Big Brother 15 American Racism At it's Finest

[Endzone]

It's always whitey's fault isn't it?  It's never poo little Jamal's fault because hes just bees poor little Jamal in da hood.  When are blacks going to take responsibility for their own decisions and stop blaming whitey?  Until they do, were are going to have the awful sin numbers in the black community--high crime, out-wedlock-births and high high school drop out rate.

When they get the same quality of education as middle class whites, when their parents get paid of living wage instead of working 2-3 jobs and 80 hours a week to get by, when they get the same opportunities that people who actually know business owners, executives, and managers have, when cops stop treating them differently because they're black and poor, etc., etc.  We have created and perpetuated a system that makes it incredibly difficult for poor black men and women to escape poverty, no matter how hard they work. 

When you're in position to see that no matter how hard you work at at honest living, you're never going to be able have a decent standard of living, even with food stamps and medicare, what incentive is there for you to work hard?  You look around and see that the only people making it are the lucky ones who get out through scholarships and sports and the drug dealers and you see that people on welfare are just as well off as those who are working their asses off every day to get somewhere.

The truth is that we have established and maintained a system that makes it very difficult for most people to get out of poverty.  Until we start actively countering institutional racism that has persisted to this day, we will continue to see those disparities that you insist on blaming on the moral inadequacy of urban blacks.

As far as i see. People in the US try to keep up with Jones's by using the credit-card system. The wages went down not up and so its very hard to make a good living with a honest job with honest work.
I can imagine that people belonging to a minority have it even harder.
On the surface racism is gone, but underneath its still going strong. Just after the election one just needed to check twitter for example. Of course that maybe the fringe of society but i wonder what the unaccounted mass is that is not writing but thinking that way.

You can not educate people once they think and tick like that. You only can work on the kids since they may learn it otherwise. And i don't think it has anything to do if your left or right. It has something to do what person you are.

There will be always somewhat a bias within us which i think might be human nature, but we should be able to see eye to eye and see the human that we are.

I think the black community in America would disagree with you that it doesn't have anything to do with left or right.  In the last election they voted 96% left and 4% right. 

[Grim Fandango]

This topic was a bad idea.

I could go and read through it, but I have a hunch that I am better off ignoring it all together.

[hashbaz]

Rational caution? Keep in mind these crime statistics are given in murders per 100,000 people I believe, so your chances of being murdered are still very low, and I acknowledged earlier that statistics cannot predict what any one person will do.

So apparently I have misunderstood you at some point along the line.  I thought that you were fine with, e.g., racial profiling in some instances due to the statistics you were quoting.

"At what point does knowledge of statistics tip over into racism?"  It's a bogus question, which conveniently sidesteps what should be unabashed horror at the statistic itself...

I don't think it's a bogus question.  Knowledge of statistics can be used to justify racism, but I don't think it's inherently racist to factor in known statistics when making judgments of people and situations.  I was trying to get a feel for your position, since you were complaining about people jumping to conclusions and labeling you.

I agree that the state of large portions of the black population in the US is horrifying indeed, but it's orthogonal to the question I asked.

[Krogenar]

Rational caution? Keep in mind these crime statistics are given in murders per 100,000 people I believe, so your chances of being murdered are still very low, and I acknowledged earlier that statistics cannot predict what any one person will do.

So apparently I have misunderstood you at some point along the line.  I thought that you were fine with, e.g., racial profiling in some instances due to the statistics you were quoting.

How do you feel about NYC's stop-and-frisk policy? According to the policy, an NYPD officer can stop and frisk someone if they believe they are about to commit crime, or are in the process of committing a crime. Further, if the cop feels that the suspect could be a threat, they may also frisk them for weapons. The vast majority of the people being subjected to this policy are young black men. It seems to me, hashbaz, that since young black men are statistically proven to be the most at risk of being murdered (the number one killer of young black men, as per the statistics) wouldn't we be subjecting them to greater risk by not focusing on the demographic most likely to murder them ... other young black men? Police resources are finite -- they should be applied in a way that will yield the maximum number of illegal guns and weapons seized, and therefore, the most potential murders avoided. That doesn't mean only young black men should be stopped, it just means cops should be allowed to use the judgement, and knowledge of the statistics.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/crime_way_up_after_stop_frisk_drop_QT0eIUd3YD6lp9Y4vCYf4I

Major crimes spiked by more than 12 percent after the number of stop-and-frisks conducted by the NYPD dropped dramatically earlier this year, The Post has learned.
Figures show there were 24,751 major crimes committed between Jan. 1 and March 31, a period when cops stopped 203,500 individuals and recovered 881 guns, according to sources.
In the following three months — between April 1 and June 30 — the number of stop-and-frisks cops conducted fell to 133,934 and the crime figures shot up to 27,832. The number of guns seized fell to 732.
There was no further analysis of the crime data immediately available.
But on the face of it, the statistics seem to provide the NYPD with evidence that — at least in this one period — more stop-and-frisks resulted in fewer crimes and more gun seizures.

The policy likely saved the lives of young black men, or others, but the results of the policy don't seem to matter -- all that matters is whether racial arsonists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson approve.

It must really, really suck to be stopped by police when you haven't done anything wrong -- I'm not arguing that isn't upsetting; I am arguing that the statistics indicate that it is necessary to save lives -- black and white lives. But the power of the Race Industry is so great it can overwhelm the facts.

Profiling, to me, is less about stopping imagined racism, and more about preventing people from using their heads.

"At what point does knowledge of statistics tip over into racism?"  It's a bogus question, which conveniently sidesteps what should be unabashed horror at the statistic itself...

I don't think it's a bogus question.

It's a bogus question in the sense that if I showed you an entire mountain of dead bodies, the reaction of a normal person would be to ask: "How the hell did this happen!?" -- whereas your reaction is, "Whomever murdered these people, it is possible that they had a good reason -- so let's not jump to any conclusions." You're inviting me to discuss a tangent -- to rearrange the chairs on the Titanic. Who cares about racism, when young black men are actually becoming the stereotype Civil Rights activists fought so hard against. That's the real problem -- not the deck chairs.

Knowledge of statistics can be used to justify racism, but I don't think it's inherently racist to factor in known statistics when making judgments of people and situations.

I don't think people walk around with a sheaf of printed out statistics, and refer to them as they encounter various kinds of people. Yes, statistics (reality) could be used to justify racism, but again that is besides the point. Statistics can be used to analyze current policy and make it better -- even if only to acknowledge that existing policies are exacerbating the problem. We need to first acknowledge that there is a problem -- but that seems impossible. But back to profiling -- people can create a 'profile' on how to react to people based upon their experiences, and the statistics I posted show that there is (unfortunately) some substance to those fears. And the people who suffer from that reality disproportionately are young black men. And in my experience, if twenty young black men die in Chicago last month, no one from the Racism Brigade gives a damn, because they exist not to improve their own communities, but to race bait at every opportunity.

I would ask you, hasbaz, at what point does the reality of these statistics tip the debate away from false claims of racism, and into actual action? When will the black community say, "Enough!" and do something on their own? There are black people who have different views, but they have to risk their own identity as black people when they espouse those ideas. If you're black and on the inside you feel like shouting "Enough!" you better keep your mouth shut, or you will experience racism from within your own race. There's an example of this that has stayed with me for years, hashbaz:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-05-29/news/9605300217_1_superintendent-jerome-clark-clarence-thomas-kenneth-e-johnson
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-06-17/news/1998168094_1_thomas-invitation-black-lawyers

So imagine that you want to inspire your black people to become lawyers, doctors, to achieve excellence in any kind of field. Why on earth wouldn't you want a Supreme Court Justice to attend? Because he's not actually "black" -- not as the current black leadership defines it. Could they overlook politics for even a moment? Nope. I could list many more ways in which Justice Thomas has been racially slurred. Any community that would 'disinvite' a Supreme Court Justice on the basis of his or her politics needs some serious overhaul.

Black Americans deserve a better class of "leaders". Do a little research on Al Sharpton, hasbaz, and you'll see he's pure evil. And yet our President lets him whisper in his ear. I don't throw the word 'evil' around like a toy; but Al Sharpton really is going straight to hell. There will be no long, circular staircase for him to trod -- it's a chute straight to hell. Sharpton has ruined so many lives, instigated so much death, disorder and mayhem that he's a certified monster.... with a TV show and the president's ear. I live in New York, and I've been watching that clown's career my entire adult life. Anyone who calls him their "leader" is a fool.

I was trying to get a feel for your position, since you were complaining about people jumping to conclusions and labeling you.

That's diplomatic. Labeling me? They're calling me a racist for pointing out unwelcome facts. Are facts racist?

I agree that the state of large portions of the black population in the US is horrifying indeed, but it's orthogonal to the question I asked.

Agreed -- your question is orthogonal (pointless) to the more urgent question -- how do we change the reality that that statistic represents. Instead, you want to know at what "tipping point" does it become racist to rely on this statistic for judging individuals. Meanwhile, Nubbinator is eager to make excuses and just call me a racist and ignore that reality. I believe the answer lies in the culture of the black community. It's got to change, and only they can change it. Also, I don't think the facts matter to your question. I don't think it would matter if statistics proved that 95% of all young black men were murderers, you would still be labeled a racist for either pointing it out, or acting on it by steering clear of young black men, or proposing that we change our policy. The problem (in my opinion) is that the black community will not own up to their own problems -- it's just so much easier to call everyone a racist and call it day.

[sth]

Does holding that opinion make me a racist?

absolutely 100% yes it totally does. yes.

[Krogenar]

Does holding that opinion make me a racist?

absolutely 100% yes it totally does. yes.

Which stated opinion of mine was racist, sth? Was this the quote?

I do not believe that institutionalized racism is a strong enough force anymore to hold black Americans back. Does holding that opinion make me a racist?

I think it is so pathetic that you can't make a more detailed argument than that, sth. All you can make are accusations of the most base, vile nature. Meanwhile, more young black men are going to be murdered by their own peers, and nothing's going to change until people drop the racism excuse. I stand by my statement that institutionalized racism is largely absent from American life. Are there still people out there with racism in their hearts -- there must be, but that racism no longer has the force of law behind it. But to acknowledge that America has made serious progress on matters of race would mean smaller paychecks for the racial arsonists like Sharpton & Co. -- so they have no interest in acknowledging that progress. In fact, those black "leaders" have a vested interest in making certain that black Americans remain a permanent underclass, and that's evil.

Or, you could just keep on calling me a racist, without even bothering to support your charge.

[sth]

I think it is so pathetic that you can't make a more detailed argument than that, sth. All you can make are accusations of the most base, vile nature.

if you think that me calling you a racist is worse than being a racist, you're a racist. racist.

Or, you could just keep on calling me a racist, without even bothering to support your charge.

ok. you're a racist.

[hashbaz]

Krog you're coming across as angry and annoyed -- that doesn't help.  And inserting my name every other sentence makes your response feel very condescending.  But still, thank you for explaining your views in greater detail.

[Lanx]

i think krog is trying to use statistics to backup racial stigmas, i can uses statistics too! i've been the victim of and/or been on the receiving end of store robberies in my teens on 5 occassions, 100% of the time it was commited by black people. 3 muggings and 2 store robberies working in a korean grocery store. so are all black ppl criminals? no, but if they look like a thug and dress like a thug, well they probably are a thug, these are probably the ones that the police are targeting for stop and frisk, i say good! frisk away

[sth]

i think krog is trying to use statistics to backup racial stigmas, i can uses statistics too! i've been the victim of and/or been on the receiving end of store robberies in my teens on 5 occassions, 100% of the time it was commited by black people. 3 muggings and 2 store robberies working in a korean grocery store. so are all black ppl criminals? no, but if they look like a thug and dress like a thug, well they probably are a thug, these are probably the ones that the police are targeting for stop and frisk, i say good! frisk away

'frisk black kids who dress in popular fashion because i am afraid of them'

[Krogenar]

Krog you're coming across as angry and annoyed -- that doesn't help.  And inserting my name every other sentence makes your response feel very condescending.  But still, thank you for explaining your views in greater detail.

I don't mean to sound condescending by putting your name into the quotes, I'm trying to keep all the quotes straight. Also, you might be annoyed (even angry) if you were labeled a racist, too -- with no explanation even. I'm angry because I believe that black Americans have been fed a cultural poison by their own leaders, for the leaders' benefit, and progressive policies have decimated the black family -- and yeah, that really pisses me off. They tell black people that essentially nothing they do matters -- there's no way to overcome racism. To my mind, that is so wrong, and so rotten. It's on par with telling a child that there really are monsters under their bed and faking police murder photos of children slaughtered by underbed monsters, and then selling them monster repellent spray. So, sorry if I come off sounding passionate about this. And the current state of blacks in America doesn't have anything to do with genetics because I've known so many black immigrants that succeed in just a single generation; their children are smart, polite and on their way up. I would like to see the same happen for all black Americans. The only difference I can see is in their attitudes, their cultures. The immigrants I have known weren't raised on a steady diet of racial aggrievement, and as a result they just didn't "realize" they were powerless.

[Krogenar]

i think krog is trying to use statistics to backup racial stigmas,

No, I am using statistics to spur real action, action that will change the statistic. The statistic is just a indicator of what's happening out there, and proof that something should be done. Now, if you believe that the way to change that reality (as represented by the statistics) is to pump more money and services into the black community, make your argument in favor of that. I have argued that those policies have not only not helped, they've hurt black communities, and argued that they should be reevaluated.

i can uses statistics too! i've been the victim of and/or been on the receiving end of store robberies in my teens on 5 occassions, 100% of the time it was commited by black people. 3 muggings and 2 store robberies working in a korean grocery store. so are all black ppl criminals? no, but if they look like a thug and dress like a thug, well they probably are a thug, these are probably the ones that the police are targeting for stop and frisk, i say good! frisk away

I've said numerous times that statistics cannot really predict what an individual will do. I've never claimed that all black people are criminals. Never. Also, as for your statistics -- five data points don't really qualify as "statistical evidence" -- if you feel like the statistics I quoted are equally suspect, show me. Show how they interview four people and then published their paper. So far, the only rebuttal to the statistic has been, "You're a racist."

As for dressing in a "thuggish" way, I know people who dress in that fashion who are hard-working and not thugs at all. We got into a discussion about hoodies, and this one guy said to me if he were to dress in another way (khaki and polo shirt, for example) he would be singled out and it would make him a target for racism ("acting white"), maybe even violence. My reaction is, why do those people get to write the dress code? Anyway, even if their pants are dragging along the floor it's not necessarily proof that that person is a thug. But no, I'm not fond of the look, and I think it's absurd to embrace a way of dressing that looks thuggish. It's definitely not going to help them in any interviews. Is it racist for me to be honest about my opinion? I'm not saying they should wear a tuxedo when going to the store, but showing the world your boxers isn't going to help people's perception of what kind of person you are.

[Malphas]

i think krog is trying to use statistics to backup racial stigmas, i can uses statistics too! i've been the victim of and/or been on the receiving end of store robberies in my teens on 5 occassions, 100% of the time it was commited by black people. 3 muggings and 2 store robberies working in a korean grocery store. so are all black ppl criminals? no, but if they look like a thug and dress like a thug, well they probably are a thug, these are probably the ones that the police are targeting for stop and frisk, i say good! frisk away

'frisk black kids who dress in popular fashion because i am afraid of them'

"Frisk suspicious-looking Arab guys at airports because I am afraid of them"

[Krogenar]

Krog you're coming across as angry and annoyed -- that doesn't help.  And inserting my name every other sentence makes your response feel very condescending.  But still, thank you for explaining your views in greater detail.

What do you think? How do you view Rev. Al Sharpton? Justice Clarence Thomas' disinvitation to events intended to inspire young black people? Do you agree with me, or disagree?

[Tarzan]

i think krog is trying to use statistics to backup racial stigmas, i can uses statistics too! i've been the victim of and/or been on the receiving end of store robberies in my teens on 5 occassions, 100% of the time it was commited by black people. 3 muggings and 2 store robberies working in a korean grocery store. so are all black ppl criminals? no, but if they look like a thug and dress like a thug, well they probably are a thug, these are probably the ones that the police are targeting for stop and frisk, i say good! frisk away

You do realize that analyzing the data from New York City's "stop and frisk" program reveals that white people are far more likely to be carrying weapons or contraband, right?

    • The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.

    • The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities

[Malphas]

i think krog is trying to use statistics to backup racial stigmas, i can uses statistics too! i've been the victim of and/or been on the receiving end of store robberies in my teens on 5 occassions, 100% of the time it was commited by black people. 3 muggings and 2 store robberies working in a korean grocery store. so are all black ppl criminals? no, but if they look like a thug and dress like a thug, well they probably are a thug, these are probably the ones that the police are targeting for stop and frisk, i say good! frisk away

You do realize that analyzing the data from New York City's "stop and frisk" program reveals that white people are far more likely to be carrying weapons or contraband, right?

    • The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.

    • The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities

It doesn't reveal that white people are more likely to be carrying contraband though. It reveals that the white people they stopped were more likely to be carrying contraband. Do you think they were stopping white people in business suits?

[Tarzan]

i think krog is trying to use statistics to backup racial stigmas, i can uses statistics too! i've been the victim of and/or been on the receiving end of store robberies in my teens on 5 occassions, 100% of the time it was commited by black people. 3 muggings and 2 store robberies working in a korean grocery store. so are all black ppl criminals? no, but if they look like a thug and dress like a thug, well they probably are a thug, these are probably the ones that the police are targeting for stop and frisk, i say good! frisk away

You do realize that analyzing the data from New York City's "stop and frisk" program reveals that white people are far more likely to be carrying weapons or contraband, right?

    • The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.

    • The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities

It doesn't reveal that white people are more likely to be carrying contraband though. It reveals that the white people they stopped were more likely to be carrying contraband. Do you think they were stopping white people in business suits?

Not sure what your point is here.  Do you think they were stopping black people in business suits?

[Malphas]

i think krog is trying to use statistics to backup racial stigmas, i can uses statistics too! i've been the victim of and/or been on the receiving end of store robberies in my teens on 5 occassions, 100% of the time it was commited by black people. 3 muggings and 2 store robberies working in a korean grocery store. so are all black ppl criminals? no, but if they look like a thug and dress like a thug, well they probably are a thug, these are probably the ones that the police are targeting for stop and frisk, i say good! frisk away

You do realize that analyzing the data from New York City's "stop and frisk" program reveals that white people are far more likely to be carrying weapons or contraband, right?

    • The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded a weapon was half that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered a weapon in one out every 49 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 71 stops of Latinos and 93 stops of African Americans to find a weapon.

    • The likelihood a stop of an African American New Yorker yielded contraband was one-third less than that of white New Yorkers stopped. The NYPD uncovered contraband in one out every 43 stops of white New Yorkers. By contrast, it took the Department 57 stops of Latinos and 61 stops of African Americans to find contraband.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities

It doesn't reveal that white people are more likely to be carrying contraband though. It reveals that the white people they stopped were more likely to be carrying contraband. Do you think they were stopping white people in business suits?

Not sure what your point is here.  Do you think they were stopping black people in business suits?

That is more likely, yes. But really, my point is police are more likely to be more discriminatory when stopping white people than black people (that's essentially the issue we're talking about) and as a result the white people that are stopped are more likely to fit other profiling criteria besides race than black people stopped are.

[Malphas]

Basically , I think we all know - whether we admit it or not - that race is closely tied with socioeconomic status in the USA, and as a result black people are statistically more likely to fit a certain demographic that includes being more likely to come from a poorer background, a single parent family, a rough neighbourhood, etc. and as a result more likely to commit a crime, end up in prison, etc. (anyone that denies that's the case is either delusional or lying, in my opinion). That's unfortunate, but it's why I would argue racial profiling is actually justified by fact, rather than racism.

[Tarzan]

Basically , I think we all know - whether we admit it or not - that race is closely tied with socioeconomic status in the USA, and as a result black people are statistically more likely to fit a certain demographic that includes being more likely to come from a poorer background, a single parent family, a rough neighbourhood, etc. and as a result more likely to commit a crime, end up in prison, etc. (anyone that denies that's the case is either delusional or lying, in my opinion). That's unfortunate, but it's why I would argue racial profiling is actually justified by fact, rather than racism.

I give up.

[Krogenar]

Basically , I think we all know - whether we admit it or not - that race is closely tied with socioeconomic status in the USA, and as a result black people are statistically more likely to fit a certain demographic that includes being more likely to come from a poorer background, a single parent family, a rough neighbourhood, etc. and as a result more likely to commit a crime, end up in prison, etc. (anyone that denies that's the case is either delusional or lying, in my opinion). That's unfortunate, but it's why I would argue racial profiling is actually justified by fact, rather than racism.

It's hard to say which negative outcome is the result of another. Is criminality the result of poverty? Or is poverty the result of criminality? The important question is: how do we change it? I do not believe that criminality is directly related to poverty. Poverty is a relative term. No one in America who has the ability to lift their hand to their mouth is going to go hungry. Even the poorest among us likely has a HDTV. When Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you." he wasn't just talking about money. He was talking about other forms of wealth. My grandfather (German-Irish, liked his beer) had three jobs and seven children. He was by no means 'wealthy' but my mother and my aunts and uncles all recall him looking down the table at all of them and saying, "I may not have a lot of money, but I'm a very wealthy man." Ask yourself, if your house were to burn down, what would be more important to you, your stuff, or your family? Stuff can be replaced -- people cannot. Stable families represent a form of cultural wealth.

Progressive policies, in my view, have decimated the black family (destroying black cultural wealth) -- young black men are disproportionately more likely to grow up without a biological father living with them. I believe this leads to the aforementioned problems. The trouble is, it seems a whole lot easier to tear down and disincentivize fatherhood, than it is to build it back up. And it wasn't always this way. Studies have show that rates of fatherlessness in the 1950's among blacks and whites were equal most of the time, and sometimes lower for black Americans.

This isn't a new debate, either -- it started (at least in earnest) with Patrick Moynihan's report 'The Negro Family: The Case For National Action' -- please excuse the use of the word 'negro'; that was the established language of the time, and not an indication of racism. It can be found here: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

Moynihan, a Democrat, concluded that the black family in American was in serious trouble. His report was widely denounced as racist, however. But Moynihan was no racist.

[SpAmRaY]

.....every time I hear about racism 

[iri]

a black bear says!

[Malphas]

Basically , I think we all know - whether we admit it or not - that race is closely tied with socioeconomic status in the USA, and as a result black people are statistically more likely to fit a certain demographic that includes being more likely to come from a poorer background, a single parent family, a rough neighbourhood, etc. and as a result more likely to commit a crime, end up in prison, etc. (anyone that denies that's the case is either delusional or lying, in my opinion). That's unfortunate, but it's why I would argue racial profiling is actually justified by fact, rather than racism.

It's hard to say which negative outcome is the result of another. Is criminality the result of poverty? Or is poverty the result of criminality? The important question is: how do we change it? I do not believe that criminality is directly related to poverty. Poverty is a relative term. No one in America who has the ability to lift their hand to their mouth is going to go hungry. Even the poorest among us likely has a HDTV. When Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you." he wasn't just talking about money. He was talking about other forms of wealth. My grandfather (German-Irish, liked his beer) had three jobs and seven children. He was by no means 'wealthy' but my mother and my aunts and uncles all recall him looking down the table at all of them and saying, "I may not have a lot of money, but I'm a very wealthy man." Ask yourself, if your house were to burn down, what would be more important to you, your stuff, or your family? Stuff can be replaced -- people cannot. Stable families represent a form of cultural wealth.

Progressive policies, in my view, have decimated the black family (destroying black cultural wealth) -- young black men are disproportionately more likely to grow up without a biological father living with them. I believe this leads to the aforementioned problems. The trouble is, it seems a whole lot easier to tear down and disincentivize fatherhood, than it is to build it back up. And it wasn't always this way. Studies have show that rates of fatherlessness in the 1950's among blacks and whites were equal most of the time, and sometimes lower for black Americans.

This isn't a new debate, either -- it started (at least in earnest) with Patrick Moynihan's report 'The Negro Family: The Case For National Action' -- please excuse the use of the word 'negro'; that was the established language of the time, and not an indication of racism. It can be found here: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

Moynihan, a Democrat, concluded that the black family in American was in serious trouble. His report was widely denounced as racist, however. But Moynihan was no racist.

I really don't care if the chicken or egg came first, or about fixing the USA's social problems, or the topic in general, to be honest. I just think it's laughable when people act like people being more suspicious of young black men than they are white/Asian/whatever people is racism, when it's actually simply because young black men are per capita responsible for more crimes than any other demographic.

It's a bit of a dated comparison now, but it's like complaining that the TSA disproportionally stop and search young Arab men. I'm sure there are some political correctness diehards who actually do complain about this as well, but most people realise there's a logical reason for it.

[sth]

Basically , I think we all know - whether we admit it or not - that race is closely tied with socioeconomic status in the USA, and as a result black people are statistically more likely to fit a certain demographic that includes being more likely to come from a poorer background, a single parent family, a rough neighbourhood, etc. and as a result more likely to commit a crime, end up in prison, etc. (anyone that denies that's the case is either delusional or lying, in my opinion). That's unfortunate, but it's why I would argue racial profiling is actually justified by fact, rather than racism.

It's hard to say which negative outcome is the result of another. Is criminality the result of poverty? Or is poverty the result of criminality? The important question is: how do we change it? I do not believe that criminality is directly related to poverty. Poverty is a relative term. No one in America who has the ability to lift their hand to their mouth is going to go hungry. Even the poorest among us likely has a HDTV. When Jesus said, "The poor will always be with you." he wasn't just talking about money. He was talking about other forms of wealth. My grandfather (German-Irish, liked his beer) had three jobs and seven children. He was by no means 'wealthy' but my mother and my aunts and uncles all recall him looking down the table at all of them and saying, "I may not have a lot of money, but I'm a very wealthy man." Ask yourself, if your house were to burn down, what would be more important to you, your stuff, or your family? Stuff can be replaced -- people cannot. Stable families represent a form of cultural wealth.

Progressive policies, in my view, have decimated the black family (destroying black cultural wealth) -- young black men are disproportionately more likely to grow up without a biological father living with them. I believe this leads to the aforementioned problems. The trouble is, it seems a whole lot easier to tear down and disincentivize fatherhood, than it is to build it back up. And it wasn't always this way. Studies have show that rates of fatherlessness in the 1950's among blacks and whites were equal most of the time, and sometimes lower for black Americans.

This isn't a new debate, either -- it started (at least in earnest) with Patrick Moynihan's report 'The Negro Family: The Case For National Action' -- please excuse the use of the word 'negro'; that was the established language of the time, and not an indication of racism. It can be found here: http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm

Moynihan, a Democrat, concluded that the black family in American was in serious trouble. His report was widely denounced as racist, however. But Moynihan was no racist.

I really don't care if the chicken or egg came first, or about fixing the USA's social problems, or the topic in general, to be honest. I just think it's laughable when people act like people being more suspicious of young black men than they are white/Asian/whatever people is racism, when it's actually simply because young black men are per capita responsible for more crimes than any other demographic.

It's a bit of a dated comparison now, but it's like complaining that the TSA disproportionally stop and search young Arab men. I'm sure there are some political correctness diehards who actually do complain about this as well, but most people realise there's a logical reason for it.

yeah, sure, it's still racist dude, you can try to logic it away all you want but you're defending racist practices. not sorry if you're uncomfortable with that.

[Malphas]

yeah, sure, it's still racist dude, you can try to logic it away all you want but you're defending racist practices. not sorry if you're uncomfortable with that.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. I'm not American so I don't have the whole "white guilt" thing going on. Just saying "it's racist" isn't going to make it racist when there's sound logical reasons for using race as part of profile matching. If you were an airport scanner on the 12th of September, 2001, who would you pay more attention to, a Arab-looking young man, or a 70 year old Chinese woman? It's not racist to say the former, it's common sense. Same deal if you're a police officer performing frisk searches and choose more young black men to search, than you do other demographics. It's because that group is statistically more likely to be relevant, any actual racism on the part of those involved (which might well exist) is incidental. That's the sad reality. Sorry if you're uncomfortable with that.

On a side note, if I was actually interested in promoting racism, I'd be all for not discriminatingly profiling young black men for frisk searches since that would successfully result in more violence/deaths/etc. against other young black men.

[iri]

Of the nearly 770,000 violent crimes committed every year, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

* Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

* Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

* Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.


Arrest data: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2001
(USGPO, 2002), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2002
(USGPO, 2003), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2003
(USGPO, 2004), p. 288

[nubbinator]

Of the nearly 770,000 violent crimes committed every year, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

* Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

* Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

* Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.


Arrest data: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2001
(USGPO, 2002), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2002
(USGPO, 2003), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2003
(USGPO, 2004), p. 288

How's Stormfront treating you?

[Krogenar]

Of the nearly 770,000 violent crimes committed every year, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

...snipped...

Arrest data: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2001
(USGPO, 2002), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2002
(USGPO, 2003), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2003
(USGPO, 2004), p. 288

I think the FBI report 'Crime in the United States' can be found here, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2001 and some of the statistics quoted might be accurate, but I think the 770,000 quote may be incorrect -- Can you provide a link to this? I've been looking for the actual report making this claim, and so far only found racist websites using this statistic and "answers.com" -- not exactly a reputable source.

The exact text of the first quote referencing "nearly 770,000" appears in only a few places. How did you arrive at this number? I found a similar-sounding statistic here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080722141429AAUsysI -- but it states "Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent." Your quote just says "crimes" in general.

[iri]

Of the nearly 770,000 violent crimes committed every year, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

* Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

* Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

* Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.


Arrest data: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2001
(USGPO, 2002), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2002
(USGPO, 2003), p. 252. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2003
(USGPO, 2004), p. 288

How's Stormfront treating you?

we only have blood & honour here. and no, it's zog that pays me.

[TheSoulhunter]

The situation is similar around here, a unproportional high percentage of violent crimes is committed by a certain group of immigrants. But instead of hating em, I blame the politicians who should have foreseen the effect of letting endless amounts immigrants from totally different cultural environment and economic state in.

Simple laws as "No more than 2 immigrant family per 10 linked housings are allowed" would have prevented the "ghettos" we have now, it would have prevented that this people get put offsite our community, it would have prevented that they live under their own people with their own language and their own rules and laws, it would have forced em to integrate and live as the rest of the population, it would have forced em to live WITH the others, not aside, and it would have forced us to accept em and live with em, things would be different...

Instead we have people who live here for 10 or 20 years already but still don't speak our language, we have regions where even the police is afraid to enter at night with less than a dozen man, we have schools where more than 50% of the scholars are immigrants, we have areas where the natives are the "foreigners" and get a fair amount of racism from the immigrants (and if you attempt to talk back, you get called racist or beaten up, or both). But did our politicians learn from this? Nope... Currently the next wave of immigrants (from even poorer countries) rolls in, negative effects are already visible, duh!

[Krogenar]

The situation is similar around here, a unproportional high percentage of violent crimes is committed by a certain group of immigrants. But instead of hating em, I blame the politicians who should have foreseen the effect of letting endless amounts immigrants from totally different cultural environment and economic state in.

I'm a third generation descendant of immigrants myself (my great grandparents were from Ireland, Sicily and Naples) and I employ a lot of immigrants, so in my opinion immigrants are great for America. These are often people who come from a country where they can work themselves very hard and never get ahead, or not very far. I don't begrudge them at all for coming to the U.S. -- they want a better life, and that's what all people want. My wife earned her citizenship about a year after we were married. In my experience immigrants bring new energy to America, for the most part.

But even good things that we need as a country should have some order imposed on them. Nearly every First World country imposes restrictions on who can become a new citizen. You've either got to have a skill that they want, or be willing to bring an industry/business into the country that they want or need. And you've got to have money in the bank. It's not a free-for-all as it is in the U.S.

Simple laws as "No more than 2 immigrant family per 10 linked housings are allowed" would have prevented the "ghettos" we have now, it would have prevented that this people get put offsite our community, it would have prevented that they live under their own people with their own language and their own rules and laws, it would have forced em to integrate and live as the rest of the population, it would have forced em to live WITH the others, not aside, and it would have forced us to accept em and live with em, things would be different...

There are serious problems in New York in which illegal immigrants live in very cramped living quarters. There are 20 people living in apartments designed for 4 people, max. This might be acceptable to the illegals, but it's not safe for them, or the community at large. If the government actually enforced the laws that are already in place, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. As far as 'ghettos' are concerned, I don't think laws would change any of that. Like people tend to stick together. If you're in a new, foreign country where you don't speak the language and things are unfamiliar it makes sense to stick close to people you know.

My wife is a physical therapist, and her entire class emigrated to the U.S. en masse. They make great money, they don't live 20 people in an apartment, but they do try to stay in close proximity to one another. It's a support system -- and it makes sense for them to do it. As for assimilation into the larger 'American' culture, I would tend to agree. But so much has changed in the last 50 years. Is there even a shared 'American' culture anymore? I'm not sure. We went from a 'melting pot' to a 'mosaic' at some point. My parents grew up in the 'melting pot' -- in the sense that you gain the benefits of American culture and life, but lose something in the process. My grandparents spoke Italian, but father doesn't because his parents made the conscious decision that he not learn.

I think this aspect of modern immigration is worrisome -- to some people America isn't an idea, or a country to love, it's just an address. Still, this fear of immigration 'destroying' America has been around for a long, long time. We're still here.

Instead we have people who live here for 10 or 20 years already but still don't speak our language, we have regions where even the police is afraid to enter at night with less than a dozen man, we have schools where more than 50% of the scholars are immigrants, we have areas where the natives are the "foreigners" and get a fair amount of racism from the immigrants (and if you attempt to talk back, you get called racist or beaten up, or both). But did our politicians learn from this? Nope... Currently the next wave of immigrants (from even poorer countries) rolls in, negative effects are already visible, duh!

It doesn't matter to me if immigrants learn English -- that should be their choice. Assimilation would be easier if immigrants were absorbed at a controlled rate. But I do have an issue with them immediately going on welfare and/or sneaking into the country illegally, or overstaying their VISA, etc. I'm pro-immigrant but damn it -- obey the law. We should hold our politicians accountable for what is an open, ongoing scandal. Also, illegal immigrants make every law-abiding immigrant (yeah, they exist!) feel like a fool. Why do the right thing when other people can break the law and pay no penalty? And let me tell you, the government made my wife jump through some serious flaming hoops to secure her citizenship -- which is absurd considering the level of her education, and her work history. This is how government works: crush law-abiding people (it's so much easier) and give law-breakers a pass (also easier). Besides, the people who break the law have less income to take anyway, so why bother?

As far as being targeted by violence from illegal immigrants; call the police. In a saner society an illegal immigrant (once discovered) would be deported.

[Malphas]

I might be wrong, but TheSoulhunter seems to be describing immigration pertaining to the EU (specifically regarding Directive 2004/38/EC), which is quite distinct from immigration in the US, and in general. Basically, within the EU, everyone is free to move from country to country with no entry requirements or restrictions whatsoever. Not only that, but the EU also stipulates that foreign EU residents have to be treated identically to citizens of a country with regard to social welfare.

None of this causes any problems between the older established EU members like the UK, Germany, France, etc. but the last decade has seen EU enlargements include much of the ex-USSR, like Poland, Latvia, Romania, etc. where conditions are different, and has resulted in a large number of migrants from those countries enter (again, perfectly legally) the aforementioned wealthier ones.

[TheSoulhunter]

I might be wrong, but TheSoulhunter seems to be describing immigration pertaining to the EU (specifically regarding Directive 2004/38/EC), which is quite distinct from immigration in the US, and in general. Basically, within the EU, everyone is free to move from country to country with no entry requirements or restrictions whatsoever. Not only that, but the EU also stipulates that foreign EU residents have to be treated identically to citizens of a country with regard to social welfare.

None of this causes any problems between the older established EU members like the UK, Germany, France, etc. but the last decade has seen EU enlargements include much of the ex-USSR, like Poland, Latvia, Romania, etc. where conditions are different, and has resulted in a large number of migrants from those countries enter (again, perfectly legally) the aforementioned wealthier ones.

Yep, I'm from central Europe, and the immigrant groups I mentioned are mainly from Islamic countries like Libanon, Marocco or Turkey (recently also people from Bulgaria and Romania).
We also have a lot immigrants from other countries like Poland or Russia, but for some reason they cause much less "trouble" (in stats and daily life).
I guess it's because their culture is much more similar to ours, hence they integrated much easier...

[TheSoulhunter]

It doesn't matter to me if immigrants learn English -- that should be their choice.

My POV on that is somewhat different... One problem is that without being able to speak or write the local language it's almost impossible to get a job (at least here) -> The community has to pay for em (Welfare). The other problem is that parents who can't properly speak or write the local language can't teach it properly to their children, which means the children will have a hard time in school (if they don't understand what the teacher says, and if they are not able to read the textbooks) -> They will get bad grades or don't finish school at all (that's what actually happens atm) -> They won't be able to get a job -> They try to make money in unconventional ways (crime) or the community has to pay for em (Welfare). That's why I think that if you want to live in a other country (not just for some years, but for generations) priority number one should be learning the language.

[iri]

i guess someone here is from germany

[sth]

http://gawker.com/video-of-violent-rioting-surfers-shows-white-culture-o-954939719?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

[iri]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/wave-of-black-mobs-brutalizing-whites/

[sth]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/wave-of-black-mobs-brutalizing-whites/

LEL WND

i hear fox news and the daily mail are a couple of other really reliable news sources. i know because white people.

[Lanx]

so with big brother at the end of the week, there is one person who is "head of household" HOH and that person elects 2 ppl to get voted off. In a roundabout way the super racist blond girl has elected the two black ppl. (currently they are a minor couple)

[iri]

why do you even watch tv?

[microsoft windows]

I don't watch TV because TV's are stupid. TV's don't run Windows.

[SpAmRaY]

I don't watch TV because TV's are stupid. TV's don't run Windows.

Can I have your autograph?

[microsoft windows]

No.

[SpAmRaY]

No.

Figures......stupid copyrights....

[Lanx]

so with big brother at the end of the week, there is one person who is "head of household" HOH and that person elects 2 ppl to get voted off. In a roundabout way the super racist blond girl has elected the two black ppl. (currently they are a minor couple)

so weird to quote myself, lol. Well the racist blond was able to get rid of the black man, and now her other racist blond friend is "HOH" and they're trying to get rid of the black girl now. It's up in the air actually, the asian woman wants to get rid of this big boobed girl, who apparently america hates more than racists cuz she was voted as the player they want to get off the show, but the blonds really want to get rid of the black girl... cuz racists.

[iri]

now i have a whole two users to ignore

[fohat.digs]

Some say that heaven is hell.

Some say that hell is heaven.

- Kate Bush - Sat In Your Lap - 1981

[insilica]

The situation is similar around here, a unproportional high percentage of violent crimes is committed by a certain group of immigrants. But instead of hating em, I blame the politicians who should have foreseen the effect of letting endless amounts immigrants from totally different cultural environment and economic state in.

Simple laws as "No more than 2 immigrant family per 10 linked housings are allowed" would have prevented the "ghettos" we have now, it would have prevented that this people get put offsite our community, it would have prevented that they live under their own people with their own language and their own rules and laws, it would have forced em to integrate and live as the rest of the population, it would have forced em to live WITH the others, not aside, and it would have forced us to accept em and live with em, things would be different...

Instead we have people who live here for 10 or 20 years already but still don't speak our language, we have regions where even the police is afraid to enter at night with less than a dozen man, we have schools where more than 50% of the scholars are immigrants, we have areas where the natives are the "foreigners" and get a fair amount of racism from the immigrants (and if you attempt to talk back, you get called racist or beaten up, or both). But did our politicians learn from this? Nope... Currently the next wave of immigrants (from even poorer countries) rolls in, negative effects are already visible, duh!

Ultimately the problem starts at home.

If we stop invading countries for the sake of corporate greed and natural resources then there will be no immigrants, but then again we will probably starve and there will be no scientific advancement.

Simple really:
Are you in the US? write to your local government official protesting the invasion of third world countries [or countries you have impoverished for the sake of becoming a first world] (Disclaimer: if they throw you in jail or wiretap your bunghole don't blame me)

Likewise if you are anywhere else in the developed world, know this! Much of the advancement you have come to realize has cost countless innocent lives in the process.

[iri]

soulhunter's country doesn't do much impoverishing since 1945