No one was shot for having a tail light out. No one was shot for selling cigarettes.
It’s dumb to say they were. Remember the case where the guy got his third strike for assaulting an employee at a pizza place when he was stealing a slice of pizza? He was put in jail for years for felony assault, not for stealing a slice of pizza as people claimed.
Now in this latest case, the cop was wrong and should rot in jail. But he shot the guy for his behavior after the stop, not for driving with a tail light out. I don’t know why people need to over simplify everything to the point that it’s completely wrong.
On what? The false question of whether the officer should be put to death or not? (The answer is no, the death penalty is wrong.) Would you like us to focus on the tail light, or the running away? That is also the wrong subject of discussion and a distraction from the real issue of the murder and genocide of black men in the US.
How about, instead of demanding that people examine what you want they way you want, that you let them look at what they they see the way they see it and let them say what they want to?
If there is anything I’ve learned during my time at the SDMB, it is that nearly nobody has an open mind. You can show them a video of a cop executing a black man and morons will ‘focus’ on the adjectives used to describe the crime against humanity and the penalty that might be appropriate for the cop, but do everything they can to avoid addressing that black men are gunned down (or incarcerated) by the legal system and enforce the ignorance of the context of the racist problem.
Maybe the column has been fighting ignorance since 1973, but the people on the message board have been putting up a stiff resistance and rear guard action since at least 2008, and I’d suspect before that.
The murder of men like Treyvon Martin and Walter Scott, and the incarceration of millions of black men (where white men are not charged or given fractions of the sentences when proven guilty and not bullied into plea bargains) is nothing short of genocide.
Contains the definition of genocide. The way the laws are passed and carried out in the US meets the criteria. I suppose you were being sarcastic about doing a “pretty shitty job of it”, but not having a Nazi like level of genocidal efficiency is not a defense.
[QUOTE=Your link]
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part (emphasis mine), a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such…
[/QUOTE]
Cite for the US government, at any level, or the American people in general possessing an intent to destroy the black race?
So, do these articles, in your mind, add up to the attempted de jure or de facto destruction, in whole or in part, of black people in the US? Each of them is strong evidence of just that, the strongest being the disproportionate incarceration rate, which inhibits and prohibits reproduction.
He show that many of us do not like each other, and that for some reason more crimes seem to be committed by Black males. I don’t see that it shows an effort to “destroy the Black race.”
Your first cite in support of genocide is an opinion blog about Voter ID laws?
You are confusing passion with substance. I’m seeing a lot of the former, but none of the latter. And you’re undermining the real issues of racism and police violence by crying GENOCIDE!!!
So in the 11 minute span between which I posted those links, you read them, evaluated them and came up with your two sentence polling of the state of your sight? How unsurprising. You don’t see any of these practices as an effort to destroy, in whole or in part, the Black race. Not the shootings, not the incarceration, not the voter id, not the job or housing discrimination. I accuse you of having a closed mind throughout this process. Your mind was closed to each of the wrongs systematically carried out against blacks, and to the information presented to you and to the definition of genocide, which you parsed away. That’s some supremacist grade ignorance you are defending.
So you didn’t read beyond the first cite? How unsurprising. You are confusing the ordering of information with the content of the information. When you accuse me of undermining the “real” issue of genocide by pointing out that systemic racism and police violence and millions incarcerated, you are taking the position that it is not genocide, but mere racism. When racism is accompanied by systemic violence, incarceration and discrimination, it destroys, in part and tending toward the whole, a race of people.
Genocide is a crime nomenclature to be reserved for when it happens to white people. Societal racism, when it has violent consequences is genocide by definition. Resist the urge to redefine genocide to excuse the kind of racism that you are perfectly comfortable with not speaking out against, such as against Blacks or Palestinians.
The question that needs to be addressed by the people who deny this kind of systemic racism is genocide, is why they so fervently that these movements are genocidal when they are white people perpetuating them against darker skinned people. If this were being done by dark skinned people against light skinned people the reaction would be ratcheted up to the charges (correctly) leveled against ISIS.
Don’t get to own the definition of the word, or don’t get to publish the internationally agreed legal definition of what is genocide? I get that you very much don’t want the definition I linked to (the UN convention on genocide definition) to be used as the definition of genocide. I’d suggest that the reason you don’t want the UN definition used is because it is clear and broad and implicates us and our general silence and that people in the US are generally comfortable with the genocides we are paying for against American Blacks and Palestinians. It is the definition that our nation has agreed to with other nations. You don’t get to have a special pleading on what the definition of genocide is. Youmust accept the internationally agreed upon definition of genocide or have your own special unpublished, constantly shifting definition, so that you can be comfortable with the genocides (Black Americans and Palestinians and others I may not know about) you pretend not to see and are okay with.
Already given in the cites. Try reading them in context and as a whole. I’m well aware that your mind is closed on the subject. Try opening your mind up, being neutral and take in the awesome breadth of the legalized racism in America. The way you use the word “intent” it seems that you require a point by point confession from a legislative body that never brings it up. Intent may be inferred from statements, actions and consequences. The way you use intent, every perpetrator of every intent crime in the world can simply deny or refuse to admit intent, and it isn’t to your level of an official admission and they are excused from the crime. Every day in civil and criminal courts across the world intent is inferred from statements, actions and consequences by neutral triers of fact, not from people who have a closed mind to start with.
The US subsidizes the atrocities that Israel perpetuates on the Palestinians in Gaza (and the West Bank). That is us committing genocide. The more or less uniform line in the US media is that somehow the Palestinian people are terrorists and bring this on themselves. It’s bullshit.