And I don’t disagree with that. But I contend it’s a function of poverty and density as opposed to inherent black criminality
Did R.E. Lee Commit Treason?
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
I live about 5 miles from the Kentucky State Pen in Eddyville. I could take a picture of the yard on a warm day when it's in full atmosphere.
Guess what color 80% of the yard is...I know there are criminals in the white community, but to stick your head in the sand on this is because you are too damn woke.
The black community has major issues....The prison system highlights this to a glaring degree.
Guess what color 80% of the yard is...I know there are criminals in the white community, but to stick your head in the sand on this is because you are too damn woke.
The black community has major issues....The prison system highlights this to a glaring degree.
”Inherent black criminality” is your phrase. I never said that and if you either impute that to me, or take that inference from what I said, you need a lesson in critical thinking.
IU Professor in Sociology from 1935-1950 , Edwin H. Sutherland PhD, developed this theory of crime causation. Lay over this the intervention of liberal policies and you have it.
Definition of Differential Association Theory
Have you ever asked yourself why certain individuals become criminals? Differential association theory is a theory in criminology that aims to answer this question. This theory was developed by Edwin H. Sutherland, who was a sociologist and a professor. He created the theory to explain the reasons why people commit crime. The theory is based upon the idea that criminals commit crimes based upon their association with other people.Basically, criminal behavior is learned by associating with other criminal individuals. In addition, criminals can exist in any income, race or sociological background. Sutherland stated nine basic tenets of his differential association theory. He has written extensively on each one. However, in a nutshell, these tenets are:
- Criminal behavior is learned behavior.
- Criminal behavior is learned by interacting with other people by communicating with words and gestures.
- The main portion of learning the criminal behavior happens among small groups of people.
- Learning about crime includes learning the techniques of committing a crime, as well as learning the motivation and attitudes towards crime.
- Legal codes demonstrate what is 'good' or 'bad' and provide a motivation for crimes. In other words, the law expresses what is right and wrong to an offender.
- A person becomes a criminal because of frequent criminal patterns. For example, if one is exposed to a repeated criminal scenario, this scenario will eventually rub off on others nearby.
- The differential association theory can differ in frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
- The learning of criminal behavior by association is similar to all other types of learning.
- Criminal and non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. In other words, it does not discriminate and any person of any background can become a criminal.
Then what did you mean by “But I do know and understand people will use the phrase “legacy of slavery” to explain the disgrace of poor black education, criminality, and general under performance.”?
I think all of that is self evident. Blacks, particularly Black males, receive an inexcusably bad education, criminal conduct is concentrated in Black populations and in numbers far in excess of their proportion to total population, and the economic performance and social surroundings are below national norms. There are a gazillion reasons for this. But it is a mistake to believe that skin color is a determining factor. This is my gripe with 1619, CRT, etc. Blacks are being taught that their skin color is the root cause. This deprives them of self motivation and nurtures hopelessness. I’ve read a fair amount of material about and by blacks who have overcome the handicap of discrimination and. prejudice. These include everyone from Katherine Johnson, to Jackie Robinson, to Ben, Carson, to Bo Snerdley, and to my good friend who was one of the very few blacks on the National Ski Patrol. They generally go by the motto “achieve anyway”. Nobody claims skin color discrimination doesn’t exist, but there are ways to make it less relevant in your life. Teaching that skin color is more relevant is not the way forward.
No one claims this. The claim is that how people are treated because of their skin color is a root factor in their current circumstances.
So all the black people need to do is move to Lake Wobegone and overachieve.
Interesting. This also is relevant to and explains other kinds of Herding Behavior humans become locked in to.
Disagree. People who believe this are those who are bothered by internet trolls and use ignore buttons. Such people belive extrinsic factors are most important and control destiny. You control your destiny by what resides inside of you. I won’t deny that the road is tougher for victims of discrimination, but by focusing on that, we make the road even harder.
Achieve anyway!
Disagree with your tense. I think the truth is because how people WERE treated because of their skin color is a root factor in their current circumstance. Unfortunately too many politicians use it as currency and a crutch
Last edited:
I rarely agree with McMurtry, but I’m all in on him understanding that a broad problem has a complicated solution beyond “achieve” or “get married.”
The 1619 project isn’t the answer on its own, but there are complicated issues that require serious discussions. And I applaud your recognition of it, regardless of whether we agree on solutions to it or 90% of the rest of America’s problems.
Fair point, poor wording on my part. Past treatment based on skin color -- going back to 1619 -- is still a factor in today's circumstances.
That said, the present isn't where it ought to be.
The better question is "what happened since 1965 to make things worse?"
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was passed. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed. Both were achieved through black/white cooperation that overcame stiff vote whore opposition in the Senate. Times were good race-relations-wise. The vast vast majority of white people were overwhelmingly against race discrimination in all forms. Times were improving for black people nation-wide in every metric - education, employment, home ownership.
Now - no.
Why?
I seriously doubt the answer is found in 1619. Its a stupid premise that ends discussion before it can start, because it tells the recipient that the proponent is not serious about understanding or fixing the problem.
Anybody who starts with "the real history of slavery is hidden" is ignoring 400 years of anti-slavery sentiment and action, and should not - cannot - be taken seriously by anyone who wants to actually achieve better race relations.
We just went through 4 years where most Biden voters equated most non-Biden voters - including third party voters - with the Klan. 1619 takes that accusation to new and more damaging levels. All they will achieve is ill-will caused by more false claims of racism.
We need good will - not hate.
It's a good message, but the leftists will never agree to give up the hate they've developed for any opinion or dogma that's not their own.
Here’s a significant and overlooked part of the problem:
Psychiatry: Creating Racism
Watch the videos. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights gives the truth about psychiatry. Take a virtual tour of Psychiatry: An Industry of Death Museum. Arm yourself with the truth and then find out what you can do to take action to help bring psychiatry to justice.
www.cchr.org
No, it's not the better question. The only question is, "Why are so many people so damn bothered by the idea of exploring the darker parts of our history and how they affect the present?"
I think the Israelites should be petitioning the Egyptian government to start educating their citizens on the effects on the Hebrews for being enslaved so long.
The Israelis should probably be paid some kind of reparations, too.
Well, there's no actual historical evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt, but whatever. Sure. Let's teach that, too. Slavery is always bad, and we should never ignore it.
The Bible has historical value. It is not history.
You will find me one of the most supportive of all the liberals on this forum of the historical value of the Bible, so please don't go to the obvious place. But while the Exodus is clearly based on some historical roots, there is no archeological evidence that the Israelites were enslaved en masse in Egypt. In fact, there's no evidence the Israelites even existed before whatever kernels of the Exodus are true actually happened. The Israelites appear to have come about by a mixture of people in Canaan, not in Egypt.
Oh my. If you are speaking if the 1619 project, it is neither an exploration of history nor does present a question to be debated about the present.
we all should be bothered by history education that is taught as dogma.
Your first and second questions are two entirely unrelated complaints. That's a sure sign that you're not accurately describing why you're bothered by it.
And you trust written records from over 400 years ago?
The Exodus: Fact or Fiction?
Is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction? Scholars and archaeologists argue about aspects of Israel’s Exodus but many agree it occurred.
That's a simplistic question. Ancient texts have various levels of historical value depending on different things. Being backed up by archaeology is a big plus. The Exodus for the most part is not backed up.And you trust written records from over 400 years ago?
The Exodus: Fact or Fiction?
Is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction? Scholars and archaeologists argue about aspects of Israel’s Exodus but many agree it occurred.www.biblicalarchaeology.org
That doesn't mean it isn't true. But it's much more likely that's a myth that has roots in other historical events.
I look forward to the self-examinations of past Egyptian history of slavery, Israelis or not.
I think that would be interesting. Slavery in Egypt has a long history.
Of course, most of that history would be like talking about slavery in ancient Rome. American slavery is a lot more adjacent to present history than Egyptian slavery is. Or, rather, most of it. I'm pretty sure slavery in small pockets existed in Egypt into the 20th century.
Says the most dogmatic poster on this forum, particularly in matters of race.
That's not what I was responding to. You got the balls to defend the statement that I actually did?
How so? The real founding of the US is when the Brits brought the first slaves in 1619. How is that not a dogmatic position?
Hard to take you seriously when you paint such a farcical misinterpretation of what the 1619 project is but I will simply quote from the original essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones on the founding of our great nation as a point of departure for a sincere, serious discussion if you’re so willing.
“The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie. Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4, 1776, proclaims that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” did not apply to fully one-fifth of the country. Yet despite being violently denied the freedom and justice promised to all, black Americans believed fervently in the American creed. Through centuries of black resistance and protest, we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals. And not only for ourselves — black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including women’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights.”
So COH, how about you explain how you see that is more dogmatic than factual and interpretive.
TJ’s original draft contained a strong anti-slavery clause among the listed grievances against King George III. The members of the continental congress intensely debated the issue. It came down to whether all the colonies would revolt or not. Jefferson and others relented believing that the revolution needed to happen. TJ was the first outspoken abolitionist. He never relented. He took many actions as POTUS to do what he could to end the practice. Despite his efforts slavery became more entrenched. The abolitionist movement became stronger and stronger as time went on. White people were responsible.
The passage you quote is especially divisive dogma as she mentions “white men” in a intended derisive fashion. Millions of white people, along with black people, have helped the country live up to its founding ideals and promoted equality.
Actually this passage is worse than harmless dogma. It’s divisive racism.
I’m agreeing with goat here. You’re the one being dogmatic in your interpretation of her words.
She factually states it was made by white men. Whether you like that or not. Whether it rubs you the wrong way or not. It’s simple fact. And she states that fact because the text asserts all men are created equal but the word men refers only to white men. That is another simple fact.
There is no way these facts are divisive, in and of themselves. They are simply truth. Truth. Truth. I repeat, truth. This is not dogma, my friend. This is a fact. If you dispute it then you’re creating the division. And that division is division between those who accept the truth for what it is and those who don’t like that truth and so dispute it or call it divisive or whatever you want to do.
Incidentally what TJ wrote in his draft is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. Because our country was not founded on the draft.
Do you have any idea how many of his hundreds of slaves did Jefferson free during his life and/or as part of his will?
As such a staunch abolitionist I would have to assume all of them, right? Right?
Because if he only freed like 10 of them, it would seem to be a lot of Enlightenment Age virtue signaling to take part and profit from an institution you publicly deride.
Similar threads
