By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

What I draw from this is actually very simple:

We can't draw anything from these statistics. Some will conclude blacks are more criminal, others will conclude police are biased.

These numbers give almost no insight into circumstance hence I find them to be largely useless. It won't stop some from referring to them however for political gain. Some may slap them under their 'white supremacy in action' social sciences project for that delicious 'A' grade.

"Some will conclude blacks are more criminal, others will conclude police are biased."

Yes, and as I stated, all roads lead to Rome, so to speak. The fact that different points can be drawn from a single number doesn't make the number meaningless, when all points lead to the same conclusion.

I'd like to pose to you the same question you posed to me: What do you make of these police shooting statistics? You seem to be implying here that you wish to play some sort of middle ground, but you haven't really demonstrated that there is a solid footing for that ground.

I don't draw much of these shooting statistics.

All shooting incidents are unique and worthy of individual assessment: in the real world, the skin color of the victim is NOT the only variable at play but in graphs highlighting racial discrepancies, one could easily be fooled into thinking skin color is the only decisive variable or a major variable on whether or not an officer opens fire on a suspect.

the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

Never considered them the same but Reginald Oliver Denny certainly endured an overwhelming amount of harm for seemingly nothing. People can be upset all they want about 250+ years of oppression (no one can say they were a slave for 250+ years, btw. It's nonsense), ROD had nothing to do with that.

Now answer the question: if a lynching is white supremacy, was the Reginald Oliver Denny beating black supremacy?

>no one can say they were a slave for 250+ years, btw. It's nonsense

>if a lynching is white supremacy

No one said either of these things.  Why don't you go back and read what was actually said?

White people attacking black people by itself doesnt constitute white supremacy. White people being backed by a white government while attacking black people constitutes as white supremacy.  

Conversely black supremacy would require black people being backed by a black government. 

And back to this:

>no one can say they were a slave for 250+ years, btw. It's nonsense

What's nonsense is that no one claimed this.

We are talking about historical inequality on a racial basis.  

When the slave owners died who inherited their wealth?  The slave owner's children did not own any slaves, and yet they were the ones to inherit the plantation.  Their children were even further removed from owning any slaves, yet the only reason they have the money from the plantation is because their grandparents owned slaves. Is this starting to make any sense?  

If I was a business owner who secretly conspired to only hire white workers, would you call this white supremacy? I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure this is against the law and I'm doing it without government backing: government would have perfect grounds to prosecute me for breaking the law actually.

I'm just trying to figure out your odd definition of 'white supremacy' which requires government backing of some sort... It seems very weird...