Is there a race war between blacks and white's in America?
RedRockNv
July 02, 2010 02:24:48
|
|
|||||
|
33 votes
|
|
70% | |||
|
6 votes
|
|
13% | |||
|
8 votes
|
|
17% | |||
The Race War of Black Against White
By Paul Sheehan
Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995
"The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million victims. It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War. It determined the result of last year's congressional election.
Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which remains between the lines and unreported. In fact, to even suggest that the war exists is to be discredited. So let's start suggesting, immediately.
No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against white America. And the problem is getting worse, not better.
In the past 20 years, violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the population. Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than young whites.
Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not been reported in America:
* According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.
* Most victims of race crime - about 90 per cent - are white, according to the survey "Highlights From 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims," published in 1993.
* Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.
* Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the violent racial crimes of whites.
* According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.
These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not co-incidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.
Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparison, 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean War.
When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).
When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II.
All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media. It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double standard in its coverage of black America, a lower standard."
By Paul Sheehan
Sydney Morning Herald, May 20, 1995
"The longest war America has ever fought is the Dirty War, and it is not over. It has lasted 30 years so far and claimed more than 25 million victims. It has cost almost as many lives as the Vietnam War. It determined the result of last year's congressional election.
Yet the American news media do not want to talk about the Dirty War, which remains between the lines and unreported. In fact, to even suggest that the war exists is to be discredited. So let's start suggesting, immediately.
No matter how crime figures are massaged by those who want to acknowledge or dispute the existence of a Dirty War, there is nothing ambiguous about what the official statistics portray: for the past 30 years a large segment of black America has waged a war of violent retribution against white America. And the problem is getting worse, not better.
In the past 20 years, violent crime has increased more than four times faster than the population. Young blacks (under 18) are more violent than previous generations and are 12 times more likely to be arrested for murder than young whites.
Nearly all the following figures, which speak for themselves, have not been reported in America:
* According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.
* Most victims of race crime - about 90 per cent - are white, according to the survey "Highlights From 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims," published in 1993.
* Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.
* Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the violent racial crimes of whites.
* According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.
These breathtaking disparities began to emerge in the mid-1960s, when there was a sharp increase in black crime against whites, an upsurge which, not co-incidentally, corresponds exactly with the beginning of the modern civil rights movement.
Over time, the cumulative effect has been staggering. Justice Department and FBI statistics indicate that between 1964 and 1994 more than 25 million violent inter-racial crimes were committed, overwhelmingly involving black offenders and white victims, and more than 45,000 people were killed in inter-racial murders. By comparison, 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam, and 34,000 were killed in the Korean War.
When non-violent crimes (burglary, larceny, car theft and personal theft) are included, the cumulative totals become prodigious. The Bureau of Justice Statistics says 27 million non-violent crimes were committed in the US in 1992, and the survey found that 31 per cent of the robberies involved black offenders and white victims (while only 2 per cent in the reverse).
When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years. It is the great defining disaster of American life and American ideals since World War II.
All these are facts, yet by simply writing this story, by assembling the facts in this way, I would be deemed a racist by the American news media. It prefers to maintain a paternalistic double standard in its coverage of black America, a lower standard."
Top Opinion
-
HI July 03, 2010 20:02:59Yes
+3i was born n raised in other country then USA. i was 20 years of age when i came to this country. iam considered as asian american. I think blacks are their own worse enemies. colour of their house, cars, dresses and probably undergarments are brown. very rear i see multicolour black. they r stuck in one colour. Marther king did not dream of this breeeeed of blacks. instead of working hard, get good education and get ahead, everything is white people fault. that is what i hear. i am not a raciest, but this is what i hear and see. blacks from other part of world do not behave n think like this.
See Votes by State
Loading map...
News & Politics
May 25, 2012 17:46:27
Hot Questions on SodaHead
-
Who's the Hottest Male Actor Over 50?
-
What Was the Best Season Finale?
-
Who's the Meanest Reality TV Judge?
- View more slideshows »
"When all the crime figures are calculated, it appears that black Americans have committed at least 170 million crimes against white Americans in the past 30 years."
Is this including property crimes? As the majority of the population, and as the majority of targets for property crimes, whiles will - by definition - attract the greatest number of criminal activity. For whatever reason one cares to track criminal statistics (poverty, collapsed social structure, gang affiliation, social resistance to criminal behavior)... blacks tend to represent the most frequent perpetrators of aggravated property crimes (per capita) - and - they see the highest rate of conviction once charged.
This represents a statistical quirk - and not a race war. Know the difference and be more relaxed about life in general and your fellow man in particular.
By the same logic, you would say there's a gender war? After all, men commit more crimes, and far more violent crimes. Male on female violence is higher than female on male....
No. This is cheap hyperbole that substitutes a legitimate debate with sound bites.
That said, if there's ever a sustained period where groups of armed men systematically round up and execute people based on race... yep, that's a race war. I realize some would say we're at this point now - I just don't agree.
White on Black in the US...
...coordinated violence, but no war.
Black on White in SA...
...coordinated violence, but no war.
Racial cleansing in Rawanda...
....this is a race WAR.
IMHO - the differences between strife, violent strife, and warfare are both significant and striking.
I don't mean to suggest your opinion or perspective isn't valid or that things haven't happened exactly as you've observed. Your reaction is entirely valid, but it is also subjective. I hope you'll see that my response is also valid... although I reached a different view because it was objective.
Also, I should recognize that there is also the casual use of the term "war". We have a war on poverty, a war on homelessness, a war on drugs, a war on just about anything. In this context, it basically means that "a vague, amorphous, uncontrolled agenda exists". And I'll concede to you that to the extent that we have a "war on poverty" - sure - you can say we also have a race war. Your point is well taken.
However, to the extent that we had a revolutionary war, or to the extent that we have a war with the Taliban - no - we don't have a race war. We have a collection of events (happenstance) that happen to share elements of racial identity bias. That's my point. To go farther - and as you say - genocide is one form of war (genocide and "ethnic cleansing" are the only "true ...
I don't mean to suggest your opinion or perspective isn't valid or that things haven't happened exactly as you've observed. Your reaction is entirely valid, but it is also subjective. I hope you'll see that my response is also valid... although I reached a different view because it was objective.
Also, I should recognize that there is also the casual use of the term "war". We have a war on poverty, a war on homelessness, a war on drugs, a war on just about anything. In this context, it basically means that "a vague, amorphous, uncontrolled agenda exists". And I'll concede to you that to the extent that we have a "war on poverty" - sure - you can say we also have a race war. Your point is well taken.
However, to the extent that we had a revolutionary war, or to the extent that we have a war with the Taliban - no - we don't have a race war. We have a collection of events (happenstance) that happen to share elements of racial identity bias. That's my point. To go farther - and as you say - genocide is one form of war (genocide and "ethnic cleansing" are the only "true race wars"). Other forms of (non-race) warfare include the violent overthrow of political leaders. The organized military seizure of land and territories resulting in a formal turnover of authority and treaties or armistices is another example. Etc, etc.
All of these types of war are (clearly) far larger in scope and scale than what you're calling a war, and again, that's the point I tried to make. The classic implication of "war" is, by definition, large and coordinated. A true war of any sort is a military concept involving coordinated attacks planned by a structured leadership, and with military objectives that support a social and political set of outcomes.
I get the idea - coordinated violence against a group of people is different than violence against a person. It creates an environment of fear and suppression of an entire group of people - even though only one person may have been attacked physically - the violence served as a message to intimidate the group as a whole.
So... I get why we have "hate crime" laws. I just happen to think it's a stupid idea. Or maybe it's a good idea, implemented stupidly? Because we all know that we aren't going to apply the laws equally to all people. If a gang of minorities attacks a non-minority the legal system will bend over backwards to avoid calling it a hate crime. It can't... it won't do it.
You and I and everyone else recognize this fact. It creates a situation where some groups seem to have "special treatment" and "special protection" under the law. Besides a strong appearance of being unfair, it creates resentment and anger and outrage... and I won't even say it's not justified (though I do think some people protest too much).
Why are the laws not applied to minorities? History! Once upon a time, minorities (particularly blacks) w...
I get the idea - coordinated violence against a group of people is different than violence against a person. It creates an environment of fear and suppression of an entire group of people - even though only one person may have been attacked physically - the violence served as a message to intimidate the group as a whole.
So... I get why we have "hate crime" laws. I just happen to think it's a stupid idea. Or maybe it's a good idea, implemented stupidly? Because we all know that we aren't going to apply the laws equally to all people. If a gang of minorities attacks a non-minority the legal system will bend over backwards to avoid calling it a hate crime. It can't... it won't do it.
You and I and everyone else recognize this fact. It creates a situation where some groups seem to have "special treatment" and "special protection" under the law. Besides a strong appearance of being unfair, it creates resentment and anger and outrage... and I won't even say it's not justified (though I do think some people protest too much).
Why are the laws not applied to minorities? History! Once upon a time, minorities (particularly blacks) were harassed by a variety of laws that made it a specific crime to "misbehave" around white people. Google terms like "eyeballing" and you'll be led into all sorts of historical examples of how bad laws were created and how good laws were mis-applied.
Understand this as an explanation, not a justification.
But recognizing that we can't/won't apply the laws equally, it's my opinion that they're bad laws by definition. Something else is needed. Perhaps we take the racial element out of the law and focus on "intimidation" as a crime. I can imagine all sorts of ways for that to be abused... but it's a start and it eliminates the inherent divisiveness embedded in current law (as applied).
There is a class war now at least since 1968 Dem. convention, the working class is being trashed by the upper class and turned into scapegoats for the ills of American society. Especially the white working class.
But everybody who thinks knows this has been happening since the 70's. The real income for the lower classes is maybe 3/4 of what they made in 1974, and constantly declining because ALWAYS there is way too many people for the few jobs. And of course the homeless who mostly appeared after 1975, as a consequence of our policies.
That's the plan. It increases profits and minimises wage inflation..
Thats the reason for immigration among a certain set. Any who complain of being abused are abused more, at least verbally. This increases the anger levels of course.
America society is anger society today.
There is always a very high number of people left jobless and desperate for work because of the immigrants creating a constant high surplus of labor. But this makes growth easy too. Plenty of low wage workers for any enterprise.
Any attempt to slow immigration to reduce unemployment, and probably raise wages, we get screams of rac...
There is a class war now at least since 1968 Dem. convention, the working class is being trashed by the upper class and turned into scapegoats for the ills of American society. Especially the white working class.
But everybody who thinks knows this has been happening since the 70's. The real income for the lower classes is maybe 3/4 of what they made in 1974, and constantly declining because ALWAYS there is way too many people for the few jobs. And of course the homeless who mostly appeared after 1975, as a consequence of our policies.
That's the plan. It increases profits and minimises wage inflation..
Thats the reason for immigration among a certain set. Any who complain of being abused are abused more, at least verbally. This increases the anger levels of course.
America society is anger society today.
There is always a very high number of people left jobless and desperate for work because of the immigrants creating a constant high surplus of labor. But this makes growth easy too. Plenty of low wage workers for any enterprise.
Any attempt to slow immigration to reduce unemployment, and probably raise wages, we get screams of racism from the Business class, and intensified hatred from the media, since they want nothing changed.
The global business leadership like to provoke feuds between the natives and immigrants and blacks, and other immigrants, so they don't combine in labor disputes.
Does that help?
It was not to get away from people due to their skin color. It was because of what those people were doing to us and to our women and children.
However dating mostly African American woman I have experiences with certain behaviors toward me and my GF. Its quite annoying actually.
All the things done to improve matters, Civil rights, affirmitive action, race relations classes, most were done by Nixon, LBJ, JFK and Eisenhower (I remember them all). Keynesian Liberal's all .
All turn conservative in '75 - Carter, a nice guy, but effectively the first Milton Friedman neoliberal. or Monetarist as President. BTW he voted as Deacon to not allow blacks in his church.
Go back and check our economic statistics.
High Unemployment dates from 1975 forward. Runaway immigrationj starts from 1975 forward. Monetarist policies in the Federal Reserve date from 1979 forwars, when Carter was able to replace Nixons appointee with one suggessted by Rockefeller, a certain Paul Volcker, described THEN as rigidly conservative and enemy of the working class, today called a socialsist by the Republicans because he said they went too far deregulating !