some find it easier than others, for example, inner city schools may be over crowded, poor teaching etc. also segregation, who are you to tell blacks that they should integrate? sounds like a dictatorship. what if they dont want to integrate, did you think about that?
Bingo, we agree on something. Black schools were better during the days of integration. I think the reason is that the Black educators understood that they learn differently and could apply the proper discipline.
I never said they had to integrate. The person you need to talk to regarding that is Obama who wants to force integration. I'm with you that we should not be forced or corierced to live where someone else wants us to live.
what did you mean by this then; We are all Americans. We are in it together. And if there are black communities that segregate together with a segregated culture they own and celebrate and then WE ALL have problems because of it---yep anybody with half a brain would give them a talking to. They need an attitude adjustment
Strawman .. I didn't say they were all gang members. A gang of youths is not the same as saying they were all gang members. A group of youths hanging around together can be said to be a gang of youths, that does not imply they are all gang members. Your question uses the word gang as a noun, my comment uses the word gang as a verb. Gang - Verb - (of a number of people) form a group. (verb - a word or phrase that describes an action, condition, or experience: ) Gang - Noun - an organized group of criminals. (noun - a word that refers to a person, place, thing, event, substance, or quality) You didn't answer the question either - I just wonder why it is necessary to point out the colour of their skin, does it make the crime somehow worse because they are black?
Who said anything about ignoring it .. all I am asking is does the fact that it was black youths involved in this make the crime worse than if it was white youths, if not what is the purpose and intent of identifying the colour of their skin? Would the OP have read "White youth ransack Georgia Walmart" if the youths had been white, if not why not?
Culture. If the Amish or blacks or Chinese want to segregate that's fine as long as the type of culture they celebrate isnt wracked with crime, entitlements, resentment, anger, and hopelessness that is destructive to them and everyone else. If people of any creed or color come together as a community and the values create destruction and hopelessness then that community needs to fix it's issues.
well thats a whole lot of prerequisites isnt it. what if their "segregated" culture includes resentment, anger and retribution? all at the expense of white folk? what if that culture encourages the destruction of the white traditions that make up the framework of their society and society as a whole?
What if there history has no measure or meaningful accomplishments ( unless you look at comic books and revisionist history) Could low IQ, poor impulse control or lack of future time orientation have anything to do with it. Nah.
The gang was black - the victims were white. You only skimmed the article didn't you? At issue is the fact that crime such as the op and your scenario are commited by blacks at rates of up to 40x the rate of other ethnicities by population percentage. Blacks are more likely to commit violent crime than any other demographic in this country, even after accounting for socioeconomic position. There are racists on both sides - though one side is ignored entirely, almost endorsed. This cycle will continue to accelerate until a tipping point is reached
Personally, I am just happy to see that Indiana is not the only state with retards that go to walmart to (*)(*)(*)(*) (*)(*)(*)(*) up. But I also want to know why the race of the teens matters. If these were white teens would the far right be making such a big deal about it? These were (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) kids going to a store to (*)(*)(*)(*) (*)(*)(*)(*) up. This type of behaviors spans all races, but the far right only seems to think it is worth mentioning if they ones doing it are not white.
Lets look at another way. Who behaves like this the overwhelming vast majority of the time? I'm sure you get it now.
Watch the news. The Walmart in the Beech Grove area of Indianapolis is famous for far white women, and hicks getting in fights or just getting drunk and wrecking (*)(*)(*)(*). The cops are called there over 700 times a year, and have begun fining the store as a public nuisance every time they are called there. It made the national news. The vast majority of these involve drunk or stoned white people.
thats because they have no history, very few actually know it and those that do dont speak about it on open forums such as this.
nope, I read it in full. and this is relevant to my question how exactly? The question in case you missed it was does the fact that the youths in this crime were black make the crime any worse, if not then for what purpose is reporting the colour of their skin serve, if you say it is for accuracy then any crimes committed by white people should have the headline "white youth ... ", care to explain why that rarely, if ever, happens?
and what relevance is that to the colour of a persons skin exactly? Is a crime a crime no matter what race commits it, or does being black (or any other skin colour apart from white) make the crime worse? There is nothing to be gained by reporting crime based on skin colour, all it does is fuel the right-wing rhetoric sound-bites.
The real history book would be an empty page and not the fantasy fiction you promulgate. - - - Updated - - - I'm sure you do have a basic understanding of percentages and probabilities?
much more than a basic understanding, still does not answer the question of the relevance of the skin colour of the people involved in committing a crime .. quite simply there is no relevance. A crime is a crime, the colour of skin has no relevance to that . .none what so ever . .actually I'll rephrase that, the colour of skin has no relevance in the media reporting of a crime. The statistics relating to age, race and poverty certainly do have relevance .. only not so the right-wing zealots can attempt to make a case against minorities as a whole, they are useful as a starting point to finding out WHY a certain age group, race or level of poverty appear to be more involved in committing crimes and then implementing measures to over come those reasons. right-wing zealots use these figures as a stick to beat their racist drum and are apologetic (or make excuses) when those figures show a white majority in certain crimes.
And why doesn't race has relevance in the reporting of crime? It does in everything else. Have you looked at the what the DOJ wants to do because of their new invention called disparate impact.
Because it doesn't make any difference to the severity of the crime that has taken place, or does the skin colour of the accused make the crime better or worse? Furthermore when was the last time you saw a headline that said "White youth/man/woman ..." quite simply you don't see it, if the skin colour has relevance in media reports of crime then to be equal the skin colour should be reported when the accused is white, anything other than that is simply catering to the right-wing zealots. I have heard of it and looked at it, not in detail though .. but what has this got to do with media reporting on the skin colour of someone committing a crime?
Therefore with the advent of "polar bear hunting" or the "knockout game" for PC purposes you'd void public safety by not providing a description. I guess you believe in that "no snitch" policy as well? Try that with programs like Crime Stoppers, but you probably don't like that anyway. And people wonder if liberalism equates to mental illness.
