The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: rangerrebew on April 27, 2014, 01:11:28 pm
-
Two People Shot at Nat’l Zoo on African-American Family Day
Posted By Chris Graham on Apr 26, 2014 | 8 Comments
The National Zoo in Washington, D.C., is a great place to visit. I can’t say it’s the best zoo in America since it’s the only one I’ve been to, but if you’re ever in the area, definitely check it out.
That is, unless it’s a day when you know a lot of black people will be there. Case in point: On Easter Monday, the zoo held its annual African-American Family Day (I’ve found no information on the zoo’s website about when their annual White Family Day is held, but I’m sure I’m just overlooking it).
If you were to guess what happened at African-American Family Day at the zoo, what would that guess be? That everybody got along like peaches? That it was a nice, quiet, family-oriented affair? If these are your guesses, you might be a liberal.
No, what happened at African-American Family Day at the National Zoo was violence. Two people were shot, one in the hand and one in the arm. It mirrored past African-American Family Days at the zoo. In 2011 there was a fight and a stabbing, and in 2000 seven people were shot.
You would think they would have learned their lesson after the first incident; that they would stop holding events designated specifically for blacks, but nowadays being anti-racist is more important than being safe.
This shooting isn’t even a tragic news story, it’s just comical. It’s hard not to laugh at the utter predictability of it all. Every time they hold an African-American Family Day, a heavy police presence is required. That should tell you something. It certainly wouldn’t be required at White Family Day, or Asian Family Day, of that you can be sure.
From WUSA, D.C.’s CBS affiliate:
National Zoo Director Dennis Kelly said Wednesday that it’s back to the drawing board as they’ll now look for new ways to keep the area safe while keeping the character of the zoo.
How about stop holding African-American anything events? It’s not like black people are barred from attending the zoo on days without any specific racial designation. Why do they need their own day at the zoo? Is it to cull the herd? Is it a larger conspiracy to get as many blacks concentrated in one area at once and just wait for the violence to begin, like some sick form of entertainment for the powers that be? (Maybe I’m sick, because I do indeed find it entertaining that events of this sort of ethnic concentration inevitably devolve into violence.)
Of course major media like The Washington Post isn’t reporting that it was African-American Family Day, opting instead to call it “a holiday event.” USA Today only gave the full name of the event at the end of the article. Why does it matter that it was African-American Family Day? A shooting is a shooting. Okay.
African-American Day is actually “more than 100-years-old [sic] and was created for African-Americans who were not allowed to attend the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.” But blacks are now allowed at the White House Easter Egg Roll—they’re even allowed to live in the White House, by gum! Why are we holding onto these past remedies for past grievances?
Cancel African-American Family Day. End it. And until then, if you don’t want to be the victim of violence, you should stay far away from such events no matter what race you are.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/5553/two-people-shot-natl-zoo-african-american-family-day/#FkPiwJIrsEFLJRyD.99
-
I'll admit: I was tempted to make a joke about this (e.g. - Did fathers get in free with their kids?), but there's nothing funny about it.
Large portions of our cities are now home to functionally-illiterate, drug-addled, third-generation government dependents from fatherless and faithless families.
50 years of Progressive social policy created these nightmares, by replacing the values and virtues of Western civilization with the rules of the jungle and the smothering embrace of the State. But say that out loud, and a cacophony of manufactured outrage will envelop you with false charges of racism and bigotry, promoted especially by rich liberals in their cloistered communities, walled off from the reality that advances on them daily.
-
I'll admit: I was tempted to make a joke about this (e.g. - Did fathers get in free with their kids?), but there's nothing funny about it.
Large portions of our cities are now home to functionally-illiterate, drug-addled, third-generation government dependents from fatherless and faithless families.
50 years of Progressive social policy created these nightmares, by replacing the values and virtues of Western civilization with the rules of the jungle and the smothering embrace of the State. But say that out loud, and a cacophony of manufactured outrage will envelop you with false charges of racism and bigotry, promoted especially by rich liberals in their cloistered communities, walled off from the reality that advances on them daily.
It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
-
It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
Yep.
-
From the article:
[[ No, what happened at African-American Family Day at the National Zoo was violence. Two people were shot, one in the hand and one in the arm. It mirrored past African-American Family Days at the zoo. In 2011 there was a fight and a stabbing, and in 2000 seven people were shot. ]]
Refer to rules #10d and 10e of John Derbyshire's "The Talk":
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/
-
Andy wrote above:
[[ 50 years of Progressive social policy created these nightmares, by replacing the values and virtues of Western civilization with the rules of the jungle...]]
Andy, your writing is eloquent and noble, but did it ever occur to you that for some, it might be impossible to replace "the rules of the jungle" with the precepts of Western civilization ??
-
Andy, your writing is eloquent and noble, but did it ever occur to you that for some, it might be impossible to replace "the rules of the jungle" with the precepts of Western civilization ??
I'll take the bait. Why would it be impossible for anyone (except maybe a small subset of the mentally ill) to refrain from bustin' a cap in a crowded place? Maybe requiring someone to wear a belt so his underwear doesn't show is too much to ask. Are you really saying, however, that it might be too much to ask of someone to not take a shot at someone else because of some perceived slight? Is it too much to ask black college students to behave like civilized human beings instead of doing the things they used to do at Freaknik? Or, are you saying that blacks are like animals and the rest of society should just learn to deal with them because they can't possibly do any better? The behavior at events like this is well documented, and it's abhorrent. But that's not the question at hand.
Maybe the key to your statement is "for some, it might be impossible". If so, what do you mean by "for some"? Is it a certain percentage? Or is it just blacks from a certain state, city, or community? If this is the case, why would it be impossible for these particular people to conform to the culture of civilized society but not others?
Perhaps I misunderstood what you said. If so, I apologize and look forward to your clarification.
-
Where they random shootings or arguments over who the Baby-Mama's Baby-Daddy really was?
-
Luis - if I wanted to hear that sort of shit, I'd go read TOS.
Two PEOPLE got shot. They ain't convenient cyphers. They bleed and hurt and die.
You've been different the last few days. If you got a problem that is stressing you out, PM anyone or take it to the members section. We'll try sort it out.
-
Luis - if I wanted to hear that sort of shit, I'd go read TOS.
Two PEOPLE got shot. They ain't convenient cyphers. They bleed and hurt and die.
You've been different the last few days. If you got a problem that is stressing you out, PM anyone or take it to the members section. We'll try sort it out.
No I'm the same. I have no problems.
I just have no pity for individuals, nations, religions, societies, cultures, etc that suffer from self-inflicted wounds.
I don't buy into the notion that blacks are the victims of anything other than their own behavior, and I don't believe the solution to their cultural woes are anyone's problems but their own.
-
Experiment over.
I made a blatant, indisputably racist statement. My state of mind was questioned, and it was suggested that I should seek counseling.
Where are my defenders?
If I had cows, and incoherently tried to base my racist statement on government antipathy, would supporters arise and excuse my racism off?
-
No I'm the same. I have no problems.
I just have no pity for individuals, nations, religions, societies, cultures, etc that suffer from self-inflicted wounds.
I don't buy into the notion that blacks are the victims of anything other than their own behavior, and I don't believe the solution to their cultural woes are anyone's problems but their own.
Fair enough. You had me worried for a minute.
-
I don't buy into the notion that blacks are the victims of anything other than their own behavior, and I don't believe the solution to their cultural woes are anyone's problems but their own.
I don't buy into the notion that anyone is the victim of anything other than his own behavior, irrespective of skintone.
-
If I had cows, and incoherently tried to base my racist statement on government antipathy, would supporters arise and excuse my racism off?
Bundy was NOT saying we should relegate blacks to slavery. He said that the black family has been harmed more by Dim policies than it was by slavery.
Bundy, E. W. Jackson, and Thomas Sowell said essentially the same thing, one less eloquently than the others. All 3 hammered the Dims' social policies. Two were ignored because they're black conservatives, the other is castigated because some of his specific words are considered archaic and politically incorrect. Knowing this, the GOP runs from him and also ignores the 2 black guys. The GOP should start defining themselves rather than letting the Dims do it for them.
This American Thinker column is worth a read. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/cliven_bundy_delenda_est.html)
-
I don't buy into the notion that anyone is the victim of anything other than his own behavior, irrespective of skintone.
Sadly, I do. Or at least that people of shared skin tone can be the victims of others behavior.
My son in law and I do about the same amount of driving. In the last 10 years I have been pulled over three times - speeding, tail light out, driving erratically (they pulled me on suspicion of drunk driving, when in fact I had dropped a lit cigarette onto my crotch!). All three times it was settled quickly, at the roadside and without even a ticket.
In the same period he has been pulled over 57 times, been arrested twice (weapons possession - he had his toolbox in the car), and had his car searched more times than you can imagine for drugs. Is he not the victim of others behavior?
-
Bundy was NOT saying we should relegate blacks to slavery. He said that the black family has been harmed more by Dim policies than it was by slavery.
Bundy, E. W. Jackson, and Thomas Sowell said essentially the same thing, one less eloquently than the others. All 3 hammered the Dims' social policies. Two were ignored because they're black conservatives, the other is castigated because some of his specific words are considered archaic and politically incorrect. Knowing this, the GOP runs from him and also ignores the 2 black guys. The GOP should start defining themselves rather than letting the Dims do it for them.
This American Thinker column is worth a read. (http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/04/cliven_bundy_delenda_est.html)
Thank you, but I don't require translation or clarification services for things said in plain English.
That the case for Barack Obama, and that's the case for Cliven Bundy.
Thomas Sowell has NEVER stated that he wondered whether or not blacks in the US would be better off as slaves than under any circumstances that they find themselves in.
Never... not once.
I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? - Cliven Bundy
NOTHING that he said either before or after that statement makes that statement anything other than (at best) ignorant, and (at worse) racist.
... and I've heard the whole statement (several times), his clarification, and several dozen convoluted explanations.
-
Sadly, I do. Or at least that people of shared skin tone can be the victims of others behavior.
My son in law and I do about the same amount of driving. In the last 10 years I have been pulled over three times - speeding, tail light out, driving erratically (they pulled me on suspicion of drunk driving, when in fact I had dropped a lit cigarette onto my crotch!). All three times it was settled quickly, at the roadside and without even a ticket.
In the same period he has been pulled over 57 times, been arrested twice (weapons possession - he had his toolbox in the car), and had his car searched more times than you can imagine for drugs. Is he not the victim of others behavior?
Yes... he's the victim of other people's behavior.
Not the cops however.
He's the victim of America's black culture's self-inflicted wounds.
The cops are just reacting to it.
Sad thing for your son-in-law.
In Bundy's eyes, the present situation of the blacks (or at least those blacks that he based his opinions on) is the fault of whites by way of our majority in government. Bundy then wonders if the solution to the problems of those blacks rests in the hands of whites again, whites being the majority of slave owners.
That's either a very liberal mindset (better lives through someone else exercising more control over your life), or a very racist mindset (blacks are incapable of resolving their own problems or even figuring out that they have a problem so they would be better off as slaves... blacks are obviously inferior). Having gained some understanding of Cliven Bundy these past couple of weeks, I'm thinking that he's not a liberal.
-
Thomas Sowell has NEVER stated that he wondered whether or not blacks in the US would be better off as slaves than under any circumstances that they find themselves in.
This is true. He never said he wonder whether or not they were better off as slaves or under the welfare state.
He stated unequivocally that the black family (and therefore the black community and the individuals it's made of) was better off then than now: "The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state." (Disintegration is bad.)
What's so bad about admitting this? Why is it so hard to say something like "as awful as slavery was, the current situation is worse for the black community. Government has instigated policies which have led to startlingly high rates of welfare dependence, abortion, homicide, drug use, and incarceration. Instead of binding people with chains and subjecting them to whips, we're binding them with dependency which leads them to addiction, violence, and other undesirable outcomes."
Just because someone compares something to slavery doesn't mean they want to return to slavery. That's Dim logic.
-
any info on the identity of the shooter? or are the MSM being studiously mum?
-
This is true. He never said he wonder whether or not they were better off as slaves or under the welfare state.
He stated unequivocally that the black family (and therefore the black community and the individuals it's made of) was better off then than now: "The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state." (Disintegration is bad.)
What's so bad about admitting this? Why is it so hard to say something like "as awful as slavery was, the current situation is worse for the black community. Government has instigated policies which have led to startlingly high rates of welfare dependence, abortion, homicide, drug use, and incarceration. Instead of binding people with chains and subjecting them to whips, we're binding them with dependency which leads them to addiction, violence, and other undesirable outcomes."
Just because someone compares something to slavery doesn't mean they want to return to slavery. That's Dim logic.
You want to make your argument based on misinterpreting my position by suggesting that I am accusing Bundy of saying that he he wanted blacks to go back to being slaves.
Not only did Bundy NOT say that, I am not saying that he said that.
He wondered (his own word) whether today's blacks would be "better off as slaves".
Sowell has never said that he wondered whether blacks would be better of as slaves.
Your Sowell quote does not suggest that Sowell believes that blacks would be better of as slaves.
Never.
Not once has Sowell ever said that, and I seriously doubt that he's ever thought that.
Bundy said that.
That's either ignorant, or racist.
I'll repeat myself.
I am perfectly capable of understanding EXACTLY what Bundy said.
I don't need translation or interpretative services.
-
Sowell has never said that he wondered whether blacks would be better of as slaves.
Your Sowell quote does not suggest that Sowell believes that blacks would be better of as slaves.
Sowell: "The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state."
Why would Sowell even say this unless he meant that the black family (and the individuals that comprise it) is worse off now than back then? Why would he even bring it up?
Apparently you think that because A > B, A must be good. Nobody is saying that. Slavery and the dependency wrought by the welfare state are both bad, and there's nothing wrong with saying it. In fact, in terms of the black family, slavery didn't cause as much harm as the welfare state.
-
Sowell: "The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state."
Why would Sowell even say this unless he meant that the black family (and the individuals that comprise it) is worse off now than back then? Why would he even bring it up?
I read Sowell. Almost everything that he's ever written.
He doesn't mince words.
If he thought that blacks would be better of as slaves he would say that unequivocally.
He didn't.
He has never said that.
Again... I need neither translation not interpretative services,
-
I read Sowell. Almost everything that he's ever written.
He doesn't mince words.
If he thought that blacks would be better of as slaves he would say that unequivocally.
He didn't.
He has never said that.
Again... I need neither translation not interpretative services,
Great news! Now that we know you are authorized to speak for Dr. Sowell, perhaps you can tell us what he meant when he said this:
"The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state."
-
Great news! Now that we know you are authorized to speak for Dr. Sowell, perhaps you can tell us what he meant when he said this:
"The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state."
At the risk of inserting myself where I am not wanted, I would suggest that Sowell is referring to the family, and not to the overall conditions of slavery (or even Jim Crow).
In that case, he is clearly correct, but it does not logically follow that he thinks it's better to be owned by another human being than to be free to make choices.
Are you really suggesting that Sowell means that? Don't you believe he holds human liberty in higher regard than that?
-
Great news! Now that we know you are authorized to speak for Dr. Sowell, perhaps you can tell us what he meant when he said this:
"The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state."
Dr. Sowell is speaking to the disintegration of the black family.
Respectfully submitted for consideration...
-
Dr. Sowell is speaking to the disintegration of the black family.
Respectfully submitted for consideration...
Why would he mention the disintegration of the black family if it had no bearing on the circumstances of the individuals in those families and in the black community at large? Implied in his statement is the fact that black individuals are harmed by the disintegration of the black family.
In that case, he is clearly correct, but it does not logically follow that he thinks it's better to be owned by another human being than to be free to make choices.
Are you really suggesting that Sowell means that? Don't you believe he holds human liberty in higher regard than that?
"The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state."
As the family goes, so goes the individual. I take him to mean that the effect of liberal welfare policies on black families have engendered dependency in the black community leading to a loss of freedom not unlike what was experienced in slave times. Why would he make the comparison if he didn't consider the two things to be comparable? Why can we not admit that liberal social policy is as bad as it is?
-
As the family goes, so goes the individual. I take him to mean that the effect of liberal welfare policies on black families have engendered dependency in the black community leading to a loss of freedom not unlike what was experienced in slave times. Why would he make the comparison if he didn't consider the two things to be comparable? Why can we not admit that liberal social policy is as bad as it is?
With respect - I read it differently.
To borrow a sharecropper analogy for a second - you plant a crop, you raise that crop. Look after it. Take care of it. Treasure it. Children are a crop.
What happens if you can plant the seed then just walk away, trusting to others to look after your crops. Usually - you starve as your crops wither.
-
Why can we not admit that liberal social policy is as bad as it is?
Oh, it is. Absolutely so. That is precisely Dr. Sowell's point. He observes that the black family largely survived slavery and Jim Crow but has failed during enlightened liberal policy.
Sadly, my belief is there is no going back. Not for generations.
-
Great news! Now that we know you are authorized to speak for Dr. Sowell, perhaps you can tell us what he meant when he said this:
"The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state."
I'm not speaking for Dr. Sowell, you are.
You want to argue that because Sowell recognizes the plight of the black family, and the reasons why the deterioration has occurred, this somehow translates into his saying that blacks would be better off as slaves.
That is not only absurd, but insulting to Dr. Sowell.
-
Why would he mention the disintegration of the black family if it had no bearing on the circumstances of the individuals in those families and in the black community at large? Implied in his statement is the fact that black individuals are harmed by the disintegration of the black family.
"The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state."
As the family goes, so goes the individual. I take him to mean that the effect of liberal welfare policies on black families have engendered dependency in the black community leading to a loss of freedom not unlike what was experienced in slave times. Why would he make the comparison if he didn't consider the two things to be comparable? Why can we not admit that liberal social policy is as bad as it is?
We DO admit that liberal social policy is as bad as it is. That's not what we're discussing here.
What those of us who disagree with your interpretation of Sowell are saying is that, there is no reason to conclude from the quote you have cited that Sowell believes that the disintegration of the black family under leftist policies, is as bad as having individuals and families in chains, beaten, sold at auction, and completely without liberty.
Black individuals and families under leftist policy still have choices that they can make affecting their futures and well-being.
Often times they choose poorly, but that doesn't mean they don't have that choice.
-
With respect - I read it differently.
To borrow a sharecropper analogy for a second - you plant a crop, you raise that crop. Look after it. Take care of it. Treasure it. Children are a crop.
What happens if you can plant the seed then just walk away, trusting to others to look after your crops. Usually - you starve as your crops wither.
Exactly right. The liberal welfare state does what (as I understand it, anyway) even slave owners wouldn't do. They plant the seed of dependency on government programs, reap their own rewards in the form of votes, then leave the black community to live with the results.
To reiterate: nobody is suggesting that society should go backward, and especially not to slavery or Jim Crow.
Sowell made a comparison between the outcomes of slavery and the outcomes of the welfare state. Surely the comparison must not have been that much of a stretch or he wouldn't have made it, right?
-
This entire debate is absurd.
It relies on the absence of a third option.
People on welfare can choose to walk away from it and better themselves. Millions of blacks have.
Slavery removes that option.
Anyone who can't see that difference is a fool.
-
Sowell made a comparison between the outcomes of slavery and the outcomes of the welfare state. Surely the comparison must not have been that much of a stretch or he wouldn't have made it, right?
When Doctor Sowell speaks - I listen hard. Not just to the words but to what he doesn't say. Not because he's black, but because he is way smarter than me and has a first hand perspective on the race discussion.
-
When Doctor Sowell speaks - I listen hard. Not just to the words but to what he doesn't say. Not because he's black, but because he is way smarter than me and has a first hand perspective on the race discussion.
When you start listening to the things people don't say, you run into the danger of hearing echoes if your own word and thoughts.
Here's what Sowell didn't say.
"Blacks would be better off as slaves."
I hear that loud and clear.
-
When you start listening to the things people don't say, you run into the danger of hearing echoes if your own word and thoughts.
Here's what Sowell didn't say.
"Blacks would be better off as slaves."
I hear that loud and clear.
Right, because he didn't say that, nor did he imply it. He said "the black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state." The black family is worse off after the expansion of the welfare state than it was after centuries of slavery and Jim Crow.
Nobody has said "blacks would be better off as slaves". Bundy wondered whether or not blacks in slave times were better off than blacks under our welfare state, which is awfully similar to what Sowell said. Nobody said "blacks would be better off as slaves".
-
When you start listening to the things people don't say, you run into the danger of hearing echoes if your own word and thoughts.
Here's what Sowell didn't say.
"Blacks would be better off as slaves."
I hear that loud and clear.
Luis - like you, I am an author. The white space is as eloquent as the words. More so, sometimes.
He did not state that blacks would be better off as slaves. He was asking what difference is there between what the VAST majority of blacks have now and what they had in slave times.
-
Dr. Sowell is certainly not concluding that the institution of slavery is desirable or better than the circumstances of blacks today. He does, however, suggest that the disintegration of the black family unit, in general, is traceable to liberal policy.
To me, this is a vast and obvious distinction over what seems to be argued by some.
-
Dr. Sowell is certainly not concluding that the institution of slavery is desirable or better than the circumstances of blacks today. He does, however, suggest that the disintegration of the black family unit, in general, is traceable to liberal policy.
Yes, the disintegration of the black family unit is traceable to liberal policy. Not even slavery or Jim Crow could break up the black family like liberal welfare policy has.
-
Luis - like you, I am an author. The white space is as eloquent as the words. More so, sometimes.
He did not state that blacks would be better off as slaves.
Bundy wondered exactly that.
It is absurd to think that Sowell would ask that.
He was asking what difference is there between what the VAST majority of blacks have now and what they had in slave times.
Nearly half of Black Americans own homes.
To the best of my knowledge, no slaves owned homes.
The vast majority (75%) live above poverty level. I don't see myself as going out on a limb in thinking that "poverty level"in the US is significantly higher than "slavery level".
American blacks own @ 2 million businesses in the US. Don't have a comparable figure for slave-owned businesses.
They have civil rights
They have voting rights.
They enjoy equal protection under the law.
And they have a fair amount of confidence in expecting that no one will ever brand them with a hot iron to be marked as property.
Oh!
They have the NBA.
-
Right, because he didn't say that, nor did he imply it. He said "the black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state." The black family is worse off after the expansion of the welfare state than it was after centuries of slavery and Jim Crow.
Nobody has said "blacks would be better off as slaves". Bundy wondered whether or not blacks in slave times were better off than blacks under our welfare state, which is awfully similar to what Sowell said. Nobody said "blacks would be better off as slaves".
"And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton?" - Cliven Bundy.
So, your point is that I have to hear what Sowell didn't say, and not hear what Bundy DID say?
That makes sense.
/sarcasm
-
I have some misgivings about telling this story but it is 100% true. I draw no conclusions but you may.
My son is an engineering student at an engineering and mining school in a western state (I prefer not to name it in this context). This past Easter weekend, Mrs. Lando and I drove out to visit him as he was moving into a new house near campus with 3 other guys. My other son from North Dakota met us there. One of my son's roommates is a former Navy Seal and very imposing in stature. Very imposing. 29 years-old. Anyway, one evening Mom and Dad went back to the hotel while the guys were going downtown for a few drinks and a few laughs. While at the bar, the Navy Seal struck up a conversation with a woman and he told her that he was former military. She replied that she hated the military and that was that - or so it would seem. The Navy Seal did tell her that she should appreciate the sacrifice of military people as he had devoted 10 years of his life to it.
The guys decided to leave for another venue, when they stepped out to the street a large black man immediately struck the Navy Seal in the face. He went down, but got up. A second guy again struck him. This time, he stayed down striking his head on the pavement. The bad guys fled and it was estimated by witnesses that there were 10-14 of them. All of them of color. It was over very quickly.
The Navy Seal suffered a cracked skull, broken upper jaw and two broken ribs (one guy kicked him when he was down). Of course, the local police are "investigating".
I asked the Navy Seal if he was angry. He said he can't afford to get angry. His roommates all know to lightly tap his feet if they need to wake him because of his night terror responses.
Anecdotal? Sure. But I fear for our society.
-
"And I've often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton?" - Cliven Bundy.
So, your point is that I have to hear what Sowell didn't say, and not hear what Bundy DID say?
That makes sense.
/sarcasm
By your quote, Bundy did not say they are better off as slaves, picking cotton. He only wondered if they are. There is a difference. I'm now done with the topic because I don't want to turn this into 200 posts on the topic.
-
By your quote, Bundy did not say they are better off as slaves, picking cotton. He only wondered if they are. There is a difference. I'm now done with the topic because I don't want to turn this into 200 posts on the topic.
The fact that he can even "wonder" that is absurd.
-
Lando, you seem to have recounted an instance of the "knockout game," which the news media and various other apologists insist does not exist.
-
Lando, you seem to have recounted an instance of the "knockout game," which the news media and various other apologists insist does not exist.
And Lando is right to fear for our society.
With so many 'feral' children growing up without purpose, without guidance, without any form of morality, and with hearts filled with hatred coming from the lies told by leftist politicians and thugs like Sharpton and Jackson, how can we not?
-
The fact that he can even "wonder" that is absurd.
And yet Dr. Sowell flat out says that the black family was better off back then. Well, unless one considers disintegration to be progress.
"The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals’ expansion of the welfare state."
My point in pushing the thread this far is not about slavery vs. welfare, it's about the fear the right has about being accused of racism.
"An old white guy wondered if blacks did better during slave times than under the welfare state? Racist! I can't be associated with him."
"Dr. Thomas Sowell said something similar? What?? He's black?!?! Uhh, ahh, hmmmm . . . . That wasn't what Dr. Sowell said! He didn't wonder if blacks fared better under slavery than under the welfare state! He said the black family survived slavery and Jim Crow intact and disintegrated under the welfare state! There's a huuuuuge difference!"
"Thanks for letting me prove I'm not a racist. Whew! That was close!"
-
Lando, you seem to have recounted an instance of the "knockout game," which the news media and various other apologists insist does not exist.
I have no doubt that he was a target.
-
Lando wrote above:
[[ Anecdotal? Sure. But I fear for our society. ]]
Sooner or later, this is going to end. Can't say just how.
Perhaps once Obama's gone, the black-on-white attacks will be less frequent. I sense that with Obama in office, a lot of low-end blacks think it's "black rule time" and that they can get away with a lot more than they could in earlier days. (Aside: with Eric Holder in office, who has actually said he isn't interest in crime against whites, they're right.)
This is what happens when more than two generations of blacks have been brought up being taught from day one that whites are their "oppressors" and they ALL are "victims of racism". It's what happens when standards of both behavior and educational achievement are lowered to almost zero in public schools. It's what happens when for fifty years black females have been paid to stay home and have babies, the more babies the more money. It's what happens when an entire racial group is told they are "entitled", from affirmative action to Obamaphones.
That Navy Seal guy OUGHT to be angry. If he isn't, frankly, he's a fool.
And by the way, I have personally been attacked by blacks in a similar manner, even made the local papers here.
I have no "white guilt" any more and I don't care.
It's been beaten out of me.
I couldn't care less that blacks endured slavery. Doesn't matter to me one iota, nor should it matter to you. I didn't own slaves, nor did my parents or grandparents, who probably escaped very poor conditions when they emigrated from Poland in the 1920's.
The sniveling whites who still -care- about slavery -- they are the wellspring of "white guilt", and it is they through their self-hatred for the behavior of folks 150 years ago, that perpetuate the excuses made for contemptible black behavior such as that perpetrated on the Navy guy above.
Actually, I think what may really end such behavior and the justifications made for it will be when Hispanics grow larger in numbers, perhaps even eclipsing whites as a "majority" in America.
THEY don't have any "white guilt".
They aren't going to put up with the black nonsense as do whites now -- and blacks are going to find out about this -very- quickly...
-
I'm just catching up here, owing to a new job that demands a great deal of my time and energy. I will try to address some of the issues raised here, as they are not merely important, but perhaps vital to the matter of our survival as a nation.
Fisherman wrote:
Andy, your writing is eloquent and noble, but did it ever occur to you that for some, it might be impossible to replace "the rules of the jungle" with the precepts of Western civilization ??
Well, in a word: yes. But that has always been the case. The difference today is that our dominant culture no longer subscribes to those precepts, and instead celebrates beliefs that both predate America's founding principles and which are often wholly antithetical to them. A great harm is being done especially to black communities and citizens, who have been cruelly encouraged to make of themselves permanent dependents rather than free citizens.
Progressives have sought to destroy each and every mediating institution by which Western civilization organized itself into a functional, if not always a harmonious society: families, neighborhoods, membership and fraternal groups, churches, synagogues, and charities.
The Progressives' chief purpose has always been (and still remains) one of empowering the State and its elite power brokers by making dependents of all others, setting group against group and class against class; dividing in order to conquer.
And so it has come to pass that in an effort to maintain and augment their power, Progressive liberals have used the false pretense of "compassion" to turn vast swaths of America's cities into havens of hopelessness, and districts of despair - while blaming Republicans and conservatives for the results of policies that they themselves advanced, and which their (hated) adversaries opposed.
Because the culture, its language and its transmission is so fully controlled by the Left, far too many victims of Progressivism remain deceived, morally confused, and compliant. But because mainstream Republican leaders have seen fit to protect their increasingly narrow bases of power rather than challenge the status quo, no serious national challenge to Progressivism has yet been mounted. Power corrupts, even as it wanes.
Black people deserve better. Americans deserve better. But our tragic human history suggests that we shall not get "better" until things fall apart, at which time, we are likely at first to get much worse.
* * *
As for Cliven Bundy: he is not in my estimation the sort of person of whom I would be tempted to make a hero.
As much as I instinctively sympathize with any person who must wrestle with our increasingly overbearing Federal government, and as much as I comprehend the human devastation brought about by the expansion of the welfare state, there is simply no excuse for favorably postulating a return to slavery as superior to the realities of modern inner-city life.
If there was ever a bigger "big government" program than slavery, I should like to hear of it.
Conservatives have no business trading in ignorance or bigotry; liberals have by now cornered the market on both, and we ought to make them painfully aware of it at every opportunity.
To advance the notion that black people are entirely responsible for the state of their communities is to ignore the role of government, culture and education in promoting and shaping the values that define the acceptable bounds of human life. But to hold them entirely blameless for not resisting the cultural chains that shackle them would be to deny the abilities of human perception and of choice.
Perhaps if we all had leaders who promoted a vision of freedom, backed up by a philosophy that explained and justified its necessity, we might begin to find the courage to challenge those who only pretend to appeal to the best in all of us, while promoting the worst of our human instincts, for their own shallow benefit and no one else's.