Yeah, but can you tell me why they destroy their OWN neighborhoods? That concept I don't understand and would never advocate ....yet blacks do it on a regular basis. Why? Blacks ain't the only ones who've been victims of massive injustice. And does that give them the right to take the law into their own hands????? Is vigilantism okay for them because they're black??? How would they like it if we went back to the days of vigilantes in the south?? Let's all take up arms and torches whenever we're a little pissed off ...would you excuse THAT concept so readily? Baron Max
What are "blacks" anyway? When individual human beings choose to make irresponsible and reckless actions they are to be held responsible, irregardless of the "oppression" or "racism" society has ground into them. That these criminals tend to be black is a product of their widespread irresponsibility as a specific group of people.
Has anyone who posts on this forum actually known anyone who is black? Or more specifically known anyone who is not white and male? I think you are all spending far too much time cooped up in your own back yards. There's a beautiful world out there people. If there were ever a group guilty of widespread irresponsibility I'd taking a good hard look at the white man!
Oh, sure! I knew and worked with a structural engineer who, in my opinion, was one of the best engineers in the market. But, let's not forget that other blacks would have called him "Uncle Tom" ....so what now?? He was a great guy and a great engineer, but he was black, but he was ostracized from his own "race" for "giviing in" to the white establishment!!! You haven't seen the newscasts or read the papers lately have you?? Or are you just living in your own little world of idealism without the dirty, filthy, nasty, stinking, horrors of reality to interfere? Oh, I agree! But that don't change shit, does it? No, of course not. Baron Max
We also have a tendancy to make sweeping generalisations. I'm not an idealist but perhaps you are a defeatist. The world has always had it's filth, nastiness, stink and horrors; natural and human. But if you or I are deliberately adding to that then we are part of the problem. Have you ever thought of moving? I know quite a few black people. News; some are religious, some are athiest/agnostic, some run their own businesses, others sell their labour, some are students, some vote red, others vote blue or yellow, some don't bother to vote. Some get on well with each other, some don't. Some get on with white people others don't. Some drive cars, others prefer to walk. Some seek trouble others don't. Do you see where we are going here? The world is populated by one race; the human race; joyful, annoying, dangerous, creative, stupid. I don't think colour coding will do anything to change it.
and therin lies the problem there were some interesting riots near my neck of the woods this weekend - not a black person in sight plenty of men full of their own self importance though
Sniffy: I've come to the conclusion that there is actually less conflict in the world than ever before and that increasing numbers of people have increasingly sophisticated conflict resolution tools at their disposal (and I don't mean weapons). Thaskin in Thailand is sending troops to southern Thailand because Buddhists and Muslims are killiing each other. Nepal. The king is at war with his own people. Maoists and government forces are fighting in the country. Palistine and Isreal. US in Afghanistan and Iraq thinking of going into Iran. Chechnya and Russia still go at it. India and Pakistan clash over Kashmir. Sri Lanka is caught in the Tamil conflict. There is conflict in the Congo, Sierra Leone, Eritrea and Ethiopia have had 30 years of conflict. We know about Rwanda. Fighting in Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria (though the latter may have ended its conflict, not sure). East Timor conflict with Indonesia raged but that has recently ended. Guerilla's live in the Philippino hills. There was Yugoslavia. A country once known as Tibet is under Chinese siege. The UN probably wouldn't agree with you. What we know is that there isn't war INSIDE the west. Sniff": Most societies are becoming more 'liberal'...more 'tolerant'. Which societies? I would like a list of countries that are becoming more liberal and tolerant outside the west and examples of how it is expressed in law/civil society. To simply say we all belong to the human race is to sugar coat the reality which is tribal, ethnic and religious conflict plaguing much of the world. Its a nice sentiment and there ARE people who can live with their neighbor but lets not be naive. Racism/prejudice/discrimination exists, many societies are hierarchial or recognize caste, these are realities. Much of Africa's conflict stems from colonial rule where artificial borders were created ignoring tribal/ethnic/religious differences. As for integration/desegregation take a look at this link http://melanet.com/uncut/forums/messages/24/140.html?WednesdayOctober420000612pm They are black and questioning whether integration helped or hindered their communities. No one calls them racist for suggesting that integration has its pitfalls.
lucy Read my posts again. I'm saying there is less conflict and I stick by that. I'm not saying there isn't conflict. Remember: Imperialist wars within Europe and the rest of the world. Imperial Japan? Cambodia? WW1 and 2 Boer Wars, Opium wars, revolutions (English, French, Russian, American to name a few). People say there is more conflict now than there was. There has always been conflict but today's conflicts are relatively minor and local in comparison. What is racist and that I object strongly to (again if you read the posts) is to say that all crime/conflict is down to black people. Hell yes that is a racist thing to say! I think we have to keep saying that we belong to one single race that is commonly known as 'human'. We have to promote this evidence based on the findings of the geneticists and give them more money so they can continue their research. We also have to seperate the state from religion as far as possible (that is not to say that people should not 'believe' but that it is a private, individual matter). CALL it sugar coating if you like but if we don't do it we will have failed as a species.
Just saying it does NOT make it so. Do you have any stats or any other credible evidence? I think there's lots MORE conflict today than ever before in history. So, if I say THAT and you say the opposite .....? Well, if we want to talk about it like that, then there can be no such thing as "racism", right? In which case, we have no problem!! Other species have lived millions of years longer than man, most of them are "racist", yet they've survived quite well ...until man came along and invented big fuckin' guns!! How do you see that as a "failure" of an entire specie? And would you see the failure of, say, the African elephants is because the maintain segragated herds? ...they won't let other elephants from other herds join their herd. Baron Max
You want me to do your homework for you? You never post any evidence to support your arguments and I think we already established that animals are not racist they are in fact interdependant as are humans. The animals we see today have evolved alongside humans and their ancestors. Why not look at the death toll from WW2 61 million with the death toll in both Iraq wars? The stats are there it may take a while for me to find them (again). Found them! http://www.secondworldwar.co.uk/casualty.html During WW1 - battle of the somme the 20 000 brits died in one day. How about the murder of 6 millions jews (plus 200 000 'others') by the nazis in WW2. What 'confict' today could match that. Rwanda? Cambodia? Bosnia? Afganistan? I contend: today's conflicts are fewer, smaller and localised and yes often fallout from colonial messing. Sometimes religious or tribal but minor in comparison to the conflicts of the past. If you disagree where is your evidence? And herds are the equivalent of extended families. I agree extended family accept outsiders unless through marriage or adoption however :bugeye: a family is not the same as a species. duh!
That's 'cause I hardly ever make statements of fact ....I mostly question the foolish statements of others!! "Alongside" .....but NOT integrated!! If the animals live over there, and the humans lived other yonder, that is NOT integration, it's distinctly segragation! And "conflict" does not neccesarily equate to number of deaths! There's a big difference, don't you know? Duh? You're right ...and that makes the animal world even MORE segragationalist, don't it?! Even some families won't let others of the same specie live within their territory! C'mon, Sniffy, get it right. Baron Max
Baron You "hardly ever make statement of facts" - well that's certainly true! You do however make a number of foolish statements. Lets do something a bit more subtle here and look at a conflict and the number of deaths involved: Take 61 million in WW2 - thats a big number spread across several countries indeed whole continents. If you look at that death toll and then add casualties (the site may do this i cant be arsed looking right now) you could probably come up with a figure for the number of people involved in conflict for the period of WW2. My 'guess' here is that there were far more people involved in conflict in WW2 alone than are involved in conflict today. And on the species issue: My family lives in my house. My cousin's family wants to come and live in my house too - I might just consider letting them- not that there's a lot of room. Now say all my blood relatives want to come and live in my house - well it's not going to work they are family and all but this patch of house won't sustain them. Now this refusal is not based on speciesm or hatred it is based on practicality. However there is plenty of space around my house and the family would be welcome to come and live there as are people who are totally unrelated, presbetarian or French. A territory is a unit of space shared by millions of different species (if you include insects) none of which (apart from HUMANS) will ever go to war over it. An elephant may see off a lion but only because it may be afraid that the lion is going to eat it. The same elephant may see off another elephant because it threatens to take over the herd. That outsider may just take over the herd but then peace will return under the auspices of the new leader. The outsider will not persecute or exterminate the rest of the herd or vice versa. No species would eradicate another willfully.
No shit?! Takes a fool to know one, I think. You are losing the war, barren. Care to think for a change and explain yourself? Don't it? Are you really from Texas? I could believe it. Yeah, get it "Baron" right.
As I said earlier ....conflict does NOT equate to number of deaths. (Yes, that's a statement ....one of few that you'll see me make, so remember it.) Sniffy, I think that's wonderful .....but why are you trying to FORCE others to have that same attitude? That ain't very nice of you, is it? And what else do you wish to FORCE onto others??? ...many more? ...just a few more? Or will you just ride along until you see something else that you want to FORCE onto others, then just do so at your whim??? That's a dictator, isn't it??? Maybe that's exactly the way racists see the issue of blacks moving into their neighborhood/city/state/area, too? Ever thing of that?? Baron Max
