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.
It’s not a term -it’s a weapon -fashioned to punish and control -much like laws fashioned in the old south -always the same motive -one race trying to dominate and control
another
Yeah, as a formal legal matter hate crime laws are neutral. So that is a pretty open and shut case against the idea that hate crimes only protect certain groups.
I suspect what the OP was referring to was more the "social discourse" around hate crimes. In that case the OP has a stronger point. It is generally assumed that hate crimes are white on a racial or religious minority or straight on LGBT. We also see this in police shootings, the officers race is generally only highlighted if the officer is white.
So OK, the OP does have a point. There is a certain "double standard" in liberal discourse and mainstream media coverage.
But, lets not lose sight of the broader picture. 1) Minorities groups are by definition more vulnerable than majority groups. Majorities have more social power and are better able to use their power to seek protection. Trump proposed a Muslim ban after a Islamic-inspired shooting, no serous person called for a white person ban after Charleston or a Christian ban after the Pittsburgh Synagogue. 2) Minority groups are targeted disproportionately. Jews are a tiny share of the population and yet there have been two mass shootings at Synagogues in the past 8 months. Meanwhile, Christians are the overwhelming majority and there haven't been any targeted shootings at Churches. The last big one was at the AME Church in Charleston and that was targeted because it was a black church, not because it was Christian. I'm sure at some point in time, a gay or trans person has attacked a straight person because they hated straight people. But, opposite examples are far more numerous.
So I will concede the OP has a point about their being a double standard in how we often talk about hate crimes, if he/she will concede there are some reasons for why people focus more on hate crimes against minorities then they do on hate crimes that run the other way.
Apples and oranges. I am sorry, but we live in a country that is wealthy, practices equal opportunity and gives many advantages to people of color and from other countries.
OK. Like what ? What advantages do black people have in a global system of white supremacy ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewkranian
We do that because we have lots of resources and believe in helping those that can't help themselves (and millions of others too).
You're talking in cliches and babbling. What resources ? Where ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewkranian
Generally, Americans don't get lots of respect in most foreign countries.
Name one place on the planet a white American can't go and if they do it's gonna be hell for them ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewkranian
I lived in Europe for many years. I've lived in Asia, South America, and Europe. Being an American and using a "race" card would be a joke in 99 percent of the places. It just doesn't work for white people.
What is the race card ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewkranian
The world, thanks to movies, media, and obnoxious travelers, feels that white privilege is prevalent.
White privilege works in 3 ways
1) Material (greater opportunity in the labor market, or greater net worth, due to a history in which whites had the ability to accumulate wealth to a greater extent than blk ppl)
2) Social (such as presumptions of competence, creditworthiness, law-abidingness, intelligence)
3) Psychological (not having to worry about triggering negative stereotypes, rarely having to feel out of place, not having to worry about racial profiling, etc.).
White privilege is the flipside of discrimination against black people.
If you are saying white privilege does not exist, then you must also say racism does not exist
There can be no down without an up
If black people are the targets of discrimination, in housing, employment, the justice system, or elsewhere, then whites, by definition, are being elevated above those black ppl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewkranian
Racism against whites is rampant in the world and the race card usually can't be played.
Black people can be racist in theory, but not in practice.
Although a black person in an authority position can discriminate against a white person, this kind of thing rarely happens because
A) There are few black ppl in authority
B) And even when there is, there are authorities above those black people who are white, and who would not stand for it.
C) Even in cases where a black person sat on top a power structure (as with President Obama), he was not truly free to do anything to oppress white people (even if he wanted), given his own need to attract white support in order to win election or pass any of his policy agenda.
There are no institutional structures in the U.S. in which black people exercise final and controlling authority: not in the school systems, labor market, justice system, housing markets, financial markets, or media. As such, the ability of black folks to oppress white people simply does not exist.
Having said that, you could say in majority black countries, black ppl could have power to discriminate against whites.
Although racism to whites even in places like Nigeria, Ghana, Jamaica is limited by the reality of global economics and the desire for good relations with the West
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jewkranian
The world is full of ignorant people.
I'm communicating with one right now.
Last edited by Blk-Dude-Chilling; 06-03-2019 at 07:48 AM..
It is simply not true that 'the media' [cue boogeyman sound here] only reports hate crimes by whites. I suspect you know this and you're being intentionally dishonest.
So your premise to begins with is false. Demonstrably so, as I demonstrated above, and I could have kept going with example after example.
You will probably respond - if you do at all - with ignoring the fact that you've peddled a false claim, and assert that the media reports relatively few anti-white hate crimes. That is so. And why? Well, for the abundantly obvious reason that anti-white crimes constitute a small minority of hate crimes.
What proportion of hate crimes are race/ethnicity based and are committed by whites? You could look it up, but I doubt you have any idea. What proportion of hate crimes reported by the media involve a race/ethnicity hate crime committed by a white person? I doubt this data even exists in a collected form, so I'm sure you have no idea (you probably think you do, based on the woefully inaccurate 'sample' of what you've happened to notice - sorry, any CPA should have a more than sufficient understanding of data to know this). As such, you're simply making a claim that you not only don't know to be true, you have no idea if it is even generally accurate. It is merely what you want to believe.
As the FBI data (see below) demonstrates, less than 60% of all hate crimes involve a racial/ethnic bias, and less than 17% of that category are anti-white hate crimes, which means that only 10% of all hate crimes are anti-white hate crimes. Thus, it stands to reason that the overwheming majority of news reports about hate crimes are not about anti-white hate crimes. https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017
The claim that the media reports about hate crimes are always about white perpetrators is simply false.
Sure, a black person can come up to a white person and bash their skull with a rock or kill him, because he doesn’t like white people but that is not racism.
That is individuals acting as individuals and there is no system in place that will support their right to harm whites.
But a white policeman can murder black people and get away with it because there is a system in place that allows them to do it. (the courts, the police, the judge, the prison).
Racism is a systematic way of harming people of another group and that requires power and systems and the collective agreement by that group to support and participate in the mistreatment of people outside that group
The only people on the planet who systematically exhibit these kind of behaviours toward people just because they look different (no matter where they go) from North America to Africa to New Zealand and Australia, etc are white people
Black killers of whites tend to be arrested, charged, convicted and if they are in a state which allows it, have a better chance of getting the death penalty. Those black people in those links you posted will spend the rest of days in Shawshank and they're gonna do the hardest time possible.
Also black people generally don't be line up to defend a black person who killed an unarmed white person. We don't pour thousands into their gofundmeaccounts. We don't dig into the murder victims past to try and find dirt on them like the way many whites do.
The bottom line is when black people begin lynching, raping, oppressing, exploiting, shooting, jailing, whipping, maiming, torturing, evangelizing, robbing, stereotyping, bullying, segregating, building highways and thruways to dislocate, experimenting on, discriminating against, prohibiting, murdering, holding back in every imaginable way and HATING WHITE PEOPLE en mass via de jure and de facto racism for HUNDREDS of years, then and only then can calling black people racists or saying there is epidemic racism towards whites will make make sense.
Unless America’s historical and traditional scripts are flipped, the ONLY people who can possibly ever qualify to be racists, and “fight their (“natural”) tendency toward it,” are white people.
Otherwise the word racist makes no sense
Last edited by Blk-Dude-Chilling; 06-03-2019 at 08:52 AM..
When hate crime legislation past, lynchings were ling gone. Besides, what lynchings there were were mostly in the south. I've never heard of lynchings in midwest states.
Actually I do have some idea. This isn't the first time I've looked at hate crime stats from the FBI website. The below table is what I thought best answers your question about race/ethnicity bias crimes committed by whites compared to other races. To keep it simple I will only compare whites and blacks and the hate crimes they commit against each other. For known offenders where there is a single bias and that bias is race/ethnicity, it shows that whites committed 2,164 crimes compared to 694 for blacks. Breaking it down further whites committed 1,241 anti-black crimes compared to blacks committing 382 anti-white crimes. Both ratios show whites committing these hate crimes at a little over a 3:1 ratio compared to blacks committing these hate crimes.
The FBI have illegally sabotaged & assassinated every black leader from Garvey to MLK
The FBI have a history with black people of
Planting false stories in the press.
Planting false witnesses in court trials.
Sending false letters to create distrust and division among leaders.
Planting informers everywhere and then falsely named others as informers.
Got people fired at work.
Breaking up marriages.
Breaking into people’s houses to search them.
Arresting leaders for minor traffic violations.
Framing people for murder and other false charges – to lock them up or at least keep them tied up in court till something stuck.
Committing murder.
They killed Fred Hampton (A black panther leader in Chicago) That was proved in court.
They had the Chicago police break down his door in the middle of the night and gun him down. The FBI had been keeping a file on him even before he joined the Panthers.
They framed Geronimo Pratt (Below) for murder
And they made sure one of his defence lawyers was an FBI informer
Panthers secretly working for the FBI talked about the FBI blowing up department stores and giving the police an excuse to arrest top panthers and throw them in prison.
The press and the police did the FBI’s bidding. The Panthers found much of its leadership killed, sent to prison or driven out of the country.
Dick Gregory was such a powerful opponent against systematic racism, J. Edgar Hoover ordered the FBI to use the mafia to murder him.
And J Edgar Hoover was a cross dressing gay man who hated black people and he had a lover who was one of his top FBI Agents. Also the FBI wrote an anonymous letter to Martin Luther King encouraging him to kill himself ?
Or how about MKULTRA and those deeds? FBN and CIA connections with international crime syndicates and co-operation to bring in tons of drugs for the consumption of inner city blacks.
That started in the 1940’s and devastated whole cities eventually. A book about that and the whole war on drugs by Douglas Valentine: The Strength of the Wolf: The secret history of America’s war on drugs.
Their objective is to murder innocent black people and use this BIE thing to kill even more of us. So when black folks protest or file citizen complaints about illegal searches and seizures, police theft of property, police violence in the form of needless beatings and brutality; cases of blatant police disrespect for the dignity of black people and actual state-sanctioned murders by police, their names will be placed on the terrorist watch list by the FBI.
There are plenty of others racists crimes by other races but when we hear the words hate crime it is always a white hate crime. The media reports it that way. What about blacks crimes against whites. The media doesn't even call them hate crimes.
Because whites are the dominant ethnicity in the USA. So when they commit a crime against a non-white, it's the superior attacking the inferior, and blacks are definitely seen as inferior. Similar to why the word "reverse racism" exists.
The concept of the White identity was created for the purposes of discrimination. Other then that, it has no logical function. What exactly does it mean to be "white"?
1.) Its not a practical regional identification.
There are groups from the Middle East and Asia that are technically "white" like Armenians for example.
You have Europeans who originated in Asia but are considered white like the Finnish and Hungarians.
Then you have some groups of people from Europe are considered non-White, like Gypies and Jews.
So being from Europe doesn't automatically make you white nor does being from Asia or North Africa mean you can't be white.
2.) "Whiteness" has no linguistic, historical, cultural or religious consistency since "white" people come from a wide variety of different languages, regions, religions and cultures.
3.) Its historically inconsistent, at one point Germans, Dutch, Irish, Russians and Greeks were considered to be non-white. Essentially the "white" identity is whatever the white people in power want it to be.
I've read a few pages and thought I would comment on the comments instead of addressing the original prompt.
It seems like folks are talking past each other. There are those who are posting their thoughts and feelings about aspects to the topic, and there are those who are taking a legal/philosophical approach. I suppose that's an element to debating, but it sure seems like folks have their positions and aren't really listening to reason.
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.
