Derec

That is a wrong that definitely should be righted and precautions taken place that make it less lilkely to happen again. But, even though these people have a real grievance, rioting would be really unproductive.

Unlilke that case, people of Benton Harbor rioted over a death of a man who is solely responsible for his present condition. Blaming the cops for chasing him is missing the point is that he should have stopped when he saw the flashing lights, not accelerated to 120 mph.

Please note that I have not stated any races here. This is because the race is irrelevant, it is how people behave that is. Unfortunately people like Jesse Jackson always like to bring race into anything.

Well, prohibition for young adults is an unjust (and counterproductive) law and it is an issue college students have an absolute right to address and protest against. However, riots are clearly not a solution, that is a given.

Also this is behavior of some college students, and not linked to a particular race. Or do you mean black college students do not participate in underage drinking and violent behavior?

Quote:

I'd say the people of Benton Harbor have a far clearer understanding of what matters in life.

And what would that be? The only way these people (meaning people in poverty regardless of race) can improve their lot in life is through education and hard work. Not through rioting and playing the race/class card.

UMoC

conkermaniac

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the evident racism in that article. Lestat, you are right in saying that the author included the facts, but you failed to mention that he "forgot" to emphasize the poverty and frustration of the Benton Harbor citizens, and included his own racist viewpoints into the article as well. The article is so racist from the get-go that I don't even know where to begin. There are just so many incorrect assumptions, statements that portray whites as innocent little angels, and statements that portray blacks as savages that you must wonder how objective this article really is. Also emphasis on certain words, such as "allegedly" and "unanswered" should tell you something. To every story there are two sides. A reliable media source will present both. An unreliable media source will present only one side. The latter is true for this site. Anybody who fails to see all of this is truly an idiot.

The logo at the top-right corner says "Adversity.net: For victims of reverse discrimination". Although I agree that whites shouldn't be discriminated, this is really only a sly way of saying "white supremacy". Lestat, you might as well have gotten an article from the KKK, and it would have been equally as "objective".

Koyaanisqatsi

:notworthy

That just about says it all. So much for any "point" lestat was trying to make (whatever that may have been).

Derec

The point Lestat is making is simply this: It was not a race issue, it was made such by the rioters and race-baiters.
It was simply a criminal fleeing from the police and getting his ass killed, not an instance of police brutality or otherwise unfair treatment towards or anything like that.

My earlier question of whether rioters that attacked white motorists will be charged under hate-crime laws has not been answered yet neither.

UMoC

smugg

Could it be that you aren't familiar with American History? It seems that you are writing from China so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let me try to clear up some ignorance...

Far from "coddling" black people, the United States has systematically denied minorities quality schooling, housing, employment opportunities, and access to the legal system for over two hundred years. Yes, conditions are far better today than they once were, and I think everyone should be aware and thankful of that. The problem is that it hasn't completely gone away.

The United States practiced race-based slavery when it was originally formed and recognized as a nation (European masters with African slaves had been present in North America for hundreds of years before that, but let's just talk about the United States). Up until 1865 the practice of human slavery was considered legal by the government of the U.S. and several states, then the thirteenth amendment to our Constitution made it illegal. During the years slavery was unaddressed by the Constitution, free black families able to accumulate any wealth in any state (even free ones) were so few as to be statistically insignificant. Then, after the thirteenth amendment practically all black citizens and families, while no longer slaves, were faced with the prospect of being the U.S.s poorest demographic while most of the wealthy white people and institutions who benefited from their stolen labor were financially compensated for the loss of their slaves!

So the situation you have when slavery is finally abolished is a class of people in the United States whose ancestors brought no wealth with them to the new world and who had been kept from accumulating any wealth during the time their families (and remember that most slaves were not allowed to marry so even finding your family would have been difficult) had been in the country. Most black people were prevented from voting (Legally. Although the fifteenth amendment guaranteed voting rights to all citizens, poll taxes were used to keep the nation's poorest -- guess who -- from exercising that right. This situation was finally addressed in 1964 -- ninety-nine years later -- by the twenty-fourth amendment.) and were segregated into under-funded schools. Home schooling was not an option for most since a literate slave was extremely rare. One hundred years later, most southern states still did not prosecute white people who murdered black people. Technically, the black people were citizens and murdering citizens should have been illegal, but a law unenforced is no law at all -- what I'm saying is that up until forty years ago (within the lifetime of most people in the world) it was not illegal to lynch a black person in some parts of the united states.

Even in today's United States a black person is far more likely to be convicted of the same crime a white person is accused of, will serve a longer sentence than a white person convicted of the same crime, and is far more likely than a white person to be executed for the exact same crime. Studies consistently find discrepancies in quality of schooling for black children in the U.S. and unemployment always hits the black communities (often the poorest) first and hardest.

Affirmative action (according to the Oxford Essential Guide to the U.S. Government) is "designed to go beyond mere equality of opportunity to provide limited kinds of preferential treatment for the victims of long-term racial or gender-based discrimination..."

Since no reparations have been made for the stolen labor of the American practice of slavery and its legacy lives on over one hundred years later, I think -- no, scratch that -- It's obviously appropriate in our situation.

_______________

Oh, and, Lestat, the Watts riots were not 'after Rodney King'. Get an encyclopedia or take a class why don't you?

Loren Pechtel

Agreed--you run from the law without damned good reason and if you die it's your fault.

There are some quite reasonable arguments against most police pursuits, but the issue is innocents who get hurt. If the guy running dies the gene pool has been improved.

So what if they said the police didn't need to chase--it seems like every time the police kill a black here there's a bunch that come out of the woodwork and say he never would have done what the cops said he did.

Loren Pechtel

Invalid comparison--what's his record?

Loren Pechtel

We do need to quit the coddling but you're going too far.

Loren Pechtel

The reason for it is that drinking age 21 cuts down the number of drunk drivers on the road.

Loren Pechtel

So what if they are poor? The guy did it to himself. There's nobody to blame but him.