In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On November 26 2014 07:23 Ace wrote: Can't respond to every post in the last ~12 hours that I missed. All of these people are not rioting because they feel Brown was innocent. Some black people do feel Brown was a criminal and should have been prosecuted by the law. However, when a young black male is killed and the officer is given the benefit of the doubt - where there isn't a trial this upsets people.
I really don't want to post huge posts to outline this but black people have a long history of being abused by authorities in this country. In the past decade there have been many instances of black men being gunned down by police and not being prosecuted. This is where the disconnect comes from. As a black man I would not get that benefit of the doubt majority of the time. Hell, majority of America would ask what I did to deserve it rather than why the cop shot me. It's pretty alarming that some of you in here think many black people are too stupid to understand the decision and hence riot. Some are rioting because to them it's just another example of a police officer killing a young black man being justified by a system that doesn't give us a fair shot.
Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
wait, are you actually taking side with the rioters? It's hard to tell.
In the sense that it doesn't make no sense to look at the riots in a vacuum. If the system ignores and marginalizes you to the point where you don't have much left then accidents like this can actually break the camels back. I feel like the whole riot is just a symptom for a completely non intact social fabric in Ferguson, and people should have done something about this decades ago.
Can you explain how Ferguson can simultaneously be a place blacks want to live in, and also a hotbed for discrimination?
Well you don't just leave what you consider your home because the circumstances are difficult, and I'm pretty sure running away from discrimination is something people shouldn't need to do.
Not what I'm asking. My understanding is that blacks have been moving into Ferguson over the last couple decades. I'm not asking why don't the leave, I'm asking why do they go there.
Where did you come to believe that? Please link your source. Maybe they were going to Ferguson because it was cheaper than whatever gentrifying area they were being priced out of?
On November 26 2014 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote: The rioters and the protesters are two different groups as was evidenced by the multiple protests (for the same overarching reasons) that had no violence or looting all over the country.
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community) are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system.
The way you formulated that sentence is actually outright racist.
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community).
In other words, I don't know if there are any black people who agree that Wilson should have been acquitted but still desire to challenge the justice system. I'd think that they're out there somewhere, but they sure as hell aren't being heard.
You are wrongly focusing on the rather narrow matter of whether Mike Brown was unlawfully killed. Like farv mentioned earlier, movements don't always get to choose their martyrs. It seems likely that Darren Wilson was just a goofy looking white cop who got scared and shot someone he thought threatened him. Just because the rhetoric surrounding the riots focuses on his death does not mean that if his death wasn't unlawful the entire uproar is unjustified. The police force and justice system there has had multiple opportunities to respond to the concerns of the community in Ferguson directly, by mandating video cameras for example, and as Obama pointed out, the problems aren't just in Ferguson, they are American problems.
If I were in charge would I put Michael Brown on my posters? No. I would rather focus on any of the other numerous black unarmed males killed by police officers in the last year. But you don't get to choose what grabs the collective community's attention, and sometimes you have to run with what you have.
While the riots have burned some things down, the Walmart owner will eventually be compensated for the damage. They should be viewed as violent outbursts of a community weighed down by intolerable frustration. At this point they are becoming nothing but symbols of the community's own impotence. There is something cathartic in the acts, but ultimately it's the last resort of a people with no access to justice. Maybe they chose the wrong martyr, but that doesn't make their struggle any less admirable.
On November 26 2014 07:23 Ace wrote: Can't respond to every post in the last ~12 hours that I missed. All of these people are not rioting because they feel Brown was innocent. Some black people do feel Brown was a criminal and should have been prosecuted by the law. However, when a young black male is killed and the officer is given the benefit of the doubt - where there isn't a trial this upsets people.
I really don't want to post huge posts to outline this but black people have a long history of being abused by authorities in this country. In the past decade there have been many instances of black men being gunned down by police and not being prosecuted. This is where the disconnect comes from. As a black man I would not get that benefit of the doubt majority of the time. Hell, majority of America would ask what I did to deserve it rather than why the cop shot me. It's pretty alarming that some of you in here think many black people are too stupid to understand the decision and hence riot. Some are rioting because to them it's just another example of a police officer killing a young black man being justified by a system that doesn't give us a fair shot.
Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
if i did it, i would just be called a racist.
so i will let bill cosby (a black man) do it.
We have to start holding each other to a higher standard.
On November 26 2014 08:40 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] no dispute that they face problems, but how they deal with them determines how their futures will develop. want to know another marginalized minority group in america? japanese. the U.S. government put them in camps, stole all of their lands and belongings and generally did bad shit to them. the U.S. government had propaganda material for the sole purpose of making it easier for americans to kill japanese (we were at war of course). all within the last century. how are the japanese doing in the modern day? pretty damn well. people use race as a crutch too often.
Are you really comparing the Japanese to an entire race of people from different backgrounds with different levels of treatment in America for long periods of time? :/
Don't even know why that racist pos xdaunt is allowed to post here.
you seem to be unfamiliar with the anti-asian sentiment in america, including the de facto slavery of chinese/japanese. USA has a neat ability to hate everyone and fuck them all in the asses when it comes to civil rights.
and what point are you trying to make? equality and fairness arent things one should need to fight for, they are basic rights.
you can sit back and wait for people to give you something, or you can take it. thats the point as previously stated:
no dispute that they face problems, but how they deal with them determines how their futures will develop.
thats just a nicer way of victim blaiming. the try to deal with the problems as well as they can, but it seemingly doesnt work out. not the victims, but the opressing party has the responsibility to change the status quo.
or, to be more positive, why do you think did it work out for the japanese, and not for the black community?
As racist as this may sound, but Japanese attitudes towards work culture, education, and money played probably the largest role in it.
Ya, that actually is in fact racist because it ignores the actual outcomes in the Asian community and replaces them with an idealization of Asians. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/ For example, if we look at the numbers you may be surprised to find that Filipinos and Indians are much better off than average Americans, outperforming both Chinese and Japanese, Koreans are the worst performing of the statistically significant groups, merely touching the American median.
When people bring up Japanese concentration camps (130,000 total interred) and Chinese railroad slaves (their numbers decimated by the Chinese Exclusion Act) they are right to point that American racism is all pervasive, but those two groups -- as a percentage of the current Asian population is minuscule. The 20th century arrivals simply dwarf them out statistically, and those arrivals essentially represent some of the best members of their respective communities. What you see when you see the vast majority of Asians are recent, 60 years or so, immigrants who represent a selected demographic of their homelands. Just as African immigrants from Africa also tend to hold a disproportionate level of education vs their home countries.
Comparing them to blacks would only be fair if we scooped up the top 20% of all African Americans -- among whom the vast majority would be holders of at least a bachelor degree and posses asset wealth similar to an average Asian family if we cut out the hyper-superior Indian-Americans.
None of which describes any of the phenomenon regarding the significant socio-economic ladder of the Japanese and African Americans.
Yes, it actually does. Because most Japanese Americans arrived to the -- at least those who are in the continental -- United States in the last 50 years most of them are not representative of a broad demographic that would encapsulate an underclass as well. Instead a significant amount of Japanese-American immigrants arrive here either with a high education or on the path to high education, so their children are also socialized into a specific system of outlook towards education. If we either look at Asian arrivals who came here in waves that included an underclass -- Hmong or Khmer or Laotians fleeing conflict in the Vietnam war -- their educational and economic achievements also lag behind the median American. Or we can do it the other way and select an 'immigrant' cohort of blacks and find that those blacks are also high achievers.
And if you look at the work culture of those that are in those situations they still apply (despite the difference in culture set between SEA and Han Asians). They're still highly rated as hard working (or at least that's the cultural identity) Sure the lack of timeline does not exist to determine the development of those who started poor, but at the very least the culture of hard work and education exists.
On November 26 2014 07:23 Ace wrote: Can't respond to every post in the last ~12 hours that I missed. All of these people are not rioting because they feel Brown was innocent. Some black people do feel Brown was a criminal and should have been prosecuted by the law. However, when a young black male is killed and the officer is given the benefit of the doubt - where there isn't a trial this upsets people.
I really don't want to post huge posts to outline this but black people have a long history of being abused by authorities in this country. In the past decade there have been many instances of black men being gunned down by police and not being prosecuted. This is where the disconnect comes from. As a black man I would not get that benefit of the doubt majority of the time. Hell, majority of America would ask what I did to deserve it rather than why the cop shot me. It's pretty alarming that some of you in here think many black people are too stupid to understand the decision and hence riot. Some are rioting because to them it's just another example of a police officer killing a young black man being justified by a system that doesn't give us a fair shot.
Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
if i did it, i would just be called a racist.
so i will let bill cosby (a black man) do it.
We have to start holding each other to a higher standard.
On November 26 2014 07:23 Ace wrote: Can't respond to every post in the last ~12 hours that I missed. All of these people are not rioting because they feel Brown was innocent. Some black people do feel Brown was a criminal and should have been prosecuted by the law. However, when a young black male is killed and the officer is given the benefit of the doubt - where there isn't a trial this upsets people.
I really don't want to post huge posts to outline this but black people have a long history of being abused by authorities in this country. In the past decade there have been many instances of black men being gunned down by police and not being prosecuted. This is where the disconnect comes from. As a black man I would not get that benefit of the doubt majority of the time. Hell, majority of America would ask what I did to deserve it rather than why the cop shot me. It's pretty alarming that some of you in here think many black people are too stupid to understand the decision and hence riot. Some are rioting because to them it's just another example of a police officer killing a young black man being justified by a system that doesn't give us a fair shot.
Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
wait, are you actually taking side with the rioters? It's hard to tell.
In the sense that it doesn't make no sense to look at the riots in a vacuum. If the system ignores and marginalizes you to the point where you don't have much left then accidents like this can actually break the camels back. I feel like the whole riot is just a symptom for a completely non intact social fabric in Ferguson, and people should have done something about this decades ago.
Can you explain how Ferguson can simultaneously be a place blacks want to live in, and also a hotbed for discrimination?
Well you don't just leave what you consider your home because the circumstances are difficult, and I'm pretty sure running away from discrimination is something people shouldn't need to do.
Not what I'm asking. My understanding is that blacks have been moving into Ferguson over the last couple decades. I'm not asking why don't the leave, I'm asking why do they go there.
Where did you come to believe that? Please link your source. Maybe they were going to Ferguson because it was cheaper than whatever gentrifying area they were being priced out of?
On November 26 2014 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote: The rioters and the protesters are two different groups as was evidenced by the multiple protests (for the same overarching reasons) that had no violence or looting all over the country.
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community) are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system.
The way you formulated that sentence is actually outright racist.
Whoops, I didn't even notice that.
Please tell us what you meant to say?
Here's my edit:
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community).
In other words, I don't know if there are any black people who agree that Wilson should have been acquitted but still desire to challenge the justice system. I'd think that they're out there somewhere, but they sure as hell aren't being heard.
You are wrongly focusing on the rather narrow matter of whether Mike Brown was unlawfully killed. Like farv mentioned earlier, movements don't always get to choose their martyrs. It seems likely that Darren Wilson was just a goofy looking white cop who got scared and shot someone he thought threatened him. Just because the rhetoric surrounding the riots focuses on his death does not mean that if his death wasn't unlawful the entire uproar is unjustified. The police force and justice system there has had multiple opportunities to respond to the concerns of the community in Ferguson directly, by mandating video cameras for example, and as Obama pointed out, the problems aren't just in Ferguson, they are American problems.
If I were in charge would I put Michael Brown on my posters? No. I would rather focus on any of the other numerous black unarmed males killed by police officers in the last year. But you don't get to choose what grabs the collective community's attention, and sometimes you have to run with what you have.
While the riots have burned some things down, the Walmart owner will eventually be compensated for the damage. They should be viewed as violent outbursts of a community weighed down by intolerable frustration. At this point they are becoming nothing but symbols of the community's own impotence. There is something cathartic in the acts, but ultimately it's the last resort of a people with no access to justice. Maybe they chose the wrong martyr, but that doesn't make their struggle any less admirable.
yeah that's my take on it as well. I mean, nothing against Missouri and Ferguson. but it's far from prime real estate.
On November 26 2014 07:23 Ace wrote: Can't respond to every post in the last ~12 hours that I missed. All of these people are not rioting because they feel Brown was innocent. Some black people do feel Brown was a criminal and should have been prosecuted by the law. However, when a young black male is killed and the officer is given the benefit of the doubt - where there isn't a trial this upsets people.
I really don't want to post huge posts to outline this but black people have a long history of being abused by authorities in this country. In the past decade there have been many instances of black men being gunned down by police and not being prosecuted. This is where the disconnect comes from. As a black man I would not get that benefit of the doubt majority of the time. Hell, majority of America would ask what I did to deserve it rather than why the cop shot me. It's pretty alarming that some of you in here think many black people are too stupid to understand the decision and hence riot. Some are rioting because to them it's just another example of a police officer killing a young black man being justified by a system that doesn't give us a fair shot.
Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
if i did it, i would just be called a racist.
so i will let bill cosby (a black man) do it.
We have to start holding each other to a higher standard.
Are you really comparing the Japanese to an entire race of people from different backgrounds with different levels of treatment in America for long periods of time? :/
Don't even know why that racist pos xdaunt is allowed to post here.
you seem to be unfamiliar with the anti-asian sentiment in america, including the de facto slavery of chinese/japanese. USA has a neat ability to hate everyone and fuck them all in the asses when it comes to civil rights.
and what point are you trying to make? equality and fairness arent things one should need to fight for, they are basic rights.
you can sit back and wait for people to give you something, or you can take it. thats the point as previously stated:
no dispute that they face problems, but how they deal with them determines how their futures will develop.
thats just a nicer way of victim blaiming. the try to deal with the problems as well as they can, but it seemingly doesnt work out. not the victims, but the opressing party has the responsibility to change the status quo.
or, to be more positive, why do you think did it work out for the japanese, and not for the black community?
As racist as this may sound, but Japanese attitudes towards work culture, education, and money played probably the largest role in it.
Ya, that actually is in fact racist because it ignores the actual outcomes in the Asian community and replaces them with an idealization of Asians. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/06/19/the-rise-of-asian-americans/ For example, if we look at the numbers you may be surprised to find that Filipinos and Indians are much better off than average Americans, outperforming both Chinese and Japanese, Koreans are the worst performing of the statistically significant groups, merely touching the American median.
When people bring up Japanese concentration camps (130,000 total interred) and Chinese railroad slaves (their numbers decimated by the Chinese Exclusion Act) they are right to point that American racism is all pervasive, but those two groups -- as a percentage of the current Asian population is minuscule. The 20th century arrivals simply dwarf them out statistically, and those arrivals essentially represent some of the best members of their respective communities. What you see when you see the vast majority of Asians are recent, 60 years or so, immigrants who represent a selected demographic of their homelands. Just as African immigrants from Africa also tend to hold a disproportionate level of education vs their home countries.
Comparing them to blacks would only be fair if we scooped up the top 20% of all African Americans -- among whom the vast majority would be holders of at least a bachelor degree and posses asset wealth similar to an average Asian family if we cut out the hyper-superior Indian-Americans.
None of which describes any of the phenomenon regarding the significant socio-economic ladder of the Japanese and African Americans.
Yes, it actually does. Because most Japanese Americans arrived to the -- at least those who are in the continental -- United States in the last 50 years most of them are not representative of a broad demographic that would encapsulate an underclass as well. Instead a significant amount of Japanese-American immigrants arrive here either with a high education or on the path to high education, so their children are also socialized into a specific system of outlook towards education. If we either look at Asian arrivals who came here in waves that included an underclass -- Hmong or Khmer or Laotians fleeing conflict in the Vietnam war -- their educational and economic achievements also lag behind the median American. Or we can do it the other way and select an 'immigrant' cohort of blacks and find that those blacks are also high achievers.
And if you look at the work culture of those that are in those situations they still apply (despite the difference in culture set between SEA and Han Asians). They're still highly rated as hard working (or at least that's the cultural identity) Sure the lack of timeline does not exist to determine the development of those who started poor, but at the very least the culture of hard work and education exists.
Yes, racial stereotypes are that Asians are hard working. Census reports on income, educational achievements and so forth disagree that all Asians are. We went from you arguing "Hey blacks, look at Asians, they were oppressed too but got their shit together" whereupon I pointed out that (a) not all Asians have in fact done that and (b) the Asians you are looking at are essentially the cream of the crop that makes it an unfair comparison and (c) that if we skim the top of the black community, like the top 20% for example, we get the same kind of demographic numbers.
Nor is your attempt to create a separation between North Asians and South East Asians (grounded in Asians own peculiarities about color and race within Asia) valid. In America, Vietnamese are as successful as the Chinese and Filipinos are superior to all North Asians. And Koreans are merely on par with whites. Indians crush all other races. That isnt some accident of culture, its the reality of the immigration process.
On November 26 2014 07:23 Ace wrote: Can't respond to every post in the last ~12 hours that I missed. All of these people are not rioting because they feel Brown was innocent. Some black people do feel Brown was a criminal and should have been prosecuted by the law. However, when a young black male is killed and the officer is given the benefit of the doubt - where there isn't a trial this upsets people.
I really don't want to post huge posts to outline this but black people have a long history of being abused by authorities in this country. In the past decade there have been many instances of black men being gunned down by police and not being prosecuted. This is where the disconnect comes from. As a black man I would not get that benefit of the doubt majority of the time. Hell, majority of America would ask what I did to deserve it rather than why the cop shot me. It's pretty alarming that some of you in here think many black people are too stupid to understand the decision and hence riot. Some are rioting because to them it's just another example of a police officer killing a young black man being justified by a system that doesn't give us a fair shot.
Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
if i did it, i would just be called a racist.
so i will let bill cosby (a black man) do it.
We have to start holding each other to a higher standard.
On November 26 2014 07:33 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
if i did it, i would just be called a racist.
so i will let bill cosby (a black man) do it.
We have to start holding each other to a higher standard.
Do you have proof of that? backed by any court of law?
Do you deny that he's a serial rapist? Are you accusing more than a dozen women on a timeline spanning decades of lying about being raped?
something something innocent until proven guilty.
What? Is Bill Cosby on trial now? People do all kinds of things without ever having a jury decide on whether or not they did them. This is not an epistemological problem and for the purposes of this discussion neither is it a legal problem. The man is a serial rapist. There is no other side; certainly not one that you have presented. What does Bill Cosby say about it? Nothing. Silence here is to be interpreted as assent.
On November 26 2014 07:23 Ace wrote: Can't respond to every post in the last ~12 hours that I missed. All of these people are not rioting because they feel Brown was innocent. Some black people do feel Brown was a criminal and should have been prosecuted by the law. However, when a young black male is killed and the officer is given the benefit of the doubt - where there isn't a trial this upsets people.
I really don't want to post huge posts to outline this but black people have a long history of being abused by authorities in this country. In the past decade there have been many instances of black men being gunned down by police and not being prosecuted. This is where the disconnect comes from. As a black man I would not get that benefit of the doubt majority of the time. Hell, majority of America would ask what I did to deserve it rather than why the cop shot me. It's pretty alarming that some of you in here think many black people are too stupid to understand the decision and hence riot. Some are rioting because to them it's just another example of a police officer killing a young black man being justified by a system that doesn't give us a fair shot.
Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
wait, are you actually taking side with the rioters? It's hard to tell.
In the sense that it doesn't make no sense to look at the riots in a vacuum. If the system ignores and marginalizes you to the point where you don't have much left then accidents like this can actually break the camels back. I feel like the whole riot is just a symptom for a completely non intact social fabric in Ferguson, and people should have done something about this decades ago.
Can you explain how Ferguson can simultaneously be a place blacks want to live in, and also a hotbed for discrimination?
Well you don't just leave what you consider your home because the circumstances are difficult, and I'm pretty sure running away from discrimination is something people shouldn't need to do.
Not what I'm asking. My understanding is that blacks have been moving into Ferguson over the last couple decades. I'm not asking why don't the leave, I'm asking why do they go there.
Where did you come to believe that? Please link your source. Maybe they were going to Ferguson because it was cheaper than whatever gentrifying area they were being priced out of?
On November 26 2014 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote: The rioters and the protesters are two different groups as was evidenced by the multiple protests (for the same overarching reasons) that had no violence or looting all over the country.
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community) are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system.
The way you formulated that sentence is actually outright racist.
Whoops, I didn't even notice that.
Please tell us what you meant to say?
Here's my edit:
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community).
In other words, I don't know if there are any black people who agree that Wilson should have been acquitted but still desire to challenge the justice system. I'd think that they're out there somewhere, but they sure as hell aren't being heard.
You are wrongly focusing on the rather narrow matter of whether Mike Brown was unlawfully killed. Like farv mentioned earlier, movements don't always get to choose their martyrs. It seems likely that Darren Wilson was just a goofy looking white cop who got scared and shot someone he thought threatened him. Just because the rhetoric surrounding the riots focuses on his death does not mean that if his death wasn't unlawful the entire uproar is unjustified. The police force and justice system there has had multiple opportunities to respond to the concerns of the community in Ferguson directly, by mandating video cameras for example, and as Obama pointed out, the problems aren't just in Ferguson, they are American problems.
If I were in charge would I put Michael Brown on my posters? No. I would rather focus on any of the other numerous black unarmed males killed by police officers in the last year. But you don't get to choose what grabs the collective community's attention, and sometimes you have to run with what you have.
While the riots have burned some things down, the Walmart owner will eventually be compensated for the damage. They should be viewed as violent outbursts of a community weighed down by intolerable frustration. At this point they are becoming nothing but symbols of the community's own impotence. There is something cathartic in the acts, but ultimately it's the last resort of a people with no access to justice. Maybe they chose the wrong martyr, but that doesn't make their struggle any less admirable.
But they can choose their Martyrs; given the size of the problem, there are hundreds of cases to choose from; with something like another 50-100 added annually. Just because one case is in the news, doesn't mean it has to be the one you focus on. So why not put the best cases forward? Also, they do have access to other sources of justice; and those are being deployed. At any rate; don't defend the rioters, cuz right here you did defend the rioters, rather than the peaceful protesters.
On November 26 2014 07:23 Ace wrote: Can't respond to every post in the last ~12 hours that I missed. All of these people are not rioting because they feel Brown was innocent. Some black people do feel Brown was a criminal and should have been prosecuted by the law. However, when a young black male is killed and the officer is given the benefit of the doubt - where there isn't a trial this upsets people.
I really don't want to post huge posts to outline this but black people have a long history of being abused by authorities in this country. In the past decade there have been many instances of black men being gunned down by police and not being prosecuted. This is where the disconnect comes from. As a black man I would not get that benefit of the doubt majority of the time. Hell, majority of America would ask what I did to deserve it rather than why the cop shot me. It's pretty alarming that some of you in here think many black people are too stupid to understand the decision and hence riot. Some are rioting because to them it's just another example of a police officer killing a young black man being justified by a system that doesn't give us a fair shot.
Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
wait, are you actually taking side with the rioters? It's hard to tell.
In the sense that it doesn't make no sense to look at the riots in a vacuum. If the system ignores and marginalizes you to the point where you don't have much left then accidents like this can actually break the camels back. I feel like the whole riot is just a symptom for a completely non intact social fabric in Ferguson, and people should have done something about this decades ago.
Can you explain how Ferguson can simultaneously be a place blacks want to live in, and also a hotbed for discrimination?
Well you don't just leave what you consider your home because the circumstances are difficult, and I'm pretty sure running away from discrimination is something people shouldn't need to do.
Not what I'm asking. My understanding is that blacks have been moving into Ferguson over the last couple decades. I'm not asking why don't the leave, I'm asking why do they go there.
Where did you come to believe that? Please link your source. Maybe they were going to Ferguson because it was cheaper than whatever gentrifying area they were being priced out of?
First read it in an economist article. Used to be 75% white in the 90's. Apparently a lot left St. Louis to live in suburbs like Ferguson seeking a better life:
FERGUSON, Mo.—Sharon Golliday grew up in the Pruett-Igoe public housing project in St. Louis, a high-rise complex so violent that even the police were afraid to enter.
So like many African-Americans, she and her family took advantage of a sea change in federal housing policy in the 1980s and 90s that came to regard projects as part of the problem. Using a government voucher to subsidize the cost, they eventually landed in this suburb.
“We needed to get out,” said Ms. Golliday, a 58-year-old teacher. “No one forced us to move—we left.”
Mrs. Golliday’s eight-mile journey from a poor, black section of St. Louis to a then predominately white suburb was part of a national migration that reshaped the landscape of American poverty. African-Americans left behind political infrastructures built over generations and took up residence in communities where the governments are sometimes less able to meet their needs. ...
On November 26 2014 07:33 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
wait, are you actually taking side with the rioters? It's hard to tell.
In the sense that it doesn't make no sense to look at the riots in a vacuum. If the system ignores and marginalizes you to the point where you don't have much left then accidents like this can actually break the camels back. I feel like the whole riot is just a symptom for a completely non intact social fabric in Ferguson, and people should have done something about this decades ago.
Can you explain how Ferguson can simultaneously be a place blacks want to live in, and also a hotbed for discrimination?
Well you don't just leave what you consider your home because the circumstances are difficult, and I'm pretty sure running away from discrimination is something people shouldn't need to do.
Not what I'm asking. My understanding is that blacks have been moving into Ferguson over the last couple decades. I'm not asking why don't the leave, I'm asking why do they go there.
Where did you come to believe that? Please link your source. Maybe they were going to Ferguson because it was cheaper than whatever gentrifying area they were being priced out of?
On November 26 2014 09:19 xDaunt wrote:
On November 26 2014 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 26 2014 09:15 xDaunt wrote:
On November 26 2014 09:11 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 26 2014 09:01 xDaunt wrote:
On November 26 2014 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote: The rioters and the protesters are two different groups as was evidenced by the multiple protests (for the same overarching reasons) that had no violence or looting all over the country.
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community) are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system.
The way you formulated that sentence is actually outright racist.
Whoops, I didn't even notice that.
Please tell us what you meant to say?
Here's my edit:
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community).
In other words, I don't know if there are any black people who agree that Wilson should have been acquitted but still desire to challenge the justice system. I'd think that they're out there somewhere, but they sure as hell aren't being heard.
You are wrongly focusing on the rather narrow matter of whether Mike Brown was unlawfully killed. Like farv mentioned earlier, movements don't always get to choose their martyrs. It seems likely that Darren Wilson was just a goofy looking white cop who got scared and shot someone he thought threatened him. Just because the rhetoric surrounding the riots focuses on his death does not mean that if his death wasn't unlawful the entire uproar is unjustified. The police force and justice system there has had multiple opportunities to respond to the concerns of the community in Ferguson directly, by mandating video cameras for example, and as Obama pointed out, the problems aren't just in Ferguson, they are American problems.
If I were in charge would I put Michael Brown on my posters? No. I would rather focus on any of the other numerous black unarmed males killed by police officers in the last year. But you don't get to choose what grabs the collective community's attention, and sometimes you have to run with what you have.
While the riots have burned some things down, the Walmart owner will eventually be compensated for the damage. They should be viewed as violent outbursts of a community weighed down by intolerable frustration. At this point they are becoming nothing but symbols of the community's own impotence. There is something cathartic in the acts, but ultimately it's the last resort of a people with no access to justice. Maybe they chose the wrong martyr, but that doesn't make their struggle any less admirable.
But they can choose their Martyrs; given the size of the problem, there are hundreds of cases to choose from; with something like another 50-100 added annually. Just because one case is in the news, doesn't mean it has to be the one you focus on. So why not put the best cases forward? Also, they do have access to other sources of justice; and those are being deployed. At any rate; don't defend the rioters, cuz right here you did defend the rioters, rather than the peaceful protesters.
Yes I did defend the rioters.
EDIT: There are a number of possible reasons that Mike Brown was a flashpoint. He was a teenager. After Trayvon, his death reignited the fears of black people that their sons were unsafe simply walking around the neighborhood simply because they were perceived by the rest of society as inherently dangerous. That fear led to a lot of indignation and outrage from the outset. He was in an all-black community policed by a predominantly white police force. There were conflicting witness reports. Etc. After the facts come out months later it has already built up steam. You underestimate how difficult it is to switch gears without losing the nation's attention.
On November 26 2014 07:33 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] Exactly, regardless of the specifics of this case, it may have been correct use of force, its the underlying lack of faith in the system by black communities that lies at the hard of the unrest.
if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
wait, are you actually taking side with the rioters? It's hard to tell.
In the sense that it doesn't make no sense to look at the riots in a vacuum. If the system ignores and marginalizes you to the point where you don't have much left then accidents like this can actually break the camels back. I feel like the whole riot is just a symptom for a completely non intact social fabric in Ferguson, and people should have done something about this decades ago.
Can you explain how Ferguson can simultaneously be a place blacks want to live in, and also a hotbed for discrimination?
Well you don't just leave what you consider your home because the circumstances are difficult, and I'm pretty sure running away from discrimination is something people shouldn't need to do.
Not what I'm asking. My understanding is that blacks have been moving into Ferguson over the last couple decades. I'm not asking why don't the leave, I'm asking why do they go there.
Where did you come to believe that? Please link your source. Maybe they were going to Ferguson because it was cheaper than whatever gentrifying area they were being priced out of?
First read it in an economist article. Used to be 75% white in the 90's. Apparently a lot left St. Louis to live in suburbs like Ferguson seeking a better life:
FERGUSON, Mo.—Sharon Golliday grew up in the Pruett-Igoe public housing project in St. Louis, a high-rise complex so violent that even the police were afraid to enter.
So like many African-Americans, she and her family took advantage of a sea change in federal housing policy in the 1980s and 90s that came to regard projects as part of the problem. Using a government voucher to subsidize the cost, they eventually landed in this suburb.
“We needed to get out,” said Ms. Golliday, a 58-year-old teacher. “No one forced us to move—we left.”
Mrs. Golliday’s eight-mile journey from a poor, black section of St. Louis to a then predominately white suburb was part of a national migration that reshaped the landscape of American poverty. African-Americans left behind political infrastructures built over generations and took up residence in communities where the governments are sometimes less able to meet their needs. ...
Edit: above is WSJ, didn't have the economist article bookmarked.
So this is a case where subsidized housing created a new low-income area. Move the ghettos out into the suburbs. Perhaps hand in hand with a revitalization project of downtown St. Louis? If Ferguson was such a great place to live, like you are not so casually suggesting, then why are all the whites (read: unsubsidized inhabitants) moving out? Your whole line of reasoning is stupid.
On November 26 2014 09:15 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Whoops, I didn't even notice that.
Please tell us what you meant to say?
Here's my edit:
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community).
In other words, I don't know if there are any black people who agree that Wilson should have been acquitted but still desire to challenge the justice system. I'd think that they're out there somewhere, but they sure as hell aren't being heard.
You just aren't listening.
Still seems like a racist statement to me, but with the only other black person opining on the issue temp banned, while you don't even get warned for saying what you said before or after the edit, I'll just keep my mouth shut and just take that shit like usual.
What do you want? I'm acknowledging that the justice system unfairly treats black people, which is the real issue here.
I wan't you to not say what you did, not edit into a more palatable racist comment.
Just so I'm clear how did you acknowledge that the justice system unfairly treats black people?
I've acknowledged as such probably half a dozen times over the past 24 hours in this thread.
Regardless, I'm still going to call out the ridiculousness that is the black community hanging their grievance hat on the Michael Brown case. My ultimate point is that the black community is defeating itself here.
A minority of the black community is giving people like you all the ammunition they need to dismiss the righteous outrage of the majority and claim "I don't know if there are any sane people in the black community" and think it isn't a bigoted, racist, comment.
So to that degree you are right, but talking about the 'black community' as if they all fit your narrative is ridiculous.
Again, feel free to point out who's not part of this narrative (and I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are those who don't). Your arguments in this thread certainly fit right in there.
Well you can start with every black conservative? I'm sure you had to have heard one of them? Ben Carson maybe? He was on a national TV show...?
"Willing to accept" as if it wasn't already known to anyone who cared to listen...
Citing to Ben Carson and other black conservatives is kind of a cop out. They are more likely to reiterate what I'm saying than anything else. How many black folks actually agree with them? Given the treatment that prominent black conservatives get from the black community, I'm guessing not many. If anything, my impression is that your position on this matter is more representative of the general black community's than anyone else's, which is the basis for my earlier point. If I'm mistaken, feel free to set me straight.
On November 26 2014 07:46 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
wait, are you actually taking side with the rioters? It's hard to tell.
In the sense that it doesn't make no sense to look at the riots in a vacuum. If the system ignores and marginalizes you to the point where you don't have much left then accidents like this can actually break the camels back. I feel like the whole riot is just a symptom for a completely non intact social fabric in Ferguson, and people should have done something about this decades ago.
Can you explain how Ferguson can simultaneously be a place blacks want to live in, and also a hotbed for discrimination?
Well you don't just leave what you consider your home because the circumstances are difficult, and I'm pretty sure running away from discrimination is something people shouldn't need to do.
Not what I'm asking. My understanding is that blacks have been moving into Ferguson over the last couple decades. I'm not asking why don't the leave, I'm asking why do they go there.
Where did you come to believe that? Please link your source. Maybe they were going to Ferguson because it was cheaper than whatever gentrifying area they were being priced out of?
On November 26 2014 09:19 xDaunt wrote:
On November 26 2014 09:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
On November 26 2014 09:15 xDaunt wrote:
On November 26 2014 09:11 Sub40APM wrote:
On November 26 2014 09:01 xDaunt wrote:
On November 26 2014 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote: The rioters and the protesters are two different groups as was evidenced by the multiple protests (for the same overarching reasons) that had no violence or looting all over the country.
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community) are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system.
The way you formulated that sentence is actually outright racist.
Whoops, I didn't even notice that.
Please tell us what you meant to say?
Here's my edit:
This dichotomy doesn't matter much as far as my point is concerned. It's only a matter of degree. Anyone who is protesting or rioting over this decision is simply being dishonest with themselves. The only sane people are those who acknowledge that Wilson should have been acquitted but otherwise desire to challenge the racial unfairness in the justice system (and I don't even know if any of these exist in the black community).
In other words, I don't know if there are any black people who agree that Wilson should have been acquitted but still desire to challenge the justice system. I'd think that they're out there somewhere, but they sure as hell aren't being heard.
You are wrongly focusing on the rather narrow matter of whether Mike Brown was unlawfully killed. Like farv mentioned earlier, movements don't always get to choose their martyrs. It seems likely that Darren Wilson was just a goofy looking white cop who got scared and shot someone he thought threatened him. Just because the rhetoric surrounding the riots focuses on his death does not mean that if his death wasn't unlawful the entire uproar is unjustified. The police force and justice system there has had multiple opportunities to respond to the concerns of the community in Ferguson directly, by mandating video cameras for example, and as Obama pointed out, the problems aren't just in Ferguson, they are American problems.
If I were in charge would I put Michael Brown on my posters? No. I would rather focus on any of the other numerous black unarmed males killed by police officers in the last year. But you don't get to choose what grabs the collective community's attention, and sometimes you have to run with what you have.
While the riots have burned some things down, the Walmart owner will eventually be compensated for the damage. They should be viewed as violent outbursts of a community weighed down by intolerable frustration. At this point they are becoming nothing but symbols of the community's own impotence. There is something cathartic in the acts, but ultimately it's the last resort of a people with no access to justice. Maybe they chose the wrong martyr, but that doesn't make their struggle any less admirable.
But they can choose their Martyrs; given the size of the problem, there are hundreds of cases to choose from; with something like another 50-100 added annually. Just because one case is in the news, doesn't mean it has to be the one you focus on. So why not put the best cases forward? Also, they do have access to other sources of justice; and those are being deployed. At any rate; don't defend the rioters, cuz right here you did defend the rioters, rather than the peaceful protesters.
Yes I did defend the rioters.
EDIT: There are a number of possible reasons that Mike Brown was a flashpoint. He was a teenager. After Trayvon, his death reignited the fears of black people that their sons were unsafe simply walking around the neighborhood simply because they were perceived by the rest of society as inherently dangerous. That fear led to a lot of indignation and outrage from the outset. He was in an all-black community policed by a predominantly white police force. There were conflicting witness reports. Etc. After the facts come out months later it has already built up steam. You underestimate how difficult it is to switch gears without losing the nation's attention.
well, I'm against rioters. Arson seems kinda bad to me, and threatening so many people's lives.
It wouldn't be so hard if they'd stop to learn the facts of the case before jumping to judgment; admittedly something most people have a problem with. There are more than enough people these days who know how to keep the nation's attention that they could if they wanted to, and planned it half-decently. It'd also do a lot more for their cause if they showed that their fears were justified, instead of picking cases like Trayvon and relying on false narratives.
On November 26 2014 07:46 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] if people are going to riot regardless, it really is hard to feel sorry for them. there are riots when not indicted; there are riots when a jury finds them not guilty. i have yet to see someone say "hey, they are rioting, maybe we should give better consideration to them." nah. it just furthers the negative feelings towards the rioters and who they purport to represent.
also, when you have prominent figures in communities spouting nonsense and hate for the "system," and generally race baiting, they really should take the blame for this shit. consider cosby's take on it all vs. sharpton's. (maybe not the best reference considering recent rape allegations though).
Given the history of mistreatment of African-Americans in the United States and the discrimination they still face today which is obvious to see just by looking at some simple numbers like imprisonment rates, life expectancy, income and such I don't really know on what grounds you could put the blame on the group itself.
wait, are you actually taking side with the rioters? It's hard to tell.
In the sense that it doesn't make no sense to look at the riots in a vacuum. If the system ignores and marginalizes you to the point where you don't have much left then accidents like this can actually break the camels back. I feel like the whole riot is just a symptom for a completely non intact social fabric in Ferguson, and people should have done something about this decades ago.
Can you explain how Ferguson can simultaneously be a place blacks want to live in, and also a hotbed for discrimination?
Well you don't just leave what you consider your home because the circumstances are difficult, and I'm pretty sure running away from discrimination is something people shouldn't need to do.
Not what I'm asking. My understanding is that blacks have been moving into Ferguson over the last couple decades. I'm not asking why don't the leave, I'm asking why do they go there.
Where did you come to believe that? Please link your source. Maybe they were going to Ferguson because it was cheaper than whatever gentrifying area they were being priced out of?
First read it in an economist article. Used to be 75% white in the 90's. Apparently a lot left St. Louis to live in suburbs like Ferguson seeking a better life:
FERGUSON, Mo.—Sharon Golliday grew up in the Pruett-Igoe public housing project in St. Louis, a high-rise complex so violent that even the police were afraid to enter.
So like many African-Americans, she and her family took advantage of a sea change in federal housing policy in the 1980s and 90s that came to regard projects as part of the problem. Using a government voucher to subsidize the cost, they eventually landed in this suburb.
“We needed to get out,” said Ms. Golliday, a 58-year-old teacher. “No one forced us to move—we left.”
Mrs. Golliday’s eight-mile journey from a poor, black section of St. Louis to a then predominately white suburb was part of a national migration that reshaped the landscape of American poverty. African-Americans left behind political infrastructures built over generations and took up residence in communities where the governments are sometimes less able to meet their needs. ...
Edit: above is WSJ, didn't have the economist article bookmarked.
So this is a case where subsidized housing created a new low-income area. Move the ghettos out into the suburbs. Perhaps hand in hand with a revitalization project of downtown St. Louis? If Ferguson was such a great place to live, like you are not so casually suggesting, then why are all the whites (read: unsubsidized inhabitants) moving out? Your whole line of reasoning is stupid.
Eh? What's stupid about it?
St. Louis wasn't a good place to live and the government offered them subsidies to move to a nicer area. And a lot did just that.
Why whites would move out is complex. Injecting the poor into a community tends to not be good for property values, which encourages existing owners to leave in order to preserve their housing wealth. People also tend to want to live near people 'like them'. White and middle class want to live near white and middle class. Some diversity is tolerated (or even desired) but few want to be the last white in black neighborhood. So as blacks move in, some whites move out.
On November 26 2014 11:07 IgnE wrote: Your original argument was: blacks are moving there voluntarily! why would they move somewhere that was oppressive? Hence the stupidity.
Yeah I know what argument was, and it wasn't stupid.
Getting moved to the suburbs by a government that wants to gentrify and revitalize the city is not an indication that the suburbs are not oppressive. Are you serious? It's not like they had a real choice. And now the property values in downtown St. Louis are peaking again.
On November 26 2014 11:14 IgnE wrote: Getting moved to the suburbs by a government that wants to gentrify and revitalize the city is not an indication that the suburbs are not oppressive. Are you serious? It's not like they had a real choice. And now the property values in downtown St. Louis are peaking again.
lmao, are you really going with 'the government's anit-poverty program is really a conspiracy against blacks'?
EPT
