kill whitey: racism in the black community

[MajGenl.Meade]

De nada. You ain't old... you kid, you!

[liberty]

I can’t do this will someone review it and give a synopsis?

http://www.examiner.com/article/race-wa ... eople-cops

[dales]

A quick synopsis:

More hate speech from a few mentally ill black people.

[wesw]

[liberty]

A quick synopsis:

More hate speech from a few mentally ill black people.

Thanks, so they don’t claim to be leaders of the" black lives matter" movement. And as far as individual blacks calling for a race war and the murder of whites that is fairly common, but so far the killing are not significant. They kill a lot more fellow blacks than whites.

[Guinevere]

167 COMMENTS
The Opinion Pages | EDITORIAL

The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The Republican Party and its acolytes in the news media are trying to demonize the protest movement that has sprung up in response to the all-too-common police killings of unarmed African-Americans across the country. The intent of the campaign — evident in comments by politicians like Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky — is to cast the phrase “Black Lives Matter” as an inflammatory or even hateful anti-white expression that has no legitimate place in a civil rights campaign.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas crystallized this view when he said the other week that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., were he alive today, would be “appalled” by the movement’s focus on the skin color of the unarmed people who are disproportionately killed in encounters with the police. This argument betrays a disturbing indifference to or at best a profound ignorance of history in general and of the civil rights movement in particular. From the very beginning, the movement focused unapologetically on bringing an end to state-sanctioned violence against African-Americans and to acts of racial terror very much like the one that took nine lives at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., in June.

The civil rights movement was intended to make Congress and Americans confront the fact that African-Americans were being killed with impunity for offenses like trying to vote, and had the right to life and to equal protection under the law. The movement sought a cross-racial appeal, but at every step of the way used expressly racial terms to describe the death and destruction that was visited upon black people because they were black.

Even in the early 20th century, civil rights groups documented cases in which African-Americans died horrible deaths after being turned away from hospitals reserved for whites, or were lynched — which meant being hanged, burned or dismembered — in front of enormous crowds that had gathered to enjoy the sight.

The Charleston church massacre has eerie parallels to the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. — the most heinous act of that period — which occurred at the height of the early civil rights movement. Four black girls were murdered that Sunday. When Dr. King eulogized them, he did not shy away from the fact that the dead had been killed because they were black, by monstrous men whose leaders fed them “the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism.” He said that the dead “have something to say” to a complacent federal government that cut back-room deals with Southern Dixiecrats, as well as to “every Negro who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice.” Shock over the bombing pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act the following year.

During this same period, freedom riders and voting rights activists led by the young John Lewis offered themselves up to be beaten nearly to death, week after week, day after day, in the South so that the country would witness Jim Crow brutality and meaningfully respond to it. This grisly method succeeded in Selma, Ala., in 1965 when scenes of troopers bludgeoning voting rights demonstrators compelled a previously hesitant Congress to acknowledge that black people deserved full citizenship, too, and to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Along the way, there was never a doubt as to what the struggle was about: securing citizenship rights for black people who had long been denied them.

The “Black Lives Matter” movement focuses on the fact that black citizens have long been far more likely than whites to die at the hands of the police, and is of a piece with this history. Demonstrators who chant the phrase are making the same declaration that voting rights and civil rights activists made a half-century ago. They are not asserting that black lives are more precious than white lives. They are underlining an indisputable fact — that the lives of black citizens in this country historically have not mattered, and have been discounted and devalued. People who are unacquainted with this history are understandably uncomfortable with the language of the movement. But politicians who know better and seek to strip this issue of its racial content and context are acting in bad faith. They are trying to cover up an unpleasant truth and asking the country to collude with them.

See Sue's post below for the link to the piece.

[Crackpot]

Your link sasses up your post.

[Sue U]

Better linky thingy just 4 u, CP, and the NYT editorial again ('cause it needs to be said again):

167 COMMENTS
The Opinion Pages | EDITORIAL

The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The Republican Party and its acolytes in the news media are trying to demonize the protest movement that has sprung up in response to the all-too-common police killings of unarmed African-Americans across the country. The intent of the campaign — evident in comments by politicians like Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky — is to cast the phrase “Black Lives Matter” as an inflammatory or even hateful anti-white expression that has no legitimate place in a civil rights campaign.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas crystallized this view when he said the other week that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., were he alive today, would be “appalled” by the movement’s focus on the skin color of the unarmed people who are disproportionately killed in encounters with the police. This argument betrays a disturbing indifference to or at best a profound ignorance of history in general and of the civil rights movement in particular. From the very beginning, the movement focused unapologetically on bringing an end to state-sanctioned violence against African-Americans and to acts of racial terror very much like the one that took nine lives at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., in June.

The civil rights movement was intended to make Congress and Americans confront the fact that African-Americans were being killed with impunity for offenses like trying to vote, and had the right to life and to equal protection under the law. The movement sought a cross-racial appeal, but at every step of the way used expressly racial terms to describe the death and destruction that was visited upon black people because they were black.

Even in the early 20th century, civil rights groups documented cases in which African-Americans died horrible deaths after being turned away from hospitals reserved for whites, or were lynched — which meant being hanged, burned or dismembered — in front of enormous crowds that had gathered to enjoy the sight.

The Charleston church massacre has eerie parallels to the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. — the most heinous act of that period — which occurred at the height of the early civil rights movement. Four black girls were murdered that Sunday. When Dr. King eulogized them, he did not shy away from the fact that the dead had been killed because they were black, by monstrous men whose leaders fed them “the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism.” He said that the dead “have something to say” to a complacent federal government that cut back-room deals with Southern Dixiecrats, as well as to “every Negro who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice.” Shock over the bombing pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act the following year.

During this same period, freedom riders and voting rights activists led by the young John Lewis offered themselves up to be beaten nearly to death, week after week, day after day, in the South so that the country would witness Jim Crow brutality and meaningfully respond to it. This grisly method succeeded in Selma, Ala., in 1965 when scenes of troopers bludgeoning voting rights demonstrators compelled a previously hesitant Congress to acknowledge that black people deserved full citizenship, too, and to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Along the way, there was never a doubt as to what the struggle was about: securing citizenship rights for black people who had long been denied them.

The “Black Lives Matter” movement focuses on the fact that black citizens have long been far more likely than whites to die at the hands of the police, and is of a piece with this history. Demonstrators who chant the phrase are making the same declaration that voting rights and civil rights activists made a half-century ago. They are not asserting that black lives are more precious than white lives. They are underlining an indisputable fact — that the lives of black citizens in this country historically have not mattered, and have been discounted and devalued. People who are unacquainted with this history are understandably uncomfortable with the language of the movement. But politicians who know better and seek to strip this issue of its racial content and context are acting in bad faith. They are trying to cover up an unpleasant truth and asking the country to collude with them.

[Crackpot]

It's not the new link it's the current link.

[Guinevere]

Your link sasses up your post.

Looks and works fine for me, on different devices. I have no idea how to fix it.

ETA - deleted and referred to Sue's linky . . .

[rubato]

167 COMMENTS
The Opinion Pages | EDITORIAL

The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

The Republican Party and its acolytes in the news media are trying to demonize the protest movement that has sprung up in response to the all-too-common police killings of unarmed African-Americans across the country. The intent of the campaign — evident in comments by politicians like Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky — is to cast the phrase “Black Lives Matter” as an inflammatory or even hateful anti-white expression that has no legitimate place in a civil rights campaign.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas crystallized this view when he said the other week that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., were he alive today, would be “appalled” by the movement’s focus on the skin color of the unarmed people who are disproportionately killed in encounters with the police. This argument betrays a disturbing indifference to or at best a profound ignorance of history in general and of the civil rights movement in particular. From the very beginning, the movement focused unapologetically on bringing an end to state-sanctioned violence against African-Americans and to acts of racial terror very much like the one that took nine lives at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., in June.

The civil rights movement was intended to make Congress and Americans confront the fact that African-Americans were being killed with impunity for offenses like trying to vote, and had the right to life and to equal protection under the law. The movement sought a cross-racial appeal, but at every step of the way used expressly racial terms to describe the death and destruction that was visited upon black people because they were black.

Even in the early 20th century, civil rights groups documented cases in which African-Americans died horrible deaths after being turned away from hospitals reserved for whites, or were lynched — which meant being hanged, burned or dismembered — in front of enormous crowds that had gathered to enjoy the sight.

The Charleston church massacre has eerie parallels to the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. — the most heinous act of that period — which occurred at the height of the early civil rights movement. Four black girls were murdered that Sunday. When Dr. King eulogized them, he did not shy away from the fact that the dead had been killed because they were black, by monstrous men whose leaders fed them “the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism.” He said that the dead “have something to say” to a complacent federal government that cut back-room deals with Southern Dixiecrats, as well as to “every Negro who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice.” Shock over the bombing pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act the following year.

During this same period, freedom riders and voting rights activists led by the young John Lewis offered themselves up to be beaten nearly to death, week after week, day after day, in the South so that the country would witness Jim Crow brutality and meaningfully respond to it. This grisly method succeeded in Selma, Ala., in 1965 when scenes of troopers bludgeoning voting rights demonstrators compelled a previously hesitant Congress to acknowledge that black people deserved full citizenship, too, and to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Along the way, there was never a doubt as to what the struggle was about: securing citizenship rights for black people who had long been denied them.

The “Black Lives Matter” movement focuses on the fact that black citizens have long been far more likely than whites to die at the hands of the police, and is of a piece with this history. Demonstrators who chant the phrase are making the same declaration that voting rights and civil rights activists made a half-century ago. They are not asserting that black lives are more precious than white lives. They are underlining an indisputable fact — that the lives of black citizens in this country historically have not mattered, and have been discounted and devalued. People who are unacquainted with this history are understandably uncomfortable with the language of the movement. But politicians who know better and seek to strip this issue of its racial content and context are acting in bad faith. They are trying to cover up an unpleasant truth and asking the country to collude with them.

See Sue's post below for the link to the piece.

Very well put and very appropriate. The attempt to vilify "black lives matter" is just another turn for the racist worm. They have pretended that the campaign of terrorism against blacks never happened, they have continued to pretend that the evils they still don't admit were all undone and atoned for, and now they try to change the subject when it is proven that the campaign has never actually stopped.




yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, I'm glad we've got that three times.

Guin, your link worked exactly fine for me the first time.

[Guinevere]

Sometimes it takes three times to make it sink in . . .

[rubato]

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/4/9258133/white-lives-matter

Next time someone tells you "all lives matter," show them this cartoon

Updated by German Lopez on September 4, 2015, 8:21 a.m. ET @germanrlopez german.lopez@vox.com
Tweet (464) Share (8,676) +

One of the most common responses to "Black Lives Matter" is "all lives matter." But that response misses the point, as this great cartoon from Kris Straub at Chainsawsuit demonstrates:
"All lives matter" is wrong.


Kris Straub/Chainsawsuit

The point of Black Lives Matter isn't to suggest that black lives should be or are more important than all other lives, but instead that black people's lives are relatively undervalued in the US (and more likely to be ended by police), and the country needs to recognize that inequity to bring an end to it.

Reddit user GeekAesthete made this point in a thread explaining why the phrase "all lives matter" is offensive:

Imagine that you're sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don't get any. So you say "I should get my fair share." And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, "everyone should get their fair share." Now, that's a wonderful sentiment -- indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad's smart-ass comment just dismissed you and didn't solve the problem that you still haven't gotten any!

Straub's cartoon echoes this point: If a house is burning down, you're obviously going to focus on putting out the fire instead of watering a house that's just fine. In this analogy, black lives are the burning house, and everyone else is living much more comfortably in the house that isn't burning down. Clearly, one is a bigger problem.

[Joe Guy]

It seems to me that the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' began being used by demonstrators as a response to a couple of highly publicized examples of white police shooting black people. It means exactly what it says. It doesn't need any spin added to it. People were shouting out that black people deserve the same respect as every other race at a time when it looked as though authority didn't give it to them.

Now a lot of people - white, black brown etc, are telling us what 'black lives matter' really means and how saying that all lives matter is disrespectful to black people.

Now people are telling us what 'all lives matter' means.

BULLSHIT!!!

A bunch of intellectual halfwits have now decided that black lives matter is not to be tampered with, used sarcastically or mimicked by substituting another word for 'black' and people are disagreeing and having long stupid arguments about it.

Fuck You AND

[rubato]

The evils of racism continue because it is so easy for people to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.


See Joe Guy's bullshit Above.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

The evils of racism continue because it is so easy for people to ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.

The evils of racism continue because for some stupid reason a lot of people can't or won't recognize their own prejudiced thoughts and instead attempt to justify why they think the way they do while claiming not to be racist.

Then they pass on their warped self-serving beliefs to their children and others who accept the explanation that you can be non-racist and hate what all of those black people are always doing.

It is much easier hide your head in the sand so you can avoid the truth and avoid any new information. That type of behavior allows you to continually be a racist without a clue.

[Gob]

The evils of racism continue because for some stupid reason a lot of people can't or won't recognize their own prejudiced thoughts and instead attempt to justify why they think the way they do while claiming not to be racist.

Oh don't we know it?

Poor Gob! If he was foreign you could just deport him!

If he was Welsh you could just put a nice bottle in front of him and say "if you can not drink this for ten whole minutes we'll let you go".


yrs,
rubato

It's England! Who would have thought they'd have the energy and ambition to steal! They are indolent authority addicts, not striving up-and-comers like the Irish or the Welsh.


yrs,
rubato

Vowels are as exotic and rare as arctic orchids to the Welsh; still getting the hang of them.


yrs,
rubato

And I was thinking that he was saying the naked rambler was fucking Welsh girls on his way, but that might be bestiality more than miscegenation.

Shows how wrong one can be.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Joe Guy makes some well thought out and nuanced points...

rube is once again talking out his: