BamaD
Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD quote:
ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD quote:
ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee quote:
ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD quote:
ORIGINAL: DominantWrestler Ok, let's assume the easily accessible information on confederate slave soldiers is propaganda, do you have any citations for your claims? And are you admitting the Louisiana home gaurd saw no major combat? A The blacks in the Confederate army were not slaves. The Confederate government was very clear that slaves would NOT be pressed into service. You insist that the things I know to be a fact are only propaganda as the truth undermines your world view. B The LA home guard never left LA, how does that negate their existance. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Native LA did well, fought well, and, in disproportionately large numbers, died well. Along with the 54th and 55th Massachusetts, 1st and 2nd Kansas Colored, 20th USCT...some few others...who all were by and large free born. BamaD's Harvard article states the LA did not fight as confederates and switched sides as soon as they were offered. Additionally, it has a quotation of a slave that was forced to fight by the north Yes, the Confederate Army rejected them. So they did not "switch sides" as they were never on the Confederate side officially. General Butler's orders were to enlist ONLY freedmen. However, meh, it was war. http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-louisiana-native-guards.htm I am not exactly sure what you are trying to prove? That black freedmen were bad soldiers? That blacks were not "real" soldiers? (Yes, they did end up doing a lot of fatigue work.) Racial tensions? Heh. Let me state this plainly: As near as I can tell, racial tolerance in the armed forces has improved since Vietnam despite, not because of, the race relations and EO programs inflicted on us. He is also trying to claim that there is far more racial tension in the south than in the north. My personal experience refutes this Idea completely. I have lived in MO, IL, TX, CA, and MD and can assure you that there is less racial tension here than in most parts of the country. A brief history of racial tension in the US: Every civilization on earth employed slavery, with no none feeling the need to justify it. The Christians of the Enlightenment, were the first, and _only_ civilization to see that it was wrong, and seek to abolish it. To justify segregation, the inferiority of blacks was argued. But much of the argument was religious, God allegedly not wanting different groups to intermarry. And much was merely human: they are different, therefore they are inferior, a claim common to all people in all eras. After civil rights, the incidence of blacks using drugs, being members of gangs, and living on welfare increased sharply. Those increases correlate well with the efforts of liberals to help black people. The claim that black lives aren't valued as white lives are "systematically and institutionally" is weaselly evasion. There being no recognized standards of "systematically" or "institutionally" valuing anything, any situation can be claimed as showing black lives are more, less, or equally valued. E.g., black poverty shows we value blacks less, because they are in poverty. Or that we value them more, because we spend more in welfare and anti-poverty measures per black than we do per white. #BlackLivesMatter got started because of police killings of blacks. Blacks are disproportionately killed by the police, about 1.5X their share of the population. Blacks are also disproportionately killers of police, about 2.4x their share of the population. Blacks are also a minority of those the police kill, about one fourth to one third of all police killiings. And blacks are murdered by other blacks at around 13x to 14x the rate police kill them. It's not clear why any of this occurs. It's not clear why the police in the U.S. kill so many citizens. It's not clear why blacks are killed at higher than their numbers in the general population. It's not clear that efforts to lower the number of blacks killed by police will result in a net saving of black lives: there's some evidence that less brutal policing will result in a higher murder rate, increasing the number of blacks who die by violence. But one thing is clear. Accusing hundreds of millions of white Americans of being bad people because they don't know how to improve a complicated situation won't help anyone except those who profit by setting Americans at each other's throats. Where do you get your statistics? According to the FBI, 44% of those killed by police over the last 30 years were white, though according to the 2010 census, those claiming only white descent make up 72.4% of the population. This means that white people were just over 3.3 times less likely to be shot Though this is only a story I heard (which around here seems to be hard evidence), a person had a store and we're paying protection money to the bloods or crips, I forget which one. The place was robbed when they were closed. Police took a report and accomplished nothing. The gang that was being payed off found the goods and money and said that person would never bother them again. If racist corrupt cops are the norm, organized crime can sometimes provide justice. It worked for the Italian mob, it's worked for Pablo Escabar, why can't it work in black neighborhoods An easy way to relieve some racial tension would be convicting obviously guilty police officers. In 2014, only .1% percent of federal cases were not indicted, 10% of those cases not indicted were police killing civilians. Adding hood cameras to patrol cars lowered hit and runs on officers. Badge cameras have been shown to lower police abuse charges by more than half, and also allow an easy conviction against those police witness committing a crime 52% of violent crime is committed by black people for what ever reason. No I am not saying it is about their skin color, there are many factors. However this indicates that blacks are underepresented in shooting, not the other way around, you are comparing the shootings to the wrong stat. What the f are you talking about? You are obviously confused. 44% of Americans shot by cops are white. Greater than 70% of Americans are white. That means that white people are less than a third as likely to get shot by cops. Do you get it? 52% of violent crime. thus 52% of the chances to get shot belong to blacks. About 30% of the people shot by the police are black. That means the 70% of the people shot come from 48% of the criminals. I am amazed that you can't follow this. Or are you saying that for every 15 black people who are shot the police need togo out and shoot 72 white people whether they have commited a crime or not? Do you have evidence of anything you have posted? Are you aware that if a person is caught, not only are they less likely to do any time at all, but if they do they are likely to get less time? Drug convictions are the worst for this sort of discrepancy and contribute to most of the federal inmate population BTW please explain why Boston shutting down their school system to avoid integration makes the south racist. Or why Detroit burning everyone of their school busses to avoid integration does the same thing. As I pointed out earlier I thought you were English because of your total lack of understanding of American history and your arrogance about your ignorance. And like the spoiled child you are you are trying to pick a fight and derail another thread. I look as people as individuals regardless of race. You look at groups and try to make people fit the group.
_____________________________
Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.
|