So what needs to be done in the present to make the foot race "fair"? After so many years, who is going to judge what is fair and not?! Should black americans be handed free money and property that belongs to white descendants of the supposed responsible whites that put these inequality laws into place? It's going to be a mess and absolutely not a fair process no matter what is presented as a solution.
That's a big question that needs an answer with a lot of tiers, and it also depends on what areas we are talking about. I personally feel (but can't speak for all) that more effort needs to be made at a community level. I think educational funding should be standardized regardless of the neighbourhood rather than being run like a business that rewards "performance". All kids need to be supported by high-quality education and when you provide better education only to places with a higher tax bracket, you make it much more difficult for groups to "catch up". I don't think money should be given out directly but if money was used in this way, it would tackle the divide as well as the socio-economic divide. This provides better options for kids who would otherwise be pulled into crime due to lack (or perceived lack) of options for them, lowering crime, raising better students and by extension members of society. People want a chance and when they don't see opportunities (actual opportunities, not just the idea that on the surface things are "even"), then they get frustrated, and like anyone who gets frustrated — they make bad decisions that change the course of the rest of their lives.
"Frustration"?! More like a plan to spread chaos and lawlessness and bring the economy down.
That's just incorrect for the most part. Starting from day one in Minneapolis (and I know this because I have friends there who experienced it first hand) The protest started peacefully until cops shot at the protesters from the rooftops of the surrounding buildings for demonstrating their right to protest. I'm sure the police didn't think it would get that out of hand but neither did the protestors. After that, you had criminals and opportunists (from both sides) taking advantage of the situation. Criminals and opportunists are not protestors and vise versa and the police made no attempt to filter — treating everyone as criminals and that is not the way it should have been handled. After it escalated, people retaliated and that exacerbated the wrong on both sides. Still, when we charge our civil servants with protecting and serving the public, they need to be better than the public they have been changed to protect. We charge teachers to oversee and guide children and when the children get out of hand, we expect the teachers not to lash out at them but to deescalate the situations and be examples for those they are responsible for. I demand nothing less from law enforcement, with the same accountability for when someone steps out of line.
We all saw how liberal experiments like "Chap" ended up. Endless destruction and killings between the same people that cause all of this.
I didn't agree with any of that, you need to also understand if we are to be looking at this impartially, both the left and the right have crazy extremes. Neither of them exemplifies what the majority want.
So Dave Chapelle was proud that the USA started a bloody war with Saddam and brought to his nation a complete chaos and destruction and death? Aren't liberals supposed to be for worldwide peace? How can you celebrate wars for oil and power and the destruction of cultural heritage of another nation? What the USA did to Iraq was wrong and based into lies as was wrong the destruction of their statues.
I'm not sure how you got that as it was not what I said. He didn't support the war at all — in fact, the line right before that was how he wanted to speak up against the war, but saw how the Dixie chicks were treated when they spoke out and literally said "F that, if they do that to three white women, they will tear me apart". So no, he did not support it, he was just acknowledging the fall out of that regime change our nation played a role in. if you want to build an understanding in what someone is saying you need to get context or you end up just twisting someone's words into a beneficial meaning, and not an actual fact.
Beyond that, the US slavery and civil war history are not the same as other countries. It is a very complex matter and it is not black and white.
Never said it wasn't — but the parts that are clear should be actioned upon. And the Civil war was actually pretty standard when compared to the french revolution, and other world-wide. Every war is complex, this was no different.
How were the confederate soldiers and generals "traitors" and "oppressors" and their statues deserve rightfully to be taken down when it is a well known fact that there were black soldiers that fought among the south against the north? How can you people ignore this fact? And that there are black americans today that openly support the confederate heritage and flag???
No one is ignoring it — they just don't have anything to do with each other. There were also many southerners who didn't agree with the confederacy so lumping north and south is also misleading and needs to be understood that some people didn't agree along those simplistic lines. I cannot speak for those black soldiers or those Black Americans, but what I do know is that there are many instances in many situations where people prefer the devil they know rather than the devil they don't. There are women who stood in the way of the women's right to vote, there were gays who stood in the way of marriage inequality, and there were Americans who were against independence from the British. Who knows why people do this, but it seems to be part of the human condition at times to have a vocal minority vote against their own interests. Regardless — the statues were of the "heroes", not the black soldiers, and they still fought for the losing side of the war against the Union. That's a textbook definition of a traitor, actively — and violently — denouncing your country.
As I said, history is very complex and not simplistic at all as you guys make it to be. It is very easy to say the civil war was fought to end slavery (state rights and economic reasons actually) and bad white men made laws to oppress black americans.
The cornerstone speech by Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861 would beg to differ. He specifically said, "Our new government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man." Now I can completely agree that maybe everyone else focused on different parts when taking up arms for the confederacy, but that is egregious damnation of the cause, even 150 years ago. Is it the only reason anyone ever fought for the confederate flag? No, I'm sure it's not — but that it wasn't a deterrent for the cause is a huge red flag that undermines everything else. If someone proposed a plan today to greatly improve everyone's take-home pay, make it easier to start a business, have high-quality childcare and education covered but the person who will bring this also wants a no-strike policy for lifetime prison terms, so that anyone charged with a crime (any crime) serves life in prison and can't have a legal defence — most people would say hold on, that last part is a problem. Can we do without that? That's a reasonable reaction. Even if everyone loves all other aspects of what the confederacy was built on, that "negro inequality" should have been a non-starter then, and it should be an embarrassment today.
There is a very informative video by a black ex cop and he explains how the police decides suspects based on numbers and not on prejudice. They're doing a job and they don't have time to waste by harassing people just because they don't like the color of their skin. Otherwise, they won't build a strong career and good reputation n the force by not caching the actual bad guys.
He also states after 1:20 "Over half of all the violent crimes in this country are perpetuated by only 6% of the population in our country"
Look, I love good cops. The problem is not the cops that do their job — the problem is the blue shield that reinforces and protects the bad cops in a culture of Us (cops) against them (those questioning the cops), and makes it difficult to remove ones with questionable records and actions because the close ranks. As far as statistics go, you have areas that are over-policed and having the opposite effect of a safe neighbourhood feeling. People aren't numbers — get to know them rather than assuming they are what you think they are. Give them opportunities such as more programs to occupy their after-school time rather than trying to find a place to hang out and leaving them exposed to bad influences that are part of every culture. If schools were better (like low crime areas) and more programs are available (like low crime areas) then kids won't be sucked into the machine that is neighbourhood crime. If you have an idea (even based on numbers) on who you think the criminals are, you will already treat them like criminals when you interact with them. If you think about a safe neighbourhood, there are no cops around, they show up when their needed — when they are always around, you get the opposite effect.
