George Zimmerman, the killer of young Trayvon Martin, was found 'not guilty'.

[nathan1977]

Though I disagree with the conclusions this article draws (and it refers to Zimmerman as "cherubic" and "contrite and mortified," which I think is a bit much), I think it does ask a fascinating question: when racism is latent rather than blatant, what does leadership look like for the future Sharptons and Jacksons of the world? Can you replicate the civil rights movement of the 1960s, when churches, NGOs, etc. worked together across racial lines? When moral indignation at events that are easily-definable goes away, what are we left with?

Shelby Steele: The Decline of the Civil-Rights Establishment - WSJ.com

And I thought this was an interesting commentary as well:
A Message to Trayvon Martin Sympathizers | Romany Malco

I think there are valuable questions being raised here...

[deep]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i am pretty much the exact opposite of a redneck. but i suppose the person was looking for a white person slur, and that's what came to mind.

Could this be guilt by association?
Isn't Memphis a good ol' boy from the South?

[U2girl]

Michael Dunn remains adamant in police interview after killing Jordan Davis | jacksonville.com

[U2girl]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Or the eerily similar:

Roderick Scott Trial: What’s Wrong with New York?�|�The Martialist

There weren't three drunk/high Trayvon Martins breaking into Zimmerman's car. And one of the kids openly attacked Scott.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by deep

Could this be guilt by association?
Isn't Memphis a good ol' boy from the South?

this incident happened before we were together,

but Memphis is definitely from PWT* roots.

being gay saved him more than Jesus ever could.






* - mean humorously and with love.

[deep]

thanks for sharing

some of me best memories include PWT, too much beer, and cheap cigarettes

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

What if TM had been a young woman? A teenage girl, being followed by a relatively burly man who appears to be stalking her in a car, who then gets out of the car, etc.

slightly related, in some of our lovely rape threads, we've had men talk about how it utterly guts them when, for example, they've been walking down the street alone at night and perhaps a few steps behind a woman walking alone, and the woman speeds up, or stiffens up, or gives a furtive glance in your direction, or does something to give off signals that she knows you're there and that you're a man and that therefore you're a potential threat to her. it feels awful, it's happened to me.

that's likely how many black people have been treated by white people since they were children.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by U2girl

There weren't three drunk/high Trayvon Martins breaking into Zimmerman's car. And one of the kids openly attacked Scott.

Were you expecting the situation to be exactly the same? Is that the only way for you to see the similarities? Completely unreasonable and thoughtless.

The fact that the teenagers were breaking into cars is irrelevant; they weren't killed in the process. These were both SELF DEFENSE cases. In fact, self defense is way more evident in the Zimmerman case than it was in the Scott case. It's funny you bring up one of the kids "openly attacking" Scott. He didn't even make it that far. Scott remained untouched; He shot as he was being charged. At least Zimmerman had the shit kicked out of him first. HE was the one being openly attacked. What are you even talking about??
How about playing neighbourhood watch with a gun?
"I wanted to stop them before they could get away,” he admitted. “We live so far away, they would have been gone before police got there.”
Quick, who said that? Zimmerman or Scott?

Your bias is disgustingly obvious.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

slightly related, in some of our lovely rape threads, we've had men talk about how it utterly guts them when, for example, they've been walking down the street alone at night and perhaps a few steps behind a woman walking alone, and the woman speeds up, or stiffens up, or gives a furtive glance in your direction, or does something to give off signals that she knows you're there and that you're a man and that therefore you're a potential threat to her. it feels awful, it's happened to me.

that's likely how many black people have been treated by white people since they were children.

Do you think attitudes and bias would change if the rate of urban black males committing crimes plummeted to insanely low levels? Let's say over the course of a generation or two - the urban black male was more known for randomly handing out $10 on subways, savings old ladies from getting mugged, giving refurbished electronics to kids, being great fathers, terrific students, working harder than anyone else...etc - do you think if these acts dominated the culture (and not only through deed - but through art, songs, movies) the negative profiling and fear of the black urban male would cease?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Do you think attitudes and bias would change if the rate of urban black males committing crimes plummeted to insanely low levels? Let's say over the course of a generation or two - the urban black male was more known for randomly handing out $10 on subways, savings old ladies from getting mugged, giving refurbished electronics to kids, being great fathers, terrific students, working harder than anyone else...etc - do you think if these acts dominated the culture (and not only through deed - but through art, songs, movies) the negative profiling and fear of the black urban male would cease?

Maybe for some. I think the younger you go the more people see a person rather than a monolithic entity.

But it's quite clear given the politics that govern the base of the GOP that many people have a vested, political, and monetary interest in keeping black Americans a suspect class, and in maintaining an underclass. That won't change, at least not for another generation, or until the GOP becomes something other than a protest movement against all things Obama.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Maybe for some. I think the younger you go the more people see a person rather than a monolithic entity.

But it's quite clear given the politics that govern the base of the GOP that many people have a vested, political, and monetary interest in keeping black Americans a suspect class, and in maintaining an underclass. That won't change, at least not for another generation, or until the GOP becomes something other than a protest movement against all things Obama.

Irvine, seriously now - do you really think the leaders of either party really care about the urban black male - or women, or white men, or veterans, or zombies, or anything other than what establishes and maintains their ability to allocate wealth to themselves and to their backers?

I watched Season One of "House of Cards" a little while back - I'm not sure how accurate it is, but it's how I perceive politicians of both parties: ruthless, charming, smart, opportunistic, amoral, and - again - ruthless. Those who try to do the right thing are quickly marginalized, discredited, slandered - and if that doesn't work, killed. Either party would sacrifice the long term health of any group in return for a short term boost in ratings just before an election.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by AEON

Do you think attitudes and bias would change if the rate of urban black males committing crimes plummeted to insanely low levels? Let's say over the course of a generation or two - the urban black male was more known for randomly handing out $10 on subways, savings old ladies from getting mugged, giving refurbished electronics to kids, being great fathers, terrific students, working harder than anyone else...etc - do you think if these acts dominated the culture (and not only through deed - but through art, songs, movies) the negative profiling and fear of the black urban male would cease?

Oh dear.


In the old days, you know of real discrimination, many black parents told their children that they couldn't merely be as good as their white counterparts, they had to be better. There was no room for being a normal human being with good days and bad days, good choices and regrettable ones.

It appears we haven't come so far after all.

I would encourage you to reflect on what your statement is suggesting about your own views about young black males, about who commits most of the crime in this country. I can tell you that I work with black kids every day, and there are many that buy into what I feel is a destructive pop culture; my goal is to get them to engage that culture more critically. However, the vast majority of them are good kids who I expect will go on to great success. I can name only a handful that seem to be headed down the wrong track. But here's the thing: I could say the same if I taught white kids. There are issues in the black community, sure, but suggesting such a saintly standard for black boys is frankly another kind of racism.

I would also ask you to consider whether the ridiculously high standard you've set for changing perceptions about black males is fair or reflects real, HUMAN equality.

Couple of other things for you to chew on. I admire the take this young man and his parents have, and sadly, it's necessary, I think. But ask yourself if such an approach to live represents true equality?

https://www.facebook.com/wesley.hall...51578601113860

Here's another one:

White-on-White Crime: It Goes Against the False Media Narrative

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

many people have a vested, political, and monetary interest in keeping black Americans a suspect class, and in maintaining an underclass.

Originally Posted by AEON

do you really think the leaders. . . really care about the urban black male - or women, or white men, or veterans, or zombies, or anything other than what establishes and maintains their ability to allocate wealth to themselves and to their backers?

So in other words you both agree.

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Though I disagree with the conclusions this article draws (and it refers to Zimmerman as "cherubic" and "contrite and mortified," which I think is a bit much), I think it does ask a fascinating question: when racism is latent rather than blatant, what does leadership look like for the future Sharptons and Jacksons of the world? Can you replicate the civil rights movement of the 1960s, when churches, NGOs, etc. worked together across racial lines? When moral indignation at events that are easily-definable goes away, what are we left with?

Very good questions being raised here. It's what makes navigating the racial issues today so much trickier. I almost feel that the only real solution is simply time.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

And I thought this was an interesting commentary as well:
A Message to Trayvon Martin Sympathizers | Romany Malco

One of the "good ones", eh. I would counter with this:

White-on-White Crime: It Goes Against the False Media Narrative

It's worth noting that there has never been uniform agreement among African-Americans on how full social equality should be achieved. Google the differences in approach between say W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington. The Romany Malco approach seems more for the approval of a white audience than it does for the edification of fellow blacks.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

White-on-White Crime: It Goes Against the False Media Narrative

This is a statistically dishonest article.

"The truth? As the largest racial group, whites commit the majority of crimes in America. In particular, whites are responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes. With respect to aggravated assault, whites led blacks 2-1 in arrests; in forcible-rape cases, whites led all racial and ethnic groups by more than 2-1. And in larceny theft, whites led blacks, again, more than 2-1."

When you then take those ratios and realize that white people outnumber black people by nearly 6 to 1, there does indeed seem to be a problem with black crime more so than with whites (3 fold)
I always see the serial killer 'statistic' thrown around; "well, white people are more likely to be serial killers than black people", well yes, but only because there are so many more white people in the US, a serial killer is more likely to be white. But per capita, blacks are nearly twice as likely to be serial killers than whites. Per capita is the only honest way to weigh the numbers. That shouldn't even need to be said.
This isn't finger pointing; they're merely facts of which I'm sure there are a variety of factors. But articles like the one posted seem to almost purposefully be muddying the issue with sloppy, out of context statistics, hoping nobody would notice.

"Mathematical truth" my ass

[maycocksean]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

This is a statistically dishonest article.

"The truth? As the largest racial group, whites commit the majority of crimes in America. In particular, whites are responsible for the vast majority of violent crimes. With respect to aggravated assault, whites led blacks 2-1 in arrests; in forcible-rape cases, whites led all racial and ethnic groups by more than 2-1. And in larceny theft, whites led blacks, again, more than 2-1."

When you then take those ratios and realize that white people outnumber black people by nearly 6 to 1, there does indeed seem to be a problem with black crime more so than with whites (3 fold)
I always see the serial killer 'statistic' thrown around; "well, white people are more likely to be serial killers than black people", well yes, but only because there are so many more white people in the US, a serial killer is more likely to be white. But per capita, blacks are nearly twice as likely to be serial killers than whites. Per capita is the only honest way to weigh the numbers. That shouldn't even need to be said.
This isn't finger pointing; they're merely facts of which I'm sure there are a variety of factors. But articles like the one posted seem to almost purposefully be muddying the issue with sloppy, out of context statistics, hoping nobody would notice.

"Mathematical truth" my ass

I understand that, and I'm betting the author of the article does too. The point of the article is that inordinate media attention is paid to the issue of "black on black crime", and that media coverage suggests--and many people believe--that most crime is committed by black people. Many whites are more inclined to be fearful of a black person committing a crime, when simply by virtue of there being more white people in America than black, they probably should be fearing another white person.

Here's the thing: one of the ideologies that propped up the old institutions of slavery, that enabled many slave owners to continue to think of themselves as good people, and that continued under segregation was the idea that there is something inherently wrong with black people. The institutions are gone of course, but that toxic idea remains and it is damaging not just to race relations, but also to black people themselves who subconsciously accept these ideas. If you don't feel that there is inherently something wrong with most black people (barring the exceptions), please by all means clarify.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I understand that, and I'm betting the author of the article does too. The point of the article is that inordinate media attention is paid to the issue of "black on black crime", and that media coverage suggests--and many people believe--that most crime is committed by black people. Many whites are more inclined to be fearful of a black person committing a crime, when simply by virtue of there being more white people in America than black, they probably should be fearing another white person.

But even you're interpreting the statistics wrong here. If we're assuming one should be fearful of an individual based on crime statistics, then fearing a black person is still 3 times more rational. We're talking about the likelyhood of a person of a specific race being prone to committing a crime (I'm still operating under the assumption stated above which I don't ascribe to). A random black person on the street would be 3 times more likely to commit a crime than a random white person. The overall percentage of people making up that race in the country is completely irrelevant. Statistics don't work that way. And when we then delve into homicide rates, regardless of the 6 to 1 ratio of whites to blacks, the base numbers alone - without being adjusted per capita - show a larger number - not proportion - of blacks than whites. The adjusted ratio ends up being somewhere around 16 to 1. Now I'm only bringing this up because of the article; really it has nothing to do with the Zimmerman/Martin trial. But pretending a problem isn't a problem by playing fast and loose (and flat out wrong) with statistics isn't helping anything

[deep]

if you encounter a black male on the street , what are the odds that he will visit crime on you,
answer- somewhere between 0 and 1 %


if you encounter a white male on the street , what are the odds that he will visit crime on you,
answer- somewhere between 0 and 1 %


if you encounter a person pointing a gun at you, the odds are much higher than 1% that they will visit crime on you , regardless of amount of melanin present in their skin,

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by deep

if you encounter a black male on the street , what are the odds that he will visit crime on you,
answer- somewhere between 0 and 1 %


if you encounter a white male on the street , what are the odds that he will visit crime on you,
answer- somewhere between 0 and 1 %

Nobody is arguing that crime statistics aren't relatively low when compared to the general population. This isn't Mad Max and that point is irrelevant. Now try looking at the numbers I gave you again and see if you can spot anything wrong.

[Jive Turkey]

But we're off topic. As I said, it's irrelevant to this case anyway.

Unless of course we want to talk about fact massaging which has certainly run rampant in a way rarely seen