Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, there is a difference. White indentured servants didn't have to make the voyage if they didn't want to. Indentured servitude was a choice. A slave didn't have a choice.
You'd have to lay that on those who caught and sold the slaves to the slave traders who then shipped them elsewhere. The Arab slave trade predated the Transatlantic slave trade by centuries, and slaves were frequently the captured "property" of the victors among the various groups of warring Africans.
Female slaves were often raped by their masters. And here is the difference between indentured servitude and slavery. Indentured servitude was temporary. Slavery was permanent
Did you miss the part where that also happened to female indentured servants? And that only 40% ever made it to the end of their term, and therefore freedom?
The sad thing is that there is "profiling" that goes on by the gangs too.
My buddy (black) grew up on S. Stoney in the highrises just west of the museum of science and industry.
I've gone and picked him up there and when I walk in everyone just assumes I'm a parole officer, cop etc.
My buddy has said that if both of us were to try to walk through another neighborhood, he'd be at much greater risk as he might be considered a rival gang member more readily than me.
A lot of good kids get shot up for no reason because some idiot *thinks* they might be someone else or in a rival gang etc.
Alot of profiling goes on in our society. You have a point that it isn't just police officers that do this. It isn't surprising that someone might have thought you were a parole officer or a cop. I think a big part of this might be that the level of trust in terms of race relations is quite low. I'm guessing that some of the persons assume that most Black people are troublemakers, and the same persons were thinking "lone White guy in the neighborhood = parole officer". I'm guessing that is what happened.
What you mentioned shows the kind of world gang members operate in. It gets to where there is no trust, even among persons of the same race.
This is what I'm seeing. I think a military presence would work better than profiling. In profiling, you might get the gang member, but then law-abiding people get harassed.
Did you miss the part where that also happened to female indentured servants? And that only 40% ever made it to the end of their term, and therefore freedom?
Actually, everything I mentioned was in response to what you mentioned. I brought up rape and 40 percent of slaves dying on the way to the New World because of the things you brought up. You initiated, and I responded.
Not really. If I don't live in those parts of Chicago, then my concern isn't going to be about "wearing the wrong colors". If I live in a bad neighborhood, and I can afford it, I'm getting out.
Profiling isn't going to stop gang members. Gang members don't care, so they would so much as likely kill police officers. I agree with middle-aged-mom that stop-and-frisk won't work. A military presence works better than profiling.
In my life, profiling has never kept my family safe. My father has been pulled over by the police quite a few times in the suburbs of Atlanta. That didn't keep me from getting jumped by fellow Black teenagers one summer night. It didn't keep me from getting assaulted by White teenagers either. Criminals are not the ones who care. Law-abiding people care because they AREN'T breaking the law.
I'm initially from NYC, which is of course, home of "stop and frisk." Although I hate to admit it, stop and frisk does work as an effective deterrence, because criminals do not want to risk going to prison or possibly having their drugs and illegal guns confiscated by the police. Truthfully, if the NYPD wasn't so active, sections of NYC would have crime rates comparable to Chicago's Southside.
But I do not believe in advocating this policy, because it's a violation of the 4th amendment (if there's no evidence that the person plans to break any law, at the time of the frisk). Also, I dislike that it specifically targets black and Hispanic men. Unfortunately, the many individuals who are not involved in crime, are treated like criminals during the searches.
You are saying "the average". However, averages do not take into account individuals. And at that party, who was that kid around? What that kid around someone who was a hood rat?
No. The police already stated he was among a group of non-gang related individuals. His murderer gunned him down in a case of mistaken identity. That happens A LOT in and around Chicago.
Quote:
"That was the first group that came by and he made the assumption that that was the group that was involved," [Evanston police Cmdr.] Parrott said.
When questioned later by police, Woodson denied he had been out at the time of the shooting. But a witness contradicted him and two witnesses identified him as the shooter, prosecutors said.
Prosecutors said Woodson apparently was looking for revenge when he opened fire, but neither Dajae nor his friends had anything to do with the attack on the cousin.
"Woodson has gang affiliations, and this was a retaliatory act upon an innocent group of teens with no gang affiliations," Parrott said.
Then explain to me why average Black people on the street are getting killed. Do you have any idea how many times we see stories like this in the Chicago area? And this wasn't even in the city. It was in the suburbs. Popular 14-year-old shot to death in Evanston - Chicago Tribune
America should be ashamed, but black men (as a collective group) should also be ashamed as well. Just because someone markets a certain way of life to you, doesn't mean that you have to accept and validate it. Based on the evidence, Crack Cocaine was certainly targeted to low-income black neighborhoods; but many could have decided NOT to use it and/or sell it.
I agree that drugs and gun violence and are huge problem in poor inner-city predominately Black communities. However the idea that the entire Black male population should be "ashamed" is total, and complete bullsh*t. White men aren't told be be "ashamed" about the growing problem of amphetamines and oxy that is absolutely ravaging rural America and parts of the suburbs. The entire population of Hispanic male population isn't told to be collectively "ashamed" about the problem of gang violence that affect some inner city predominately Hispanic neighborhoods.
It's just racist to hold ALL Black men accountable for the actions of a those that make the choice to go down the path of drugs and violent crime. There are LOTS of Black men that are faced with a fork in the road to go down that path or choose another. I know because I happen to be one of them. Once you make a choice to go down a different path you are often ostracized or seen at "other" by the very communities where this violence takes place.
As I've said in other posts the problem of gun violence in poor inner-city predominately Black communities won't be solved by a president a governor or a mayor. It will be resolved when the men and women in those communities no longer accept gun violence as a cultural norm.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
