Video shows teens beating Chicago student to death

[trefoil]

For the life of me, I'll never understand how it can be said that whites are less violent, given the history of the years 1914 - 1945.
Or what the Spanish did to the Indians they encountered in the New World. See Las Casas, who wrote it down in excruciating detail.
Not saying Indians, or blacks, or Asians are less violent. Just that whites are just as violent.
The worst urban riot in the history of the country was the Irish draft riot in NYC during the Civil War.
Paul Johnson, a conservative historian, let it be noted, wrote in his "History of the American People", after citing numbers of race riots between whites and blacks over territory when blacks migrated to the cities in large numbers at the start of the twentieth century, "The urban whites had taught blacks how to riot, and the blacks learned the lesson with a vengeance."
But with all due respect to Mr. Johnson, that "with a vengeance" clause is perhaps unjustified. Some interesting facts about the Irish draft riot from Low Life, by Luc Sante:

...the rest of the day was marked by pitched, running battles in all parts of town. After fierce fighting, the fifty-two policemen who were guarding the State Armory at Twenty-first street and Second Avenue acknowledged defeat and fled...That the mob was racist is unquestionable: eighteen blacks were lynched and five were forced into the river to drown, while seventy more vanished without trace...hundreds were forced from their homes, which were rendered uninhabitable...

But Mr. Johnson, and the rest of us, can be forgiven some ignorance of the riots and of their scale:

The Draft Riots are not claimed by New York as one of the great events in its history. They are considered an embarrasment, and a large percentage of the city's population have no idea that an insurrection on a vast scale ever took place in their municipality...Nevertheless, their impact is hard to overlook...killed were possibly two thousand rioters...the wounded included a minimum of eight thousand rioters, three hundred of the military, and virtually every cop in the city.

Watts, Newark, and LA had nothing on the Irish in NYC. Blacks may have learned rioting from them and others, but they never managed anything quite so, um, grand.
Ricter is correct though: Irish and black alike were all pigmented folks. No albinos among them.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

no, i never said anything about skin color, you made that assertion...

Rubberbird made that assertion, I tried to build on it.

 

[Ricter]

Ahh, ok. You're saying that "blacks" never do warfare, they only do "recreational slaughter" (can't be called slaughter, can it?), and that "whites" never do recreational slaughter, they only do warfare. Therefore, since recreational slaughter is irrational and warfare is rational, then "blacks" are bad and "whites" are good!

I'm a bit troubled by the case of albinos, though. If they are truly unpigmented, then they are actually white. What does that make "whites"... "tans"?

 

[trefoil]

Black and Tans

...for the humor-impaired, no, I'm not serious.

 

[trendlover]

Quote from rubberbird_50:

nice try, presupposing the basis of our arguement

I grew up in a white college town, and went to 2 universities, and bought all that crap

then I traveled on business and learned reality

there's more to it than skin color, although there is some coincidental relation. Consider this in an evolutionary context, over thousands of years

Light skinned people lived in northern europe, then there were harsh winters. you had to plan ahead, you had to organize with crops, distribution, minding the fire, keeping watch - you had to cooperate and get along with a number of responsibilites. or people died

People had to have a sense of deferred gratification to make the effort for crops that *might* be of value in 6 months

the mother couldnt survive without the support of the father

members of the tribe with insight and planning abilities would be valued and estemed


In africa, life was different, but in many ways more pleasant. winters never came. food was usually there for the hunting - it didnt have to be planted, guarded and distributed. There wasnt a lot of planning, because you didnt need it

the main survival skills were protecting yourself from animals, other tribes, and hunting

skills that above all, benefitted from a quick impulsive burst of violence....

members of the tribe with brute force would be valued and estemed

think about the above environments from an evolutionary context - each group did what it had to do to survive, and those that had the right skills were selected

what part of the above isnt true?

one group was not necessarely better than the other, they did what they had to do in the context of surviving in their own environment

how do you think it relates to what we see today?

This is how I see it relate to today. Most people learn from the parents. If you born to wealth, you learn how to have wealth. If you are born to poverty, you can be better, but likely to stay in that poverty. Just like your example of people from Africa not have to learn planning, they can not show example to their children. Just like people who have wealth, they show their children how to have wealth. Some can go away from the poverty and learn, but most only go with what they (see) from the environment. So the wealthy family will give knowlege and money to their child. The poor family can not. That pass from generation, to generation, to generation. Then one of those children of uneducated and poverty will break that pattern. Most will not. But the one who break that pattern will have children more likely to follow them. And their children most likely follow that pattern. But it is a long time to make that change.
Why most all presidents, successful people have children who do the same and have success?, and most poverty people have children who stay in poverty? Not genes, but environment most times.
Like the ghetto of Camden, Chicago, Detroit...it passes on and on. Just like a presidents children who is successful, it pass on and on.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

... i never said that blacks don't ever "do warfare"...

Because you don't believe that, or because you merely did not say it?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

what are you the fucking thought police?! lol some of you guys are fucking crazy... ask a direct question, and i'll answer it... what the hell are you talking about?? this is like talking to gary busey

Do you believe that "blacks" never do warfare, or do you believe that sometimes "blacks" do warfare?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

umm, well blacks serve in the american military, and subsaharan africa is nearly constantly in a state of war is populated overwhelmingly with blacks... so i'm going to go with blacks sometimes "do warfare" did i win something??

Darn, this is beginning to undermine rubberbird's emphasis on skin color and the possibility of a simple explanation for violence through history. Accepting what you said above, it's possibly true that "whites" also sometimes do "recreational slaughter". So if skin color is not the only causative factor, that opens the door to other possible factors. Now we're beginning to drift into some damned, wishy washy egghead bullcrap spouted by the liberals.

 

[Gummivogel]

Quote from Ricter:

Darn, this is beginning to undermine rubberbird's emphasis on skin color and the possibility of a simple explanation for violence through history. Accepting what you said above, it's possibly true that "whites" also sometimes do "recreational slaughter". So if skin color is not the only causative factor, that opens the door to other possible factors. Now we're beginning to drift into some damned, wishy washy egghead bullcrap spouted by the liberals.

where did rubberbird say anything about skin color?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Gummivogel:

where did rubberbird say anything about skin color?

Hi, rubberbird. Back to the beginning for post count, eh?