Jump to content
Hephaestus

Making Sense out of the Racism Position

Recommended Posts

This argument is too general. I mentioned somewhere in this thread how the US Supreme Court determined that sentencing for crack cocaine was based on racist presuppositions because science proved it to be no worse than regular cocaine. I buy this argument. It specifically shows how a racist presupposition influenced policy. Racism does exist. And this does not have merely to do with economic imbalances.

 

As I chuck around the racism of debate, there is an equal acceptance without warrant that debate is non-racist. So, allow me to clarify.

 

I do not agree, however, with the notion of chucking some kind of generalization at the form of debate we use and calling it racist without some kind of underlying rationale. Show me how the use of 1ACs and 1NCs excludes blacks. Show me how the use of speed in a debate round excludes blacks.

 

I don't think that the use of rhetorical devices is a bad thing. Sometimes the use of these devices bring certain truths into perspective. They help to provide proper emphasis to the issues at hand. People of all races are free to use these devices in a debate round.

 

 

People of all races are free to use these devices in a debate round, true. But they a) do not win rounds, and B) are frowned upon and result in loss of speaker points. The 1AC in general does not exclude blacks. But how we evaluate them does. Running a 1AC in an African American oral tradition rife with emotional appeal, performance, and focus on pathos rather than ethos, would bring up a violation on prima facie grounds. Opposing teams would simply state, "There is no evidence/stock issues/what have you, thus they should lose." Think about that, the opposing team loses because they didn't succumb to the style of debate in the round.

 

Style and substance both change based on the background of the speaker, but we judge in this European tradition of "Who has the best warrants in their evidence?" "Who post dates?" and "Who is the qualified source?" It's to the point where if we want to protest the racial differences and/or forced assimilation that an activity like debate may cause, we have to find a piece of CARDED EVIDENCE to prove that point! How can one make the radical change needed while operating from inside the wordview that oppresses?

 

If the answer is that an acknowledgement of performative debate solves for this, well, has it? Don't most judges paradigms exclude the use of personal experience when faced with 20 carded points as to why it is bad for debate? Are we excluding other rhetorical forms just to uphold what we view as "good" debate?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Running a 1AC in an African American oral tradition rife with emotional appeal, performance, and focus on pathos rather than ethos, would bring up a violation on prima facie grounds. Opposing teams would simply state, "There is no evidence/stock issues/what have you, thus they should lose." Think about that, the opposing team loses because they didn't succumb to the style of debate in the round.

 

I don't buy the argument that 'argument with emotional appeal' is somehow more African American centered. We all have the same amount of emotions. We all have the same amount of spirit, soul, etc. Howlin' Wolf was no more emotional than Bach. I am a fan of both, and comparing the two is apples and oranges.

 

I look at reason as the universal language, the ways we put our own subjective experiences aside to sort and hash out what is fair among persons. That is the way that we work together. I still kind of believe that the logic of debate parallels logic itself. I just saw the movie Crash a month or so ago. If someone smacks into someone else's car, we don't break into a song to start sorting out the insurance. We don't break into poetry when discussing liability. The law isn't that way, reality isn't that way, debate shouldn't be either.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't buy the argument that 'argument with emotional appeal' is somehow more African American centered. We all have the same amount of emotions. We all have the same amount of spirit, soul, etc. Howlin' Wolf was no more emotional than Bach. I am a fan of both, and comparing the two is apples and oranges.

 

I look at reason as the universal language, the ways we put our own subjective experiences aside to sort and hash out what is fair among persons. That is the way that we work together. I still kind of believe that the logic of debate parallels logic itself. I just saw the movie Crash a month or so ago. If someone smacks into someone else's car, we don't break into a song to start sorting out the insurance. We don't break into poetry when discussing liability. The law isn't that way, reality isn't that way, debate shouldn't be either.

 

There has been much research suggesting that emotional appeal is more effective on african americans, and the oral tradition IS different.

 

Looking at reason as a universal language is impossible. What may be reasonable to you is not reasonable to an inner city youth. You may find working hard in school to achieve top grades to get into a college your best possible option, thus universalize it to those that find dropping out and selling drugs their best possible option.

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE to set our subjective experiences aside. To attempt to have a debate and claiming it is "value-free" is not only an impossibility, but disingenuous. You saw the movie Crash, although you don't "break into song" there are a large variety of ways we can react to getting into a car crash, and all of them are based on our subjective experience. We are not all automotons who pull out our insurance cards and exchange them with a tip of the hat and a have a nice day. The fact that you cannot compare Howlin' Wolf to Bach is an example of how we are different, and we interpret things like music in far different ways. I hate country music. I mean, I can't stand the stuff. Does that mean if I can show some kind of argument in the 'universal language of reason' that we should destroy every Tim McGraw CD on the planet? No, because my reason is a part of my personal experience, and the guy from Alabama is going to have a different view of reason. Positivistic views of reason are impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More ignorance being published on race. Of course, the big, bad black man comes to the fore again. Watch out! That black kid is seven times more likely to kill you! Everyone run away.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is IMPOSSIBLE to set our subjective experiences aside.

 

I think you do what you can. We should expect a lot from ourselves to be as objective as we can be. I would have to agree with Rand in the sense that we strive for objectivity. Perhaps we can't be perfectly objective, but I think we should expect more from ourselves than just simply saying 'I can't be reasonable about this particular topic' or 'I have to work within a built-in bias.' Great sports figures talk about knowing their weaknesses, and knowing their blindspots. I think this is important to staying on the path toward a more enlightened existence.

 

There has been much research suggesting that emotional appeal is more effective on African Americans, and the oral tradition IS different.
Is that a good thing? I would also be interested to know whether the same studies are true of modern day Africans. Last year, I spent a little time studying the capitals of Africa, and I was quizzing a blackjack dealer I had from Senegal down in Tunica, Mississippi last week. Antananarivo - I can never remember that one.

 

Looking at reason as a universal language is impossible.
That seems awfully pessimistic. Certainly, there are incongruities that make any universal language difficult. If you want a set of anomalies, look at Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. But to just chuck reason itself out the window as impossible because of cultural differences is too extreme. As Obama might say, it's treating the issue with a hatchet when it could be treated with a scalpel.

 

What may be reasonable to you is not reasonable to an inner city youth. You may find working hard in school to achieve top grades to get into a college your best possible option, thus universalize it to those that find dropping out and selling drugs their best possible option.
Now, here I don't disagree with you one iota. One of the reasons I think it's wrong to look at ACT scores to determine intelligence is because people's backgrounds are so different. If you have no intention whatsoever of going to a four year college that requires such a test, you are going to blow the test off. There are plenty of very, very smart people that never had the opportunity to go to college, or they had circumstances that made college or a professional career an unrealistic option.

 

We are not all automotons who pull out our insurance cards and exchange them with a tip of the hat and a have a nice day.
But the way that we drive our cars, and the trips to the DMV are arranged in a uniform language. I suppose you can get instructions on how to get your car registration in Spanish, but that's pretty much as creative as it gets. Human society puts up rules and regulations all the time that don't point to a particular race. Perhaps they don't take every circumstance into consideration, but to call a road system 'impossible' would be an erroneous generalization.

 

Saying 'all of your reason is based on racist presuppositions' is ridiculous. The logic used in debate is no more racist than the rules of chess or the rules of basketball. There are so many great black debaters. I would so much rather see real racism pointed out as it comes up rather than in these preposterous abstractions. They engender resentment, and they bring us back to the drawing board. I also wish that there was more acknowledgment of the impact of the false accusation of racism.

 

More ignorance being published on race. Of course, the big, bad black man comes to the fore again. Watch out! That black kid is seven times more likely to kill you! Everyone run away.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

 

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/murderrates.html

 

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/jacksonville-fl/TPFET4HPQU714S37C

 

In November of 2008, two weeks after I voted for Barack Obama, our first black president, an African American man pulled out a handgun and tried to force me into my car. If I didn't run, he would have likely killed me and stolen my car. On Wednesday, January 27th, 2010, a young African American male tried to take my life for the amount of money he could have earned working 2 nights at a 7-11. Barack Obama gave his state of the union address while I was wheeled into a CT scan to see if there was any lead that might have penetrated my skull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An equally bold statement is 'the structure of debate is racist.' I would like to hear more specific examples of why people feel that is the case.
Cause its switch side. Its also non-queer at that.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have here, hephaestus, is a debate between differing paradigms. You are of the post-positivist ilk, and I'm representing the interpretive and critical side.

 

I would have to agree with Rand in the sense that we strive for objectivity. Perhaps we can't be perfectly objective, but I think we should expect more from ourselves than just simply saying 'I can't be reasonable about this particular topic' or 'I have to work within a built-in bias.'

Rand says that we strive for objectivity, even she says we never achieve it. We do work within a built-in bias, and we do so in debate all the time. You've failed to answer the specific arguments that we don't look at pathetic appeals in the debate round and that we're stuck in a eurocentric view of reason based on warrants and sources.

 

One of the reasons I think it's wrong to look at ACT scores to determine intelligence is because people's backgrounds are so different.

 

Bam, that's a damning concession there buddy. The ACT strives to achieve objectivity, and constantly fails. It shows your universal reason is unattainable no matter how many times the test is formulated.

 

Oh, and Chess is racist as well as classist(Which color goes first?) And so is basketball (Steve Nash MVP shoulda never happened over Shaq.)

 

Did you honestly just post a buncha stuff about black crime rates as somehow supporting 'reason is universal?' What is your malfunction there? Crime rates are a direct result of the threat construction and economic disadvantage. Look to a white trailer park and you see the same type of crime rates. I have no idea what you're trying to prove, but if it's that the legal justice system somehow isn't racist, look at death penalty rates. Blacks are 4x more likely than whites to get the death penalty in federal court, 10x more likely if the victim was white. But this is totally off the subject. Funny, you're making an emotional appeal with your story at the end that you would say is not part of the language of 'universal reason.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that what we have is the pure clashing of paradigms, and I am not so sure. I think that I have a more centrist position, while yours is more two-dimensionally liberal. What I said about the ACT scores is indeed a concession, and I think that it reflects me being reasonable about the situation. I don't think that you can march into every sector of American society, give them one test, and make judgments about their intelligence as a race.

 

You don't actually believe that chess is racist because white goes first, do you? While Steve Nash probably didn't deserve his MVP, Jimmy Rollins didn't deserve his in baseball a couple years back. If I went to an NBA game as a white player, and sat in the middle of the court saying 'I should win this game because there aren't enough white people in basketball' do you think that the refs should give me the win on that basis? Why is it true in debate? I don't actually believe that debate is as cut and dry as chess or basketball, but what makes it subjective is not the structure of debate, but the way the structure plays out in rounds and at tournaments. It's not the structure so much as it is the culture and the resources. We both agree that we strive for objectivity. We both agree that it's impossible to be perfectly objective.

 

I do think that there are parts of culture that need to criticize themselves about their own behavior. You say that racism is the cause of the disparities of who is in prison, etc. I think it's because the black people are guilty of these crimes. In fact, if we we busted everyone on an even plane, there would be even more of a percentage of black people in jail, because they commit even more crimes than they are incarcerated for. Do you think that this is not the case? Do you think that whites commit murders at the same rate as blacks in this country?

 

As far as making a statement about emotions v. facts, I gave you some statistics, and I also drew from my own experiences as a subject. What a raging hypocrite I am.

 

You suggest that economic disparities and racism cause the crime statistics. You talk about the crime rates in trailer parks. I would say that there is a mentality in both the 'hood and the trailer parks that needs to be criticized and not applauded. We need to stop giving people the impression that if they had it hard, it's ok to go running around with a gun. I work with plenty of immigrants that are every bit as poor as these people, and they are just happy to have jobs, and happy to be in the good old U.S.A.

 

I mentioned Bill Cosby being critical of black society, and I respect him for that. The soft bigotry of low expectations is the cause of a lot of the problem. If a black person kills someone because he can't get money, it's just as bad as an ugly guy that rapes a woman because he can't get laid. It's not society's fault, it's his fault.

Edited by Hephaestus
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You say that what we have is the pure clashing of paradigms, and I am not so sure. I think that I have a more centrist position, while yours is more two-dimensionally liberal.

 

I'm talking rhetorical paradigm, not political.

 

If I went to an NBA game as a white player, and sat in the middle of the court saying 'I should win this game because there aren't enough white people in basketball' do you think that the refs should give me the win on that basis? Why is it true in debate?

 

Because in debate you score points by saying things, you don't score points in basketball by doing that. Apparantly you win MVP's that way though. Jimmy Rollins made a decent case for MVP, and you can hardly claim race in a sport like baseball. Now if it were hockey.. And by saying that the argument is simply "I should win because there aren't enough black people in debate" is GROSSLY simplifying and misinterpreting how it functions.

 

I do think that there are parts of culture that need to criticize themselves about their own behavior. You say that racism is the cause of the disparities of who is in prison, etc. I think it's because the black people are guilty of these crimes. In fact, if we we busted everyone on an even plane, there would be even more of a percentage of black people in jail, because they commit even more crimes than they are incarcerated for. Do you think that this is not the case? Do you think that whites commit murders at the same rate as blacks in this country?

 

As far as making a statement about emotions v. facts, I gave you some statistics, and I also drew from my own experiences as a subject. What a raging hypocrite I am.

 

You suggest that economic disparities and racism cause the crime statistics. You talk about the crime rates in trailer parks. I would say that there is a mentality in both the 'hood and the trailer parks that needs to be criticized and not applauded. We need to stop giving people the impression that if they had it hard, it's ok to go running around with a gun. I work with plenty of immigrants that are every bit as poor as these people, and they are just happy to have jobs, and happy to be in the good old U.S.A.

 

I mentioned Bill Cosby being critical of black society, and I respect him for that. The soft bigotry of low expectations is the cause of a lot of the problem. If a black person kills someone because he can't get money, it's just as bad as an ugly guy that rapes a woman because he can't get laid. It's not society's fault, it's his fault.

 

Again, this is way off the subject of racism in debate. Like it's not even close to what we are discussing. But it is 100% the guilt redemption cycle. Arguments like this reduce the guilt we in society feel for the economic and social disparities that we cause and transfer it onto a victim, in this case, the african american committing a crime, and we blame them for what is essentially everyone's fault.

 

Either way, this has nothing to do with the debate argument, and I won't be baited into this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and Chess is racist as well as classist(Which color goes first?)
I'm assuming this was meant as a joke, but just in case it wasn't, you might want to stick to topics you know something about. For those who aren't aware...

 

The current World Champion, Vishy Anand:

 

profile002_vishy_anand.jpg

 

The current U.S. champion, Hikaru Nakamura:

 

hikaru_nakamura.jpg

 

Arguably the strongest player in the world at the moment, Veselin Topalov (Bulgaria):

 

topalov-uncaffeinated-2.jpg

 

Current World No. 5, Shakhriyar Hamid Mamedyarov (Azerbaijan):

 

Mamedyarov.jpg

 

Rising star and current World No. 8, Wang Yue (China):

 

wangyue02.jpg

 

One of the most successful and respected chess teachers in the U.S., GM Maurice Ashley:

 

220px-Maurice_Ashley.jpg

 

Here's an idea: Why don't you go visit Washington Square Park in NYC, and peddle your "chess is racist" theory to folks like him...

 

washington-sqaure-park-chess1.jpg

 

...or him...

 

3838034499_78ab1cc124.jpg

 

...or him...

 

IMG_0123_2.jpg

 

...or maybe just take some lessons from him...

 

305484301_c10fada823.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arguments like this reduce the guilt we in society feel for the economic and social disparities that we cause and transfer it onto a victim, in this case, the african american committing a crime, and we blame them for what is essentially everyone's fault.

 

More than anything else, this is the assumption that I am challenging.

 

A number of issues have been brought up in this thread. Is debate racist? Are there rhetorical differences between the races? These aren't issues that I am nearly as interested in as the statement that you just made. We have watered down African American's culpability so much, that you would almost think that I pulled the trigger myself, but I didn't.

 

No matter how hard their economic circumstances, they still tried to end my life for the amount of money they could have earned working two nights at a 7-11, or not simply not frittering away their welfare checks.

 

This is an emotionally charged issue, and I appreciate the fact that we were able to engage in some kind of dialogue without it getting completely out of hand - it isn't easy. You have brought up a lot of the arguments that, as a 40 year old man, I am quite familiar with. The book that I cited talks about some of the things that I have been thinking about lately. Assumptions that economic injustice exonerates all criminal behavior, assumptions that cops are just racist or the system is just racist, are both untrue and serve to perpetuate these aspects of culture. These are arguments that need to find a place in higher education. If you shoot someone in the head for $100, you're culpable, had it hard or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is fair of you to challenge that theory. Look up Kenneth Burke and guilt-redemption cycle. He's like 'da man' of modern rhetoric. If you want to challenge that theory, it's good to know lots about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be happy to read that book, but I want you to know that I don't consider anyone that's firing a gun at an unarmed man's head to be a victim. The theory that you mention is so embedded in our cultural consciousness at this stage that we've become blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look up Kenneth Burke and guilt-redemption cycle. He's like 'da man' of modern rhetoric.
Burke is an interesting thinker, but "'da man'" is a little over-the-top, especially when you consider that his last serious work on rhetoric was published nearly 40 years ago. Better candidates for that title would include Lloyd Bitzer, Stephen Toulmin, I.A. Richards, and even Jürgen Habermas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burke is an interesting thinker, but "'da man'" is a little over-the-top, especially when you consider that his last serious work on rhetoric was published nearly 40 years ago. Better candidates for that title would include Lloyd Bitzer, Stephen Toulmin, I.A. Richards, and even Jürgen Habermas...

 

Well I'm still learning myself. Burke was very influential from what I gather tho, as was Bitzer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be happy to read that book, but I want you to know that I don't consider anyone that's firing a gun at an unarmed man's head to be a victim. The theory that you mention is so embedded in our cultural consciousness at this stage that we've become blind.

Can you explain this for me? I want to make sure you're saying what I think you are before I respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you explain this for me? I want to make sure you're saying what I think you are before I respond.
I don't want to put words into Heph's mouth (or word processor), but I assume this is a reference to moral agency, and more specifically that a person's life experiences (however harsh) do not mitigate her/his moral agency when doing things like pointing guns at innocent people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Majority of arguements that i hear about debate being Racist, include many things that you could point at and go thats not Racist thats classist.

 

Issues: Resource disparities, Inadequate education, and traveling possibilities.

 

Resource disparities: There have been many attempts to include lower privledged kids in the community, this requires two things, A UDL, and a GOOD policy college squad.

 

Ex. Atlanta UDL originally sponsered by Emory, grew fast then numbers dropped, when they did the competition level increased emensely.

 

Ex. Chicago UDL, i heard a couple colleges worked with these kids, originally i believe it was several grad students from various universities around.

 

BOTH extremely successful, both compete nationally, and many of the schools are not majority white.

 

NEW UDLS are coming up now

Dallas, and Houston have two brand new UDL's

 

Problems for Houston (only UDL i know alot about) is thier is no major college with a policy debate team here. UH had a small startup last year and it was killed by a certian individual. I've been to these tournaments and thier are some extremely talented kids.

 

One thing i've mustered was about the entire UDL working togather vs against one another, if the UDL supported several "elite" kids or thier "best" debaters to get mor eexpeirence it would benefit the entire community, because they'd debate those kids at the UDL tournaments.

 

Inadequate Education: I don't know about other areas, but from my experience and many of my friends (TEACH grant recipents), they could wait to leave thier HISD post for another school. Two, became teachers of the year later in thier career, but why is it that they don't want to work at HISD? The pay is better, they get better choices of classes, etc.

 

They didn't feel safe, and rightly so, one had to pepper spray a kid who was "coming onto her aggressively", the other was robbed at a stop light less than a mile from the school. I'm sure this happens at a bunch of schools accross the nation, the number one issue when you talk about educational descepencies, isn't a money issue its a safety issue.

 

 

Traveling: This is also a safety issue in certian instances, its a bad eggs get everyone in trouble issue. 90% of the kids at the UDL wouldn't hurt a fly, the other 10% have either aditude issues, or have violent tempers violent (in my experience) you would think that shouldn't be a huge deal don't let a couple debate etc. But the issue is you ahve conflicting goals, to include as many people as possible, but to exclude some, may be seen as bad or even racist. (majority of coaches are white)

 

I see this issue in debate being an overall microcosm of the issue in Real life.

 

-NJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of the fact that African Americans are seven times as likely to commit a homicide than are Caucasians or Asians in our country.

 

I think that this is what Barack Obama should have addressed during the state of the union. Perhaps he did, I don't know, I missed the speech, I was busy getting shot in the back of the head.

 

This is the God's honest truth.

 

" By firing radioactive ammunition, the U.S., U.K., and Israel may have triggered a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East that, over time, will prove deadlier than the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan.

So much ammunition containing depleted uranium(DU) has been fired, asserts nuclear authority Leuren Moret, "The genetic future of the Iraqi people for the most part, is destroyed." <=[EUGENICS]

"More than ten times the amount of radiation released during atmospheric testing (of nuclear bombs) has been released from depleted uranium weaponry since 1991," Moret writes, including radioactive ammunition fired by Israeli troops in Palestine.

Undercover Black Man said...

If any redeeming value comes of this tragedy in Chicago it's the revelation of the level of TOMary prevalent in Plantation Negros.

Not a "tragedy," Denmark. An "unfortunate event."

... and abstract statistical nonsense...

Seven thousand to 8,000 dead black Americans a year isn't abstract. It's as concrete as it gets. It's 20 murders a day, every day.

The real "tragedy" is the 19 other black folks robbed of their lives on the same day as Derrion Albert... and the 20 more the next day... and the 20 more the day after that...

While your dumb ass is talking about the Korean War. And persuading nobody.

Tragic.

Denmark Vesey said ...

This would be funny ... if it wasn't so ... punkish and Uncle TOMish.

Undercover ... Black ... Man says black people kill more people than white people.

Denmark Vesey says comparing murder rates along racial lines is disingenuous and counterproductive. The death of the young man in Chicago is an American problem. Not a black problem.

UBM resoponds: DV you are ignorant! The black murder rate is seven times higher than the white murder rate. True mathematics.

OK ... if you really want to play True mathematics Geechy Nigga. Let's play.

I submit the millions of murdered people around the world today and throughout history, so that they too can be counted in your precious statistics. If a liquor store owner in Detroit can be counted as a "Black Murder Victim", why cannot a child in Palestine burned to death with napalm, be counted as a "White Murder Victim"?

If a black high school student slain in a gang fight in Chicago be counted as a "Black Murder Victim", why cannot any of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who will die from cancer caused by exposure to Depleted Uranium weapons dropped on their villages be counted as a "White Murder Victim"?

I'll tell you why. Because Undercover Black Man is incapable of considering anything not spoon fed him by the Plantation. Like a guard dog trained to eat only from a bowl handed him by his owner, UBM considers any idea or meme not created by his ... Massa ... unacceptable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I submit the millions of murdered people around the world today and throughout history, so that they too can be counted in your precious statistics. If a liquor store owner in Detroit can be counted as a "Black Murder Victim", why cannot a child in Palestine burned to death with napalm, be counted as a "White Murder Victim"?

 

I think this statistic, that in the streets of America, blacks are 7 times as likely to commit a homicide, is a statistic that deserves a lot of attention.

 

I think the point of your excerpt is a good one, and I thought a lot about foreign wars and how they work into the equation.

 

What's interesting about the quote above is just how different the government reaction is for black crime versus a Palestinian uprising. When there is an outbreak of Palestinian violence, suicide bombing, etc., the Israelis respond in kind, sometimes with violence multiplied by ten. But in our country, we just accept black violence as a part of everyday life. Can you imagine how much of a response there would be if the whites in this country responded to black violence the same way the Israelis respond to the Palestinians?

 

Yes, the United States has been involved in many foreign wars, often at great cost with very hazy moral and political justification. Is there any reason to believe that blacks would be any better if that had their hands on the triggers? African nations are constantly at war with one another. I don't think that the comparisons that you are drawing are without merit. I could have taken the tack of suggesting that there is an inherent difference between random street violence and violence taken by regimes born of geopolitical strategy. In some cases, there is a difference. If you are a World War II soldier fighting on the beaches of Normandy, you aren't a murderer. How far the US has overstepped it's use of force in other circumstances is perhaps one of the greatest issues of our time.

 

How much street violence there is among blacks is a taboo topic, but it's one worth reminding ourselves of. I would love it if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson would spend even a quarter of their time talking about this. I don't mind them calling people out on racial prejudice. But I think for a lot of people, a little more acknowledgment of the prevalence of black violence would lend credibility to their agendas.

 

The US government blowing up a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant is a deplorable, egregious act. The fact that you can't walk the streets of St. Louis or Chicago without being threatened by blacks is also an abhorrence. Both are plenty significant to make note of.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it that the 7 times more likely to kill or 7 times more likely to be blamed for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...