here's one reason why blacks are intensly angry.

[Lao Tzu]

none of you guys seem to understand that about 85-90% of lynching victims were accused of either murder, rape or heavy theft. only a small handful were lynched for no reason.

 

[Lao Tzu]

What Matt said, with one addition: Warik you are highly misinformed, violence against African-Americans is no where at its end, a recent example: a hard-working African-American man being tied to a truck and brutally dragged through the streets in Texas, only a short time ago.

so what. read 'do or die' by leon bing. in it you'll find a description of a crip gang member tying another crip gang member to the back of his car & dragging him down the road. then torturing him with pit bulls.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

none of you guys seem to understand that about 85-90% of lynching victims were accused of either murder, rape or heavy theft. only a small handful were lynched for no reason.

That statement is poorly thought out.

You're right. They were "accused" of it, rarely convicted in a court of law.

How much "proof" do you think was needed for a white woman to get a black peson arrested for rape 100 years ago? If there were a trial, whose word would be taken? There was no DNA evidence...

And since there were only a handful of "no reason" lynchings, this is OK?

They weren't for no reason. The reason is because of the subjugation of blacks at that time.

 

[RyanH]

so what. read 'do or die' by leon bing. in it you'll find a description of a crip gang member tying another crip gang member to the back of his car & dragging him down the road. then torturing him with pit bulls.

well it's nice to hear that you are in the business of defending lynchers, and further what does your book excerpt above tell us? That because gangs act horrific, it's o.k when African-Americans are treated horrifically as well. Poor logic.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

so what. read 'do or die' by leon bing. in it you'll find a description of a crip gang member tying another crip gang member to the back of his car & dragging him down the road. then torturing him with pit bulls.

Both are examples of sickness. It is truly amazing, how cruel and small people can be.

 

[Lao Tzu]

That statement is poorly thought out.

You're right. They were "accused" of it, rarely convicted in a court of law.

How much "proof" do you think was needed for a white woman to get a black peson arrested for rape 100 years ago? If there were a trial, whose word would be taken? There was no DNA evidence...

And since there were only a handful of "no reason" lynchings, this is OK?

They weren't for no reason. The reason is because of the subjugation of blacks at that time.

none. i assume at least 50% were innocent. i admit the subjugation & fear of blacks lead to a highly biased judicial system, but no one seems to know/care about the truth in a situation like this.
People just assume they did it 'for no reason' as that makes PC arguments carry more weight in today's society.

 

[Lao Tzu]

well it's nice to hear that you are in the business of defending lynchers, and further what does your book excerpt above tell us? That because gangs act horrific, it's o.k when African-Americans are treated horrifically as well. Poor logic.

i don't recall defending lynching (although it is easy to say in today's society that we wouldn't have endorsed lynching, just as it is easy for a spectator to say that they wouldn't have electrocuted someone in stanley milgram's experiments on social control), i recall trying to explain that the truth wasn't brought up in mainstream circles.

that's not my logic. it is a statement that most liberals don't seem to care when black on black violence happens, but they get pissed when white on black violence happens. sooo, logically (since we both seem to loooove that word) it can be assumed it is more the idea of racism that pisses peopel off more than the emotional well being of those affected by it.

black person tortures black person = irrelevant

white person tortures black person = miniseries

 

[Bry21]

First off I don't think getting angry about things in the past does anyone any good, the purpose is to look back to make sure the same mistakes aren't made again not to become angry about them.

Second a problem with these facts that get minorities angry is they aren't put in perspective. For instance those lynchings yes horrible and disturbing. They display it like a large percentage of the black population was lynched not true. Yes white people owned slaves but their was only a small percentage of slave holders. Did you know that some black people participated in the slave trade, yes only a small percent. Although if you are to be angry at the small percent of whites for owning slaves shouldn't you be angry at the small percent of blacks that traded slaves.

I saw on a news program last week that a black city council leader wanted to take down pictures of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from city hall because they owned slaves. Well that is absolutly ridiculous, again back to the perspective Jefferson may have owned slaves but he wrote the bill of rights which makes this country great. The councilman wanted to put up a picture of Malcom X instead. Heres a Malcom X quote "Thoughtful white people know they are inferior to black people." By that statement I do not fault Malcom X and say that any changes he made are irrevelvent because of that. I put it in perspective.

 

[smallmovesal]

The racial prejudice of the past has decreased. It still exists.

Economic prejudice is the new prejudice, and it is just as bad. Blacks and minorities are disproportinately affected by this "new" form of prejudice, because years of racial prejudice left them poor.

I can't understand how a bunch of white people can tell black people they shouldn't be angry about something. It;s silly. They can make their own decisions.


Buggy Whips:
Many Jews are still angry at germans. I know dozens who won;t buy a German car (particualrly a Porsche), won't travel to Germany, and prefer not to associate with Germans.

 

[youngdeltman]

none of you guys seem to understand that about 85-90% of lynching victims were accused of either murder, rape or heavy theft. only a small handful were lynched for no reason.

So lynching for a reason is acceptable


What if I accused you of murder or rape, does that mean I can lynch you?