I am thinking that perhaps for Plane the KKK was something like the Dukes of Hazzard theme song:
Just some good ol' boys, never meanin' no harm...
Beats all you never saw, been in trouble with the law
Since the day they was born.
Straightenin' the curves, flattenin' the hills...
Someday the mountain might get 'em but the law never will.
Makin' their way, the only way they know how...
That's just a little bit more than the law will allow.
Just two good ol' boys, wouldn't change if they could,
Fightin' the system like two modern-day Robin Hoods...
-
<<So what has one done that the other has not?>>
Wrong question. It isn't what one or the other has done that will make a gang of them. Neither of them has done anything the U.S. Army has never done, thats for sure.
Your choice of the words "just a gang" to describe the KKK was a means of minimizing them to make Amerikkka look better; "gang" status depends on objectives (political or purely mercenary,) degree of acceptance in civil society and the local power structure, degree of formal internal organization and portrayal in the local and national media.
So what has one done that the other has not?
I don't see the reason to prefer one of them.
-
Neither of them has done anything the U.S. Army has never done, thats for sure.
======================================================
So it's for sure that the US Army has make a point of burning crosses in front of Black people's homes and businesses?
It';s for sure that the US Army had, as is main intent, for decade, the organizing of lynch mobs?
The KKK was into serious terrorism of Black people, Jews and even Catholics. The Mafia' purpose has never been much about doing anything other than making the Mafiosi rich in as quiet a way as possible.
The Mafia has never dressed in weird and sacry satin robes and marched down the street with the express purpose of scaring the hell out of people.
Really, the KKK were NOT just a bunch of naughty 'good ol' boys'.
We are vastly better off without them.
-
<<So it's for sure that the US Army has make a point of burning crosses in front of Black people's homes and businesses?>>
They find other ways to terrorize people. In Viet Nam, they would leave the mutilated corpses of Viet Cong Cadres, some Special Forces units placing an Ace of Spades pinned through what was left of the skin of the chest to identify their handiwork. Often instead of burning crosses in front of a peasant's "hooch," they would just burn down the entire hooch.
<<It';s for sure that the US Army had, as is main intent, for decade, the organizing of lynch mobs?>>
Lynch mobs? What do they need with lynch mobs? They've got F-16s.
<<The KKK was into serious terrorism of Black people, Jews and even Catholics. The Mafia' purpose has never been much about doing anything other than making the Mafiosi rich in as quiet a way as possible.>>
Well, obviously, the U.S. military has set its sights broader than the KKK. They are into serious terrorism of everybody. Maybe the Army would let you take some courses at its infamous School of the Americas or whatever the devious, duplicitous bastards are calling it now, and you'd learn about terrorism techniques that would show you once and for all what a bunch of clowns and amateurs the KKK really are. They are limping along in the DUST of the U.S. Army, and always have been.
<<The Mafia has never dressed in weird and sacry satin robes and marched down the street with the express purpose of scaring the hell out of people.>>
Well - - all due respect - - the Mafia never got the government of an entire region of Amerikkka into the palm of its hand either. They lacked the wider vision of the Klan.
<<Really, the KKK were NOT just a bunch of naughty 'good ol' boys'.>>
Thank you. My point exactly.
-
<<So what has one done that the other has not?>>
Wrong question. It isn't what one or the other has done that will make a gang of them. Neither of them has done anything the U.S. Army has never done, thats for sure.
Your choice of the words "just a gang" to describe the KKK was a means of minimizing them to make Amerikkka look better; "gang" status depends on objectives (political or purely mercenary,) degree of acceptance in civil society and the local power structure, degree of formal internal organization and portrayal in the local and national media.
The KKK is as evil as they come, I don't know how you find me implying otherwise.
I am saying that they are equivelent to the Al Queda and yo think I am an apologist for the Al Queda?
Gangs are not good , not acceptable and not "minimizeing" to describ a gang accurately as a gang.
-
I am thinking that perhaps for Plane the KKK was something like the Dukes of Hazzard theme song:
Just some good ol' boys, never meanin' no harm...
Beats all you never saw, been in trouble with the law
Since the day they was born.
Straightenin' the curves, flattenin' the hills...
Someday the mountain might get 'em but the law never will.
Makin' their way, the only way they know how...
That's just a little bit more than the law will allow.
Just two good ol' boys, wouldn't change if they could,
Fightin' the system like two modern-day Robin Hoods...
You are one of the worlds worst mind readers.
The Accurate part of "the Dukes of Hazzard" is its portrail of "Boss Hog" .
County officials used to be very commonly corrupt in rural Georgia , it is a little less common now but not yet really shocking when one is found .
The KKK was always very loosely organised and in recent times seems to be reeling from FBI attacks and loss of popularity .
Perhaps they will "metastize " as the Al Queda has done?
Al Queda is not any better than the KKK in my estimation , but to conside this as a complement to the K3 is really strange.
-
<<Al Queda is not any better than the KKK in my estimation , but to conside this as a complement to the K3 is really strange.>>
Now honestly, when did you ever attempt to minimize the significance of al Qaeda by claiming they were "just a gang?"
-
the klan lost most of it`s steam when it`s primary target begin looking just like them
ex. louis farakhan
that anti-white talk is not exactly different than klan talk
-
<<Al Queda is not any better than the KKK in my estimation , but to conside this as a complement to the K3 is really strange.>>
Now honestly, when did you ever attempt to minimize the significance of al Qaeda by claiming they were "just a gang?"
To call them a gang is accurate , they are not a government yet.
When XO says I question the term "Black KKK". There are no organizations killing Black people because they are black. These are simply gangsters. Just as the Mafia is not an Italian KKK, the se guys are not any sort of "Black KKK".
I point out that the KKK is also a gang , the word "just" as I used it shoud be juxtaposed with XO's use of the word "simply" in reguards to gansters.
Really do you think that the Dead Rabbits were good ol boys , or that Al Capone headed up a sort of social club?
Gangs are not good , the KKK is amoung the worst of them and the Al Queda is the worst , if any people develop something "just" as "simple" it won't be any nicer.
-
the klan lost most of it`s steam when it`s primary target begin looking just like them
ex. louis farakhan
that anti-white talk is not exactly different than klan talk
I think that is backwards.
The KKK needs the objects of its ire to seem like real threat.
Their revival depends on being someones salvation, who can they claim to be saving?
-
<<To call them a gang is accurate , they are not a government yet.>>
Sure NOW you can call al Qaeda a gang, after I called you on your attempt to minimize the KKK. My question to you, which you did not answer, was when had you PREVIOUSLY called al Qaeda "just a gang?"
The question is rhetorical, simply because it's unfair to ask anyone to comb through past posts like that. But it's rhetorical because I know that you did NOT call al Qaeda "just a gang."
When you called the KKK "just a gang" you did so to play down their significance and I explained why. The worse the KKK, the worse Amerikkka must be for having tolerated it for so long. As willing as you are now to adcknowledge (after I called you on it) that al Qaeda too is a gang, you still won't say they are "just" a gang, because the word "just" is also minimizing their significance. So you're still protecting the Klan, or at least its reputation, by calling them a gang (now) or "just a gang" (then,) in either case implying that they are nowhere near as bad as al Qaeda, whom you never previously tried to minimize either as "just a gang" or as "a gang."
-
<<To call them a gang is accurate , they are not a government yet.>>
Sure NOW you can call al Qaeda a gang, after I called you on your attempt to minimize the KKK. My question to you, which you did not answer, was when had you PREVIOUSLY called al Qaeda "just a gang?"
The question is rhetorical, simply because it's unfair to ask anyone to comb through past posts like that. But it's rhetorical because I know that you did NOT call al Qaeda "just a gang."
When you called the KKK "just a gang" you did so to play down their significance and I explained why. The worse the KKK, the worse Amerikkka must be for having tolerated it for so long. As willing as you are now to adcknowledge (after I called you on it) that al Qaeda too is a gang, you still won't say they are "just" a gang, because the word "just" is also minimizing their significance. So you're still protecting the Klan, or at least its reputation, by calling them a gang (now) or "just a gang" (then,) in either case implying that they are nowhere near as bad as al Qaeda, whom you never previously tried to minimize either as "just a gang" or as "a gang."
"you did so to play down their significance "
No
"and I explained why"
With unfounded assumptions.
"The worse the KKK, the worse Amerikkka must be for having tolerated it for so long. "
I do not think this way .
"al Qaeda too is a gang"
Yes , and so is M-13 , so is the Mafia etc...
I am not thinking of "our gang " with Spanky and Alfalfa when I say "gang".
I was responding to XO sayng that the gang in question was "simply" a gang . A minimiseation that makes no sense , in the context of how bad a gang can be.
Does this need to parced any further?
The KKK is a gang , the organisation in the origin of this thread is not justified in any way by being minimised as "simply" a gang.
Before Hitler started getting political success , wasn't he and his brownshirts a gang?
-
<<Before Hitler started getting political success , wasn't he and his brownshirts a gang?>>
Of course not and neither was the KKK. They are both political movements, with well-defined political objectives, both involved influential and respectable people almost from their inception, people who would never associate with "gangs" such as the Bloods, the Crips, the (fictitious) Jets, the Purple Gang, the Bonnano Family etc.
-
<<Before Hitler started getting political success , wasn't he and his brownshirts a gang?>>
Of course not and neither was the KKK. They are both political movements, with well-defined political objectives, both involved influential and respectable people almost from their inception, people who would never associate with "gangs" such as the Bloods, the Crips, the (fictitious) Jets, the Purple Gang, the Bonnano Family etc.
Why divide it this fine?
So the Symbioneese Liberation Army was not a gang?
The overlap seems large.
"... both involved influential and respectable people almost from their inception..." You are kidding here arn't you?
-
<<"... both involved influential and respectable people almost from their inception..." You are kidding here arn't you?>>
No, I'm not. Goering was from a good family, his father was a respected civil servant and colonial administrator and he was the holder of Germany's highest medal for valour, the "Pour le Merite." Goebbels was a Ph. D. and journalist. The Klan's members included Hugo Black, a U.S. Supreme Court judge, many Senators, lawyers, prosecutors, sheriffs and police officers.
And the Symbionese Liberation Army is admittedly harder to categorize than either the Nazis or the Klan but I think on the whole because of its political motivation, I'd have to say it was a far-out political organization rather than "just" a gang.
-
<<"... both involved influential and respectable people almost from their inception..." You are kidding here arn't you?>>
No, I'm not. Goering was from a good family, his father was a respected civil servant and colonial administrator and he was the holder of Germany's highest medal for valour, the "Pour le Merite." Goebbels was a Ph. D. and journalist. The Klan's members included Hugo Black, a U.S. Supreme Court judge, many Senators, lawyers, prosecutors, sheriffs and police officers.
And the Symbionese Liberation Army is admittedly harder to categorize than either the Nazis or the Klan but I think on the whole because of its political motivation, I'd have to say it was a far-out political organization rather than "just" a gang.
How do you know that any gang has no political ambtion?
The Mafia was content with buying the occasional politician , whie the KKK tried to elect its members by intimidateing rivals.
It would seem that once a gang reached a size that made it possible , trying to gain influence politicly would suggest itself to any gang .
-
actually using the klan reference is kinda funny
because one of the main reason for it`s downfall is from internal strife.
oakland was at one time klan central,but it`s member keep stealing from each other.
pretty much any organization is subject to in-fighting.
The FBI helps this along , the White supriacy movement is easy for the FBI to infiltrate.(imagine why)
Then of course it hobbles the whole orgaisation to know that they are deeply infiltrated.
If Herbert Hoover had been more interested in recruiting and promoteing diversity the FBI mightbe better prepared than it is to infiltrate other organisations.
-
<<How do you know that any gang has no political ambtion?
<<The Mafia was content with buying the occasional politician , whie the KKK tried to elect its members by intimidateing rivals.
<<It would seem that once a gang reached a size that made it possible , trying to gain influence politicly would suggest itself to any gang>>
What you're missing is that the Nazis and the KKK BEGAN with political objectives and the Mafia began with money objectives. (Actually, that's not true - - some say the Mafia began as southern Italians organized against French occupation.) I guess some organizations can change in character over time. For many years the Mafia was all about money, not politics. When they went into politics, it was to protect their money-making operations. When the Nazis went into brawling, torture, killings etc, it was to advance their political objectives.
Seems pretty clear to me - - analyze what's their primary purpose.
-
<<How do you know that any gang has no political ambtion?
<<The Mafia was content with buying the occasional politician , whie the KKK tried to elect its members by intimidateing rivals.
<<It would seem that once a gang reached a size that made it possible , trying to gain influence politicly would suggest itself to any gang>>
What you're missing is that the Nazis and the KKK BEGAN with political objectives and the Mafia began with money objectives. (Actually, that's not true - - some say the Mafia began as southern Italians organized against French occupation.) I guess some organizations can change in character over time. For many years the Mafia was all about money, not politics. When they went into politics, it was to protect their money-making operations. When the Nazis went into brawling, torture, killings etc, it was to advance their political objectives.
Seems pretty clear to me - - analyze what's their primary purpose.
I would rather catagorise them by their chosen method, many political movements operate peacefully and should be considered saeprately from those that choose strong arm tactics.
I know this makes the "Sons of Liberty" fall into the gang catagory , but I can put up with that.
-
http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/7512026?MSNHPHCP>1=10734
(http://msn.foxsports.com/id/7511840_36_3.jpg)
Looks like a small gang.
Reguarding the origional article , does this sort of small gang being commn represent a dager comprable to the KKK?
-
Let's see... four Black guys: do they represent a greater threat than the KKK, that has thousands of members?
Unlikely.
-
Let's see... four Black guys: do they represent a greater threat than the KKK, that has thousands of members?
Unlikely.
The point of the article is tht there are thousands of such gang members ,in gangs large and small in many places.