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.
A lot of drug dealers (of all colors) may indeed be "morally bankrupt," at least to an extent, though many use the income from their activities to help their families and friends (including gangs)-- not an immoral thing to do. Clarke also says such people are "uneducated," which may be true in the sense of "unschooled" (not having completed degree programs). But "lazy"? Being a (successful) drug dealer actually requires a fair bit of hard work and smarts, precisely because the activity is illegal and logistically complicated, and also because it is not always a steady and predictable source of income. It would be great to see all of that energy, work, and intelligence channeled more constructively, but there aren't always lots of options. For many, selling drugs may well be more lucrative and socially prestigious than getting a minimum wage job somewhere.
One could retort that it's "lazy", etc. to demonize a group of people when it's much more positive to try to reach out to them in a constructive way. But this is the sort of thing many people like to hear and believe: it's much easier to dismiss groups of people than to try to lift them up. What Clarke has said is right-wing talk radio fodder. Has Clarke been a part of the solution or a part of the problem?
A lot of drug dealers (of all colors) may indeed be "morally bankrupt," at least to an extent, though many use the income from their activities to help their families and friends (including gangs)-- not an immoral thing to do. Clarke also says such people are "uneducated," which may be true in the sense of "unschooled" (not having completed degree programs). But "lazy"? Being a (successful) drug dealer actually requires a fair bit of hard work and smarts, precisely because the activity is illegal and logistically complicated, and also because it is not always a steady and predictable source of income. It would be great to see all of that energy, work, and intelligence channeled more constructively, but there aren't always lots of options. For many, selling drugs may well be more lucrative and socially prestigious than getting a minimum wage job somewhere.
One could retort that it's "lazy", etc. to demonize a group of people when it's much more positive to try to reach out to them in a constructive way. But this is the sort of thing many people like to hear and believe: it's much easier to dismiss groups of people than to try to lift them up. What Clarke has said is right-wing talk radio fodder. Has Clarke been a part of the solution or a part of the problem?
Anyone who makes gross generalizations has a problem. It is obvious that Sheriff Clarke has a problem. According to him, Blacks are morally corrupt. Is he willing to call himself morally corrupt? Furthermore, what will he do if he gets discriminated against.
There is a difference between calling members of the underclass to task, and making gross generalizations about a particular race.
Anyone who makes gross generalizations has a problem. It is obvious that Sheriff Clarke has a problem. According to him, Blacks are morally corrupt. Is he willing to call himself morally corrupt? Furthermore, what will he do if he gets discriminated against.
There is a difference between calling members of the underclass to task, and making gross generalizations about a particular race.
I guess you have a problem too. You just did same thing in the way used the term "underclass." Are all blacks in the underclass?
Sheriff Clarke is a smart guy and knows all blacks are not morally corrupt. You, others on this forum and I all know that. Stop bastardizing the intent of common sense comments.
Race has no part in crime. People don't commit crimes based on the level of melanin in their skin. It has to do with economic and social factors, especially poverty and lower education levels.
I think a lot of the issues with African Americans and crime might have to do with lack of opportunities. And we cannot pretend that racism has gone away. A white person with a criminal record is more likely to get a call back from an employer than a black without a criminal record. How then can we place all the blame on blacks for their status in society if a white person who has a criminal record is more likely to have job opportunities than a black person with no criminal record? Even black college graduates are much more likely to be unemployed than white college graduates. Less opportunities might equal more crime and other pathologies that are associated with being on the lower spectrum of society. A century ago, many of the Irish and the Italians were poor and were discriminated against and there were many in these communities who committed crime.
I'm not so sure about your idea about the death penalty. Who would be executed mere hours after a homicide is committed? Most criminals already know better than that: due process, bureaucracy, money, lawyers, etc. ensure that justice is slow in this country. And the mass slaughter (genocide?) of criminals, especially skewing towards Blacks and other minorities, would make this country and its alleged humanitarian values the laughing stock of the world. This nation would have no credibility when talking to other countries about their abuses. It would also show that we've given up, sending the message that as long as most violent criminals are minorities, they're not worth the effort of rehabilitation.
Precisely why I said: "mere hours". It's exactly this reason which makes it most ineffective (responding to bold). Genocide? No. I believe all of societies worst criminals should meet a similar fate, regardless of background. Newsflash, this country already doesn't have much credibility on the world stage, in case that has escaped you. Also, I'm sure China, Russia, Middle Eastern and African countries have a much better humanitarian track record than us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
Many other countries already perceive the U.S. as a very racist nation, and this sort of "final solution" would only reinforce that. I can just see the narrative: we removed the Blacks from Africa, brought them here as slaves, "liberated" them on paper but not in practice, tried isolating and forgetting about them through segregation, created cultures of dependency via entitlements and voting blocs, sold them guns and used them for drugs, and now we're gonna just make the worst ones disappear. This sounds like Robespierre, Pinochet, and Mugabe--not the U.S.
First off, let's at least try to get the facts straight. Europeans didn't just go and "remove" blacks from Africa, that's yet another liberal lie. The blacks in charge over there were more than happy to sell off their kin. In many cases, blacks bought and owned slaves as well:
"According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states.
Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. Black Duke University professor John Hope Franklin recorded that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation.
Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000.
In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860, 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners."
Not to mention the Arab slave trade was documented to be much worse than the transatlantic, but I know only whites should feel guilty for everything. That's what's expected of us of course.
"The transatlantic slave trade was dwarfed by the Arab or Muslim slave trade, which lasted from 650 AD to 1900 AD. It is estimated that a minimum of 18 million Africans were enslaved by Arab slave traders, and that over one million Europeans were enslaved by the Muslim world during the same period." Hidden Facts about Slavery in America - The New Observer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
Most Blacks have not benefited much or at all from the "benefits" you talk about, but they still manage.
Well, you're partly right. They've managed to have incredibly high incarceration rates and illegitimacy rates. They've managed to cause white flight, and the degeneration of nearly every city they've taken majority in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
And do the criminals involved "expect for any significant change in public opinion," as you say? Gangs are all about reputation and public opinion. That's the immediate reality and audience for many criminals. They don't care what people in Whitefish Bay think about them.
Well, then the immediate reality of the reaction from whites in Whitefish Bay will be to take extra caution around them, and call the police when not always warranted (which this thread is about).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
I do somewhat agree with this, but it does imply that Blacks are not the only masters of their fate; that the rest of (White) society is at least partly responsible for what has happened to Blacks.
No, it means that since blacks have wallowed in their own despair and victim hood, they've allowed themselves to be manipulated and misled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
It's unfortunate that you distrust people who study things for a living, and it's also unfortunate that you dismiss some studies because of alleged political leanings rather than on the studies themselves. There is good and bad science from both sides of the issue: the goal should be to find the best of both realms and reconcile them, if possible.
It's even more unfortunate that the people who study these things are trying to push their own nefarious agendas. Instead of following the evidence where it leads, they choose to lead the evidence to false conclusions. Why wouldn't I, or any rationally skeptical person do their own research to discover the truth when it's purposely hidden? If you would have bothered to read what I linked then you would see some evidence. Also, I've noticed there appears to be plenty of posters here who deny the genetic realities between the races. Although the evidence is all around us, from bones structure, to skull shape, predisposition to certain diseases, inherent IQ variations, and ect. The list is very long.
You'd actually have to look for it though. The first page of google only tries to support the leftist narrative. There have been a few scientists who have come forward, but unfortunately they're shouted down as "racist Nazis". Even mentioning it is a sure fire way to have your career ended abruptly and publicly shamed. However, this information is becoming more widely available and it will devastate the whole egalitarian ideology which everything from the left is born from.
Precisely why I said: "mere hours". It's exactly this reason which makes it most ineffective (responding to bold).
You didn't address my main point, though: how do you ensure proper due process if suspected criminals are executed mere hours after allegedly committing crimes? One process is time-consuming by nature, and the other is not.
Quote:
Genocide? No. I believe all of societies worst criminals should meet a similar fate, regardless of background.
If suspected criminals are executed "mere hours" after alleged crimes, one could very well doubt that they had a fair trial. If the vast majority of those executed in this manner are minorities, it sure looks like a cover for genocide, or something very close to it.
Quote:
Newsflash, this country already doesn't have much credibility on the world stage, in case that has escaped you.
It has quite a bit more than Rwanda, Libya, Russia, China, and others. Our credibility isn't perfect, but you seem to suggest that instead of striving to be better, we should keep the bar low.
Quote:
Also, I'm sure China, Russia, Middle Eastern and African countries have a much better humanitarian track record than us.
So, we should strive to be at their level?
Quote:
First off, let's at least try to get the facts straight. Europeans didn't just go and "remove" blacks from Africa, that's yet another liberal lie.
I didn't say one way or the other that they "just" went and removed blacks from Africa, but it's interesting that you decided to spin my words like that, and then trotted out the anti-"liberal" bromides.
Quote:
The blacks in charge over there were more than happy to sell off their kin.
It's more complex than that. Before slavery was a thing in the Americas, Arabs (including Muslims) and other groups had black slavery networks in operation. The Portuguese, Spanish, and other Europeans were involved in the trade during the early modern period, and their work (extending into North America, Caribbean, Brazil, etc.) paved the way for the slave trade that developed in the United States.
Many blacks during these many centuries were in fact kidnapped and "removed" from Africa, but as you suggest, many leaders in Africa were recruited into collaborating in the slave trade. Perhaps some of these leaders were "happy" to do so, but many more were probably tricked or coerced into it. After all, who had the guns and years of trading expertise to make this happen? It isn't like the interactions between the slavers and tribal leaders were similar to meetings between Donald Trump and Warren Buffett. The slavers manipulated their way into their deals, and when leaders resisted, you can bet that the slavers didn't shrug their shoulders and walk away.
But even so, what of it? Leaders may have "agreed" to let slavers remove people for the slave trade, but it isn't like the people who knew what was going on went happily and willingly. Regardless of how the deals were made, people were removed from Africa and taken elsewhere to be slaves. I don't see how even conservatives can take offense at that.
Quote:
In many cases, blacks bought and owned slaves as well
"According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states.
Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. Black Duke University professor John Hope Franklin recorded that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation.
Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000.
In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860, 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners."
Not to mention the Arab slave trade was documented to be much worse than the transatlantic, but I know only whites should feel guilty for everything. That's what's expected of us of course.
There were indeed many free blacks, including many who owned slaves. But the numbers don't make a huge dent in the millions of blacks who were slaves, and whites owned most of the slaves. This isn't in dispute.
Additionally, as you say, not all blacks in the U.S. lived in the south; many lived in the north and in other parts of the emerging nation. The free blacks in the north and elsewhere were generally descended from enslaved blacks, though. Slavery was legal in the north for quite some time, but the abolitionist movement did away with it.
And I didn't say that "only whites should feel guilty for everything," but the fact is that slavery in the U.S. was largely a white-black thing. I didn't say "exclusively"; I said "largely." And I've already mentioned the role of Arabs/Muslims in the slave trade, but as far as I know, they didn't have much to do at all with the U.S. situation.
Quote:
"The transatlantic slave trade was dwarfed by the Arab or Muslim slave trade, which lasted from 650 AD to 1900 AD. It is estimated that a minimum of 18 million Africans were enslaved by Arab slave traders, and that over one million Europeans were enslaved by the Muslim world during the same period." Hidden Facts about Slavery in America - The New Observer
Yes, and many people don't know this. But the original point of this thread was Milwaukee (and the U.S.), and most blacks in Milwaukee are descended from slaves brought over by white slavers and later owned by white slaveholders. And the white slavers were fairly diverse, including Anglos, Dutch, French, Spanish, and even some Jews. White slaveowners also were a diverse lot--primarily of Anglo and German descent, but also of Dutch, French, and other ancestries.
Quote:
Well, you're partly right. They've managed to have incredibly high incarceration rates and illegitimacy rates. They've managed to cause white flight, and the degeneration of nearly every city they've taken majority in.
It's funny how they've "managed" that, isn't it? They certainly got a lot of help from the whites who largely shaped their history in this country, didn't they?
Quote:
Well, then the immediate reality of the reaction from whites in Whitefish Bay will be to take extra caution around them, and call the police when not always warranted (which this thread is about).
Nearly forgot that this thread was really about something different.
Quote:
No, it means that since blacks have wallowed in their own despair and victim hood, they've allowed themselves to be manipulated and misled.
Many are too busy surviving or trying to survive; they, like most of us, don't have much time to wallow.
Quote:
It's even more unfortunate that the people who study these things are trying to push their own nefarious agendas. Instead of following the evidence where it leads, they choose to lead the evidence to false conclusions. Why wouldn't I, or any rationally skeptical person do their own research to discover the truth when it's purposely hidden? If you would have bothered to read what I linked then you would see some evidence.
There are plenty of unhidden sources out there with lots of research and varying conclusions about things like this. If you have a university library nearby--or even a good public library--you'll find more than enough info. But it sounds like you have an axe to grind, and the chip on your shoulder is keeping you from lifting all of the relevant sources to your eyes. As you can see, I've actually agreed with you on some important points, but it is possible for people have legitimate disagreements. These discussions are not just about positing opinions, but also about figuring out why we have the opinions we do.
Quote:
Also, I've noticed there appears to be plenty of posters here who deny the genetic realities between the races. Although the evidence is all around us, from bones structure, to skull shape, predisposition to certain diseases, inherent IQ variations, and ect. The list is very long.
There is evidence on both sides of the debate. What I haven't seen here yet, though, is an adequate definition of "intelligence" or IQ, or even a defense of why IQ (a psychometric measurement that has many manifestations) is an important criterion in assessing a person's propensity to criminal acts.
Quote:
You'd actually have to look for it though. The first page of google only tries to support the leftist narrative. There have been a few scientists who have come forward, but unfortunately they're shouted down as "racist Nazis". Even mentioning it is a sure fire way to have your career ended abruptly and publicly shamed. However, this information is becoming more widely available and it will devastate the whole egalitarian ideology which everything from the left is born from.
This is the problem with relying on the internet for information on a subject that requires much more thoughtfulness and investigation. "Google" is a company's search engine motored by internal and user-influenced algorithms, not an impartial Q&A device.
Does the leftist "egalitarian ideology" have something to do with that pesky "All Men are Created Equal" thing that Jefferson enshrined in the Declaration of Independence? That leftist!
IMO, it's important for people to study issues like these as scientifically as possible, even if the conclusions are not what we want to hear. But research on this issue has supported both sides (and other sides) of the discussion. What does concern many people, though, is that studies concluding differences in cognitive ability according to race, can be used to justify inhumane practices against entire groups of people. And why should it matter if entire groups of humans rank differently in terms of intelligence measures? Are lower scoring groups somehow less deserving than others? If some groups score higher than Caucasians, are those groups more valuable?
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.
