[QUOTE=Shodan]
I don’t think the tennis shoe is the deadly weapon. Six-to-one is the deadly weapon. I think Algher and Unregistered Bull made the same point.
[/QUOTE]
Six to one would certainly contribute to the threat of the situation, no doubt - but even if it were one on one, I reckon a person lying on the ground could be kicked to death by another person wearing trainers.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Well, not if your only method of communication is violence or threats.
But to give your point more serious attention than it deserves, the only way violence or the threat of violence is an effective method for a minority to communicate is if the message you want to send is “Yoo-hoo, somebody come shoot me!”
Black revolutionaries need to get a grip (not you specifically). If it ever came down to a race war in the US, blacks are going to lose.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I am not advocating a race war. I advocate that blacks utilize the Second Amendment to protect their First Amendment rights. That’s all.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
I will still be rooting for the police to put down the riot and arrest the rioters.
By any means necessary. 
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I am not surprised.
If we were to rewind fifty years in the past, I’m sure you’d look at Rosa Parks as a uppity Negro who broke State law and the police that arrested her as champions of Justice.
[QUOTE=Honesty]
I am not surprised.
If we were to rewind fifty years in the past, I’m sure you’d look at Rosa Parks as a uppity Negro who broke State law and the police that arrested her as champions of Justice.
:eek:
[QUOTE=Honesty]
I am not surprised.
If we were to rewind fifty years in the past, I’m sure you’d look at Rosa Parks as a uppity Negro who broke State law and the police that arrested her as champions of Justice.
In the main, I don’t disagree with you, but there are a couple of things I’d like to address/clarify, to wit:
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Here is what I consider the relevant paragraph of post #39 -
I understand you to be saying that there are a lot of blacks, yourself included, who believe that a majority of whites don’t take black complaints about discrimination, police brutality, and so forth, seriously. And you (or Honesty, perhaps) feel that the only way to get whites to take the complaints seriously is thru violence or the threat of violence. Is that a fair statement of your position?
[/QUOTE]
You understand me correctly, except that I don’t know (and, therefore, can’t conscientiously claim) that n=“majority”. Yes, I do believe that this applies to many Whites. I don’t have a cite for this, so I base my opinion on experience and observation. Granted, my experience and observation may have lead me to an incorrent conclusion, but…well, there it is.
As for the second part, you misunderstand me. As I said in post #39, I took exception to **Honesty’s ** juxtapositioning of “Martin Luther King” and “bullshit way of thinking”. What this means is that, in a great many respects, I am an admirer of Dr. King and a believer in non-violent social activism. On the other hand, however, I absolutely understand **Honesty’s ** call to self-defense whenever peaceful protestors suffer unprovoked attacks by anyone, be they average Joe Blow or Officer Joe Blow.
Make no mistake, though, Shodan–the degree to which I support self-defense in these situations should absolutely not be confused with support of riots, because it most certainly is not.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Here’s the quote again -I don’t see how this can be interpreted other than as stated - the only way blacks can effectively communicate with whites is thru violence or threats. (Emphasis in original). He (and I) didn’t say that this was the only way blacks are capable of communicating with whites - he said that it was the only effective way of communicating their complaints about racism.
[/QUOTE]
Again, this is due to our (not always imagined) observation that many Whites, because they regard Blacks as nothing but malcontents who are always trying to scam someone, refuse to even consider that our complaints about racism (when those complaints are legitimate) could indeed be legitimate.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
To the extent that the violence in the OP’s case was a response to the nooses, it was ineffective. Regardless of the original merits of the case, six black guys beating Justin Barker unconscious is not a response that gains anyone a whole lot of sympathy for racism.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. I do, however, feel the need to assert that the school district’s response to the nooses was irrefutably ineffective. I mean, c’mon, how can you (second person “you”) be, of all things, a *Southerner * (hell, a born and bred–or bred, anyway–American) and not take something like that seriously?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
But I would go to say what I have said - the notion that whites are going to ignore everything unless they are threatened is silly and counter-productive.
[/QUOTE]
I think I see where you’re coming from, but I must point out that there is certainly historic precedent as regards **Honesty’s ** point. Consider the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
From here: Civil Rights Movement 1955-1965: The Montgomery Bus Boycott
IOW, violence (or, rather, in this case, self-defense) isn’t only physical in nature–it can also be economic.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Maybe the beating of Rodney King was horrible and racist. Assume it is for the purposes of the discussion.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t need to assume it for the purposes of this discussion, because it was indeed horrible and racist. I, along with other Blacks, were disgusted by it. And I’m curious: Given that there’s historic precedent that Whites have done nothing to clamor for the rights of Black people until some really bad shit has gone down (whether it be economic or physical retaliation or violence), how can you make the claim that a critical mass of Whites would’ve been moved to do something about the acquittal in the Rodney King case solely out of the goodness of their hearts? Some? Of course. But most? I doubt it. (Mind you, I don’t recall many Whites doing much of anything, really, WRT the matter, but my memory’s kind of fuzzy on that one and I’m too tired to do the relevant search right now.) IIRC, news footage of Bloody Sunday being broadcast into millions of American homes signaled a critical point in the Civil Rights Struggle.
As Martin said, it’s where you stand in times of challenge and controversy that determines your measure, not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
And if they do, and it leads to real race war, then blacks are SOL. Because even if the incident that triggered a riot was a genuine instance of racism, I will still be rooting for the police to put down the riot and arrest the rioters.
[/QUOTE]
As **Honesty ** has himself returned to clarify, he wasn’t advocating a race war.
But would you say that racism is a result of a capitalist system? Any system that is taken to any extreme can be bad. If we had no Safety regulations or laws against pollution it might also be argued to be good for the system insofar as profitaility, but that doesn’t mean we want to go down that road.
[QUOTE=WorkInProgress]
<snip> However, one of my friends who witnessed the detached retina attack is a racist due to these and other events. He sees black people as savages and inferior genetically and culturally.
[/QUOTE]
While I am saddened to hear of the attacks suffered by you and your friend at the hands of Blacks (who were assholes to attack you unprovoked), the section I quoted inspires a million :dubious: 's.
IMNSHO, your friend isn’t inclined to hate or otherwise disparage Blacks based on attacks he’s witnessed (or may have even been a victim of). It seems to me that his inclination to view Blacks as genetically and culturally inferior came from deep within himself. Black people didn’t have a damn thing to do with that.
I wonder about two things here:
If your friend is as racist as you say, and if you, as you claim, are not racist, why are you friends with him? I’m not trying to be snarky or anything–I just know that *I’m * not friends with bigots (at least not that I know of). I may indeed be acquainted with some, but only insofar as I am unable to avoid crossing paths with them.
Have you ever asked this friend if he’s considered the (I’m assuming) countless times that he’s witnessed, or been in proximity to, Blacks who haven’t lowered themselves to his expectations of savagry and inferiority? If not, why haven’t you?
I ask these questions because many, many Blacks (including yours truly) have been mistreated by racist whites (some, more times than we care to count), yet we somehow manage to get through life without hating Whites en masse or of accusing them, as a group, of genetic, cultural, or moral inferiority. And, honestly, given our history (and, in some cases, present) in America vis-a-vis Whites, I could understand (note: =/= acceptance) if we did.
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
This is a total hijack, sorry. I just wanted to note that I’ve never understood how so many people can firmly believe that the government cannot be effective in fighting the eternal problem of drug abuse but that it will somehow be effective fighting the eternal problem of poverty. Isn’t poverty another enduring condition to which the government has never found solutions?
Sailboat
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it’s a hijack at all.
The failure to win the War on Drugs hinged on the fact that the government approached the problem the wrong way. While I can understand Nixon’s desire to attack the counterculture in the United States, it is simply infeasible to have a policy that targets the low-end drug abusers. The government should have, instead, put political and economic sanctions on countries that are known to export these drugs into the U.S; appropriate funds to help States erect mental facilities that treat drug addiction as a treatable disease (which is exactly what it is) as opposed to treating addicts like criminals. Instead the government overpenalizes low-end drug users with ridiculous and onerous sentences: an ounce of Cannabis can get you four years in Michigan. That’s obscene. Jailtime for possession of small amounts of drugs needs to be scaled down drastically to less than ninety days or community service. The financial relief States will get from less beds in jail cells would be enormous.
With that said, While I don’t believe the government failed to come up with an effective way to approach the War on Drugs, I don’t think that necessarily means that it would be equally ineffective in fighting poverty. Social programs should afford the bare minimum standard of living for the non-working. The United States of America is the most powerful country on planet Earth. It shouldn’t have poverty-stricken areas that look like snapshots taken from Afghani ghettoes.
And for those who decry the cost in federal dollars, tell me why we pour several hundred billions of dollars in Iraq but won’t appropiate 1% of that into domestic programs?
[QUOTE=pool]
But would you say that racism is a result of a capitalist system? Any system that is taken to any extreme can be bad. If we had no Safety regulations or laws against pollution it might also be argued to be good for the system insofar as profitaility, but that doesn’t mean we want to go down that road.
[/QUOTE]
I think there was racism before capitalism, and there would be quite likely racism without capitalism. However I think racism is beneficial for capitalism, and that it is deliberately harnessed and magnified by some capitalists.
Perhaps you are correct in the short-term, but I think in the long-term it is really detrimental to the system.
Why would something that suppresses wages and prevents worker discontent becoming focused at capitalism be “detrimental to the system” in the long or short term?
Because by suppressing a group of people they become angry, take the bus boycotts during the civil rights era for instance, this racism began to hurt a capitalistic system because it began to suffer financially from it. Also take racism in things like education. If instead of inferior eduation for the minorty there was an equality in education, that creates a smarter and more able workforce, ergo is a benefit to capitalism.