Black People and Crime

[artisticsolution]

A:Its much like your idea that blacks in America should have this 'special' language of their own and not be required to learn a reasonable level of English.

AS:I never said they should not be required to learn a reasonable level of English, I said that they should. But I don't think their "special" language as you call it, is bad. How about we all learn it as well? It's the conformity thing where all black should conform to a white ideal that I don't like. Sooo I have all these questions in my head.

Here is what I don't understand. I think I am hearing you, chaz and SOB saying that it is good to learn a reasonable level of English. (I agree) and that it is bad to have this "special" language (which I don't agree) You see to me...what you are condoning is everyone learning what the elitists insist they learn...or rather learn how to play in an elitist world which to me is condoning that world as "better" but then at the same time dissing that same elitist world as acting as if they are better! I am just flabbergasted! Why not make it a law that says elitist have to learn the special language that you say is not reasonable? Why not make it so elitists need to learn something from blacks in America instead of the other way around? Why not dare to think something different?

A:In your own way you are as racist as tom but I think it part of American culture so I think I understand. As you are a disunited multiculture, only united under the pursuit of individual happiness and the almighty dollar. Its why I think you always need an 'enemy' to define yourselves against, as if you don't have one you'll turn upon each other. But this is just opinion.

AS: Well at least you admitted the truth that it is "opinion." Chaz and SOB state it as fact. I am just saying that the fact is...that all the facts are not in so all we can have is opinion. When science learns more about the human mind and genetics...then maybe we can learn the truth.

A:Take a look at who the heavyweight champions of the boxing world are. I remember many years ago your ideas being applied to the black heavyweight champions of the world.

AS: I don't know anything about sports but I am pretty much guessing that an aboriginal could not take the championship away from them? Now when I say that....does it mean I think an aboriginal should be kept from doing so? No. Does it mean I think they never could. No. Does it mean I think they are less than? No. It simply means that I am asking what makes people different if we all come from the same origin? How did we get different?

[Clinias]

Dr. Yeagley, on his forum BadEagle.com, has written on the Tulsa shootings and has elaborated more on the statistics. He quotes Jared Taylor:

Jared Taylor, president of American Renaissance, the gentleman’s think tank on white race relations in America, made some interesting observations about manipulated statistics in race crime reports. In “Race, Crime, and Violence” (July, 1999), Taylor classified American racial statistics by the categories of White, Black, Asian, and American Indian, so that, when he says “A black is 103 times more likely to rob a white than vice versa,” his white-based statistic is based on Caucasian people—white American people, not including Asians, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, or American Indians. The crimes of Negroes against actual “white” Americans are then even much higher. While in 1997 some 49% of murder victims were black, 90% of the 15,289 murders in that year were ‘same race’ murders. There were 1,100 whites killed by blacks, and 480 blacks killed by whites, which means a black was 15 times more likely to kill a white than vice versa.

In 1994, American Renaissance (Samuel Taylor) reported:


In 1992, police reported 23,760 murders and non-negligent homicides. Although they are only 12 percent of the population, blacks committed about 55 percent of the murders. This means that murder rates, by race, were dramatically different. “Whites” (including Hispanics) killed at a rate of 5.1 per 100,000 while the rate for blacks was 43.3 per 100,000. Blacks are therefore 8.5 times more likely to commit murder than whites and, all by themselves, account for the fact that the United States has a higher murder rate than England or Italy.

These kinds of statistics, in which the figures for at least two other races, Asian and American Indian, are kept separate from the black and white statistics, have not been publicized to any helpful extent. Indeed, what we are seeing now, in the cases of George Zimmerman and Jake England, is the indication of intentional distortion of statistics by categorizing all people as either black or white. This is a clear attempt at reducing the black crime statistics in the United States. Whatever statistics are generation by a ratio of 10 blacks to 100 whites, those statistics will be greatly reduced if the ratio is 10 to 200, or to 500. The larger the “white” group, the smaller the black crime statistics—and also the more ‘intense’ the minority status of the black group. (from Color Me White Even If I'm Indian

The animus of the liberal media in America is so bad that Hispanics and American Indians who kill blacks are called 'White'. The media hate European Americans so much that they fill the need to exagerate. Even the photo of Trayvon Martin is five years old! If some one heard this guy on his web video, you'd be disgusted. Journalism in America is only demogoguery.

[artisticsolution]

That is why racial discrimination is bad idea, and the simple fact of gathering the stats is discriminatory.

I am not talking about stats...stats can be interpreted with bias. I am talking about scientific facts. I am talking about knowing about all parts of the brain functions and all genetic facts. All the evidence is not in....you and I are only speculating at this point.

So what if, science unveiled something in the brain that only certain people have that cause them to be more violent and they also found a "cure" for such violence? Would you say that there should be a mandate to cure all violent behavior?

Conversely, if science found that something in the brain or dna that caused cancer and they also found a cure for all cancer, would you say that there should be a mandate to cure all cancer?

Also, if science found something in the brain that only certain people have that made them more inclined to have a faith in God, would you say that there should be a mandate to cure superstitious type religious belief ?

Why is it so crazy to believe that everyone might not have the identical brain or dna or genetics. What I mean to say is...we know there are people born without arms and legs...is it so weird to think they could be born with missing parts of the brain...or lacking other such things that may cause them to be violent? Is it possible that since science has not fully understood what makes us tick yet that we can't say all violence stems from the acts of elitists...yet?

[chaz wyman]

That is why racial discrimination is bad idea, and the simple fact of gathering the stats is discriminatory.

I am not talking about stats...stats can be interpreted with bias.

Yes you are. You are either talking about urban beliefs (which are worse), or actually gathered stats which objectify arbitrary racial characteristics.

I am talking about scientific facts.

Pass me a fucking bucket!!! There are no statistical facts. A race is arbitrary. You might as well gather stats from people with small noses, and fat toes - THEY WILL SHOW differential characteristics.
People with innie belly buttons or outies will have different intelligence. Think about it!

I am talking about knowing about all parts of the brain functions and all genetic facts. All the evidence is not in....you and I are only speculating at this point. (contradiction; there are no facts, but they would show race is true if there were)

There is very little difference genetically between humans and apes, let alone different humans. There is no link between colour and intelligence - though you might find a statistical correlation- there is no CAUSAL link.
So whilst it might be true that people with small big-toes are less intelligent than those with big ones- why do you think gathering such stats is useful in any way?



So what if, science unveiled something in the brain that only certain people have that cause them to be more violent and they also found a "cure" for such violence? Would you say that there should be a mandate to cure all violent behavior?

They already have and it has nothing to do with race. There is a genetic propensity towards psychotic behaviour. Many CEOs have this gene as do serial killers. Now tell me what are you going to do with this information?


Conversely, if science found that something in the brain or dna that caused cancer and they also found a cure for all cancer, would you say that there should be a mandate to cure all cancer?

They already have. Now tell me what you are going to do with this information.

Also, if science found something in the brain that only certain people have that made them more inclined to have a faith in God, would you say that there should be a mandate to cure superstitious type religious belief ?

Ditto - see above. None of these are related to race though it might be true that some people of colour have it more or less than others - So how do you think you are going to use this information?

Why is it so crazy to believe that everyone might not have the identical brain or dna or genetics.

Despite the fact that we share 98% of our genes with Benobos, and 40% with bananas. We all mange to have unique genes - everyone of us. You are confusing two completely different issues. Race just makes a mockery of genetic differentiation, by categorising those differences into arbitrary categories of skin colour. Then finds correlation in factors used to discriminate for those skin colours. To what end?


What I mean to say is...we know there are people born without arms and legs...is it so weird to think they could be born with missing parts of the brain...or lacking other such things that may cause them to be violent? Is it possible that since science has not fully understood what makes us tick yet that we can't say all violence stems from the acts of elitists...yet?

What has this got to do with race?

[SpheresOfBalance]

"When's the last time you saw a Swede hijack an airplane?"

There's no reasoning with you, because you're a dumb racist ****! I hope you never had any kids, because if you have, you fucked them up, having a portion of your backward ass, inbred gene pool. There should be a law against people with your lack of intellect breeding.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The threads author states that he's a retired lawyer, that's a fucking joke!

[chaz wyman]

"When's the last time you saw a Swede hijack an airplane?"

There's no reasoning with you, because you're a dumb racist ****! I hope you never had any kids, because if you have, you fucked them up, having a portion of your backward ass, inbred gene pool. There should be a law against people with your lack of intellect breeding.

Gosh!! I'm still on the same page.

[chaz wyman]

The threads author states that he's a retired lawyer, that's a fucking joke!

That is completely typical!!!

It's no wonder that inequalities are reproduced with each new generation, reinforcing prejudices and economic inequalities that become self-fulfilling.

[artisticsolution]

Nothing here even remotely comes close to what I mean. You are all beating a strawman in your attempt to stay relevant. You are deliberately lying by taking my words and believing they mean what they meant in the 70's. I am making a completely different argument than you are rebutting.

You are stuck in a 70's mentality and will not break free. But society can't continue in this manner. Eventually trends change...and when they do...it is all too clear what was the problem.

You are perpetuating a victim mentality that sets up the world that you hate. Your mentality divides people and is the reason why you have made the elitists wield even more power than they had with slavery. You shield the masses in this game of good vs. evil...telling them it was the elitists that made them this way...but then in the same breath you turn around and give the elitists much authority when you say it is better to ape them so that we are all the same.

The truth...You're still not bored with this conversation you've been having since the 70's? Oh...and how's it working for you? Do the elitists still keep you down? Are they less powerful or more?

[chaz wyman]

Nothing here even remotely comes close to what I mean.

That's only because you don't get it.

You are all beating a strawman in your attempt to stay relevant. You are deliberately lying by taking my words and believing they mean what they meant in the 70's. I am making a completely different argument than you are rebutting.

In denial.

You are stuck in a 70's mentality and will not break free. But society can't continue in this manner. Eventually trends change...and when they do...it is all too clear what was the problem.

Yep the future is fascist - we all know that.

You are perpetuating a victim mentality that sets up the world that you hate. Your mentality divides people and is the reason why you have made the elitists wield even more power than they had with slavery.

You are the one creating the victims. Creating them statistically. Positing arbirary physical differences against biometric data. Sorry but you are the one that is out of date. Why not Google Francis Galton. He was debunked 80 years ago, and is still bullshit.

You shield the masses in this game of good vs. evil...telling them it was the elitists that made them this way...but then in the same breath you turn around and give the elitists much authority when you say it is better to ape them so that we are all the same.

This bears no resemblance to reality. What drugs are you on?

The truth...You're still not bored with this conversation you've been having since the 70's? Oh...and how's it working for you? Do the elitists still keep you down? Are they less powerful or more?

I'll keep listening to Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Good ideas never go out of fashion.

[artisticsolution]

I'll keep listening to Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Good ideas never go out of fashion.

You think you are listening to mlk or nm? That is laughable. Did they promote violence? No. Did they see a discrimination because of their skin color? Yes Meaning...they noticed how white people used the color of skin against them...hence racism. It is not racism to notice that people have different colored skin! It is only racist if you want to discriminate.

You are behaving like a Christian...there is no discussion there is only accusations. Onward Christian soldier!

[Arising_uk]

AS:I never said they should not be required to learn a reasonable level of English, I said that they should. But I don't think their "special" language as you call it, is bad. How about we all learn it as well? It's the conformity thing where all black should conform to a white ideal that I don't like. Sooo I have all these questions in my head.

See what I mean by it all being race with Americans. Where does the ideal that speaking well is a 'white' ideal? Its an educational ideal.

Here is what I don't understand. I think I am hearing you, chaz and SOB saying that it is good to learn a reasonable level of English. (I agree) and that it is bad to have this "special" language (which I don't agree) You see to me...what you are condoning is everyone learning what the elitists insist they learn...or rather learn how to play in an elitist world which to me is condoning that world as "better" but then at the same time dissing that same elitist world as acting as if they are better! I am just flabbergasted! Why not make it a law that says elitist have to learn the special language that you say is not reasonable? Why not make it so elitists need to learn something from blacks in America instead of the other way around? Why not dare to think something different?

"Elitists", what are these when they are home? The educated? Everyone speaks English with an accent and a dialect. I'm not saying that people cannot speak how they like with each but all should be urged to gain a reasonable level of comprehension and vocabulary as it gives one an advantage in a world that values communication skills. Using a language well improves ones thinking abilities and allows one to access educational opportunities, being able to communicate well allows one to challenge social and cultural boundaries, its much harder to dismiss someone who communicates well. I not saying there should not be a study of dialects but to make it primary or equivalent to the host language is a mistake I think.

AS: Well at least you admitted the truth that it is "opinion." Chaz and SOB state it as fact. I am just saying that the fact is...that all the facts are not in so all we can have is opinion. When science learns more about the human mind and genetics...then maybe we can learn the truth.

What 'truth'? That orientals and asians are cleverer than whites and they are cleverer than blacks, and men are smarter than women, etc.

I think you put to much weight upon genetics in these matters. So far, according to genetics, there are either no races as not one of us is alike or there are tens of 'races' or different species of humans, and its not even down to color to identify them.

AS: I don't know anything about sports but I am pretty much guessing that an aboriginal could not take the championship away from them? Now when I say that....does it mean I think an aboriginal should be kept from doing so? No. Does it mean I think they never could. No. Does it mean I think they are less than? No. It simply means that I am asking what makes people different if we all come from the same origin? How did we get different?

What made us different is explained by Darwins Theory of Evolution, but you'd have to say what you mean by different in this instance? As what makes us different is that none of us have the same gene sequences, each is unique. And even in the case of twins, the actual developmental process in building a human body means that the wiring is slightly different in all of us(See Gerald M. Edelman).

My point was that two to three decades ago the white boxing press was saying, as you do, that there'll never be a white heavyweight again as the black man was racially superior in these matters. But now there are two white champions who have been battering all-comers.

[artisticsolution]

AS:I never said they should not be required to learn a reasonable level of English, I said that they should. But I don't think their "special" language as you call it, is bad. How about we all learn it as well? It's the conformity thing where all black should conform to a white ideal that I don't like. Sooo I have all these questions in my head.

A:See what I mean by it all being race with Americans. Where does the ideal that speaking well is a 'white' ideal? Its an educational ideal.

AS: No, I don't see what you mean, as I am not discriminating "against" one language against another. The reason I said conforming to a "white" ideal is because you brought up "ebonics". "Ebonics" in American is a term for the special jargon that some black people have created. It is a cultural thing that exploded. It does not mean they don't know anyother language. But most people in my country hate that "blacks have made up that language". I hear, "why can't they speak English!" I agree that ebonics is a stupid name (I believe once you said it was stupid a while back when I mentioned it)....I think it is stupid because whoever invented the name used a racially charged divider and so it divided a whole group of people for something that happens naturally in language. i.e. every culture seems to have their own jargon. But not every culture are demonized for it. Anyway, I think you are mistaken if you think black only speak ebonics and white only speak english....only that some blacks (who may still speak "proper english") prefer to speak this "special" language the culture created.

I see it sort of like Jazz. Highly creative. So when people shun it...I see that the same as shunning any other language or art form . Why does it matter if it came from the elite or non elite? black or white? Is it not still just as creative? I think anyone can learn english and jargon both together and it is the reason for alot of words being created and given "dictionary" status if you will. So I think you are wrong to imply that it is either or...I think people can speak both.

Also, If you think that speaking a reasonable level of English helps an "educational ideal", then how do you account for those who speak other languages such as chinese, italian, spanish, etc. They too would have difficulty with meaning or understanding but I think it is the wrong thing to say, "Everyone should speak English." Not that I think you are saying this...only that some people in my country do...they think it a crime almost to not learn English. And then they look down on people who prefer to speak Ebonics...no matter what skin color. Wasn't every language started by a cultural idea? If not then why don't we all speak the same language? And what does it matter if we don't?

As far as there being a "white" ideal...I just assumed from the conversations in this thread that chaz and sob and you were talking about the elite i.e the people who rule america and I just assumed you all thought those people were white. That is why I made the distinction between white and black. If you don't think the ruling "class" or "elite" is white, then how can you say they are to blame for racism? I don't understand.

A:Using a language well improves ones thinking abilities and allows one to access educational opportunities, being able to communicate well allows one to challenge social and cultural boundaries, its much harder to dismiss someone who communicates well. I not saying there should not be a study of dialects but to make it primary or equivalent to the host language is a mistake I think.

AS: I agree. But blacks do also speak english...ebonics came from speaking english with an southern accent. What I have against calling ebonics "bad" language is that some may think that just because a group of people speak this way means they are less than. Rather than thinking, "this person prefers to speak this way but can also speak and understand proper english as well."

A:What 'truth'? That orientals and asians are cleverer than whites and they are cleverer than blacks, and men are smarter than women, etc.

AS:No, you are the one who brought it to my attention in the first place. I never looked at it that way until you said something. I was responding to this statement of yours if you look back at our conversation:

A:In your own way you are as racist as tom but I think it part of American culture so I think I understand. As you are a disunited multiculture, only united under the pursuit of individual happiness and the almighty dollar. Its why I think you always need an 'enemy' to define yourselves against, as if you don't have one you'll turn upon each other. But this is just opinion.

I was saying that at least when you call me a racist and group most Americans in that category that you admit it is your opinion and not truth. I think alot of us get caught up that our opinions are the truth. I don't see you do that. You are honest in that way.

A:I think you put to much weight upon genetics in these matters. So far, according to genetics, there are either no races as not one of us is alike or there are tens of 'races' or different species of humans, and its not even down to color to identify them.

AS: This may be true. But I still have the question...that I might add no one has addressed even though I have asked it in as many ways as I can think of...but here it goes again...

If we came from a single orgin....then how did we become so different? I understand what you say about genetics and about gene sequence. But what I don't understand is how, if we came from one origin (way back when it was the first man....the first woman) then how come so many cultures? And how come some nations are predominately dark as opposed to some being predominantly light? Why aren't their more multi cultural as you call America? And why did some cultures seem to think more along the lines of equality among their citizens and other cultures think that men should rule and religion should be their government? How come they divided so drastically? How come, esp in Europe, there wasn't more of a multi cultural mix with the middle east and Africa?

Just because I don't understand these questions doesn't mean I don't understand why people should be equal and not discriminated against. again...why is it racist to ask these questions?

A: (See Gerald M. Edelman).

AS: I will look him up.

A:My point was that two to three decades ago the white boxing press was saying, as you do, that there'll never be a white heavyweight again as the black man was racially superior in these matters. But now there are two white champions who have been battering all-comers.

AS: Good point. Steroids play a factor now in sports not that I think they are on steroids...only that it cause a physical change in the body. Is there a natural chemical that people can have that causes the same?

[chaz wyman]

I'll keep listening to Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. Good ideas never go out of fashion.

You think you are listening to mlk or nm? That is laughable. Did they promote violence? No. Did they see a discrimination because of their skin color? Yes Meaning...they noticed how white people used the color of skin against them...hence racism. It is not racism to notice that people have different colored skin! It is only racist if you want to discriminate.

You are behaving like a Christian...there is no discussion there is only accusations. Onward Christian soldier!

A few things worth mentioning.
NM did advocate violent struggle. Your ignorance is beyond belief. He was pressed into the need for it because of blind idiots like you that found it acceptable to gather statistics and make judgements, like you, about people and their colour. It was people like you living in a cosy S Africa that took it as obvious that black people were different - different enough to get a different type of education and live in different houses. And like you, the white people sat back and said what's the matter it is obvious that black people have genetic differences; is it not obvious that their intelligence is not the same as white; and like you they considered all this as perfectly obvious that the idea of a race is a valid concept.

MLK did not advocate violence. But he did manage to change most Americans' obsession on race. Clearly his words and thoughts have still yet to reach your mind.

And yes. I do think I am listening to their ideas, though why you have chosen to display your ignorance on the matter of violence - or even mention it at all I have no idea.

Your final comment and 'accusation' on Christianity is beyond me. You seem so be struggling with basic reality at the moment.


FYI On NM from Wiki

Armed anti-apartheid activities
In 1961 Mandela became leader of the ANC's armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (translated Spear of the Nation, and also abbreviated MK), which he co-founded.[36] He coordinated sabotage campaigns against military and government targets, making plans for a possible guerrilla war if the sabotage failed to end apartheid.[37] Mandela also raised funds for MK abroad and arranged for paramilitary training of the group.[37]
Fellow ANC member Wolfie Kodesh explains the bombing campaign led by Mandela: "When we knew that we [sic] going to start on 16 December 1961, to blast the symbolic places of apartheid, like pass offices, native magistrates courts, and things like that ... post offices and ... the government offices. But we were to do it in such a way that nobody would be hurt, nobody would get killed."[38] Mandela said of Wolfie: "His knowledge of warfare and his first hand battle experience were extremely helpful to me."[14]
Mandela described the move to armed struggle as a last resort; years of increasing repression and violence from the state convinced him that many years of non-violent protest against apartheid had not and could not achieve any progress.[14][39]
Later, mostly in the 1980s, MK, the organisation co-founded by Mandela, waged a guerrilla war against the apartheid government in which many civilians became casualties..[37] For example, the Church Street bomb in Pretoria killed 19 people and injured 217. After he had become President, Mandela later admitted that the ANC, in its struggle against apartheid, also violated human rights, criticising those in his own party who attempted to remove statements mentioning this from the reports of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[40]
Until July 2008 Mandela and ANC party members were barred from entering the United States—except to visit the United Nations headquarters in Manhattan—without a special waiver from the US Secretary of State, because of their South African apartheid government era designation as terrorists.[41][42]

[SpheresOfBalance]

Here AS, see if you can read and understand this! I have a funny feeling you'll twist and turn this to suit your needs as well.

Oh well, all one can do is lead a fool to knowledge, unfortunately you can't make them think!

"Since the 1960's a majority of scientists have come to understand the concept of race as a social construct mapped on to phenotypes in different culturally determined ways, and not as a biological concept. A 2000 study by Celera Genomics found that human beings largely have similar genetic input, and that citizens of any given village in the world, whether in Scotland or Tanzania, hold 90 percent of the genetic variability that humanity has to offer. The study found only .01% of genes account for a person's external appearance."
--Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows". The New York Times. 22 August 2000.

"Biological adaptation also plays a role in phenotype of bodily features and skin type. According to Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, "Skin color and body size are less subject to genetic influence since they are also affected by exposure to the sun and diet, but there is always a hereditary component that can be quite important.""
--The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/ca ... nes.html--

So what do you honestly think of your gene theme now? Is it carrying a slightly lighter load? If not it should be!