PDA

View Full Version : Help Us, Sulla


Keystone
02-10-2007, 02:59 AM
Could you please tell our African American leadership they're a bunch of pathetic racists?

Leaders lament black-on-black violence

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07040/760691-53.stm

"White people are not killing us. We are killing us," said Tim Stevens, head of the Black Political Empowerment Project and an organizer of the Hill District meeting.

"We have become the problem and we must now find the solutions. We have no other choice."

That's Tim Stevens, our local NAACP mouthpiece.

http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/20070209tt_bpep_450.jpg

Looks a little white around the edges, I always thought.

The alarms grew louder last week when an FBI report revealed that the homicide rate among blacks in Pennsylvania ranks the highest in the nation.
Most of the deaths involved handguns and their use pushed homicide into the leading cause of death among blacks ages 15 to 19, 20 to 24, and 25 to 34.

Isn't that hopeful? We've beaten out Louisiana! The only place worse than my-once-fair-city in PA is Philadelphia.

Now, the "African" leadership here has been saying the same things for 35 years, and it's only gotten worse. Year after year. The jigs drive white folk out further and further with their savage behavior, and all the local gov does is give more free lunches away to illegitimate blacks.

You need to calm our nerves here and explain why race doesn't matter.
Stop by anytime.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:29 AM
Thanks for posting more evidence of a primarily intraracial problem, Keystone.

But don't let that interupt you building a bunker in your backyard to keep yourself safe from BLACK ON BLACK violence. :rolleyes:

Keystone
02-10-2007, 03:31 AM
Thanks for posting more evidence of a primarily intraracial problem, Keystone.

But don't let that interupt you building a bunker in your backyard to keep yourself safe from BLACK ON BLACK violence. :rolleyes:
The diversity shot at my FRONT YARD last year.

Rolleyes.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:33 AM
The diversity shot at my FRONT YARD last year.


They were probably trying to kill you because you're white. There's a black guy who manages property at my brokerage who is complicit due to his race. When we force him onto the transports, we'll give his property to you to make up for a criminal shooting randomly in your neighborhood.

OVERWATCH
02-10-2007, 03:34 AM
Thanks for posting more evidence of a primarily intraracial problem, Keystone.

But don't let that interupt you building a bunker in your backyard to keep yourself safe from BLACK ON BLACK violence. :rolleyes:

It's primarily intraracial because non-blacks know to stay the hell away from just about anywhere that features large black populations..and once they start moving into a neighbourhood because of landlords turning to section 8 housing, the exodus begins.

The majority of the negro race is like a pack of dogs, or a plague of locusts. If you can avoid them, you will.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:36 AM
It's primarily intraracial because non-blacks know to stay the hell away from just about anywhere that features large black populations..


Interesting theory. Kind of flies in the face of the low levels of black crime while they were a primarily Southern population.

Keystone
02-10-2007, 03:37 AM
They were probably trying to kill you because you're white. There's a black guy who manages property at my brokerage who is complicit due to his race. When we force him onto the transports, we'll give his property to you to make up for a criminal shooting randomly in your neighborhood.
No, they were trying to kill each other because they're niggers.

Why on earth do you think that as long as they ruin my city by making it uninhabitable, that they aren't at fault?

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:39 AM
No, they were trying to kill each other because they're niggers.


Good point. I wonder how many people that property manager has killed. He's black. Its probably a lot, huh?


Why on earth do you think that as long as they ruin my city by making it uninhabital, that they aren't at fault?

Indeed, the world sure does seem to revolve around you. Your city, your yard, your neighbors.

Keystone
02-10-2007, 03:40 AM
Indeed, the world sure does seem to revolve around you. Your city, your yard, your neighbors.
I think you are being willfully dense.

Janus
02-10-2007, 03:40 AM
Kind of flies in the face of the low levels of black crime while they were a primarily Southern population. When was that?

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:42 AM
I think you are being willfully dense.

I think you're mistakenly applying the 'lessons' of your dirty urban sprawl to a country you're largely unfamiliar with. We don't have your situation here in Vegas.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:43 AM
When was that?

Before 1940.

OVERWATCH
02-10-2007, 03:45 AM
Interesting theory. Kind of flies in the face of the low levels of black crime while they were a primarily Southern population.

The prevailing culture is mainly to blame. The base, modern, crotch-grabbing, rapping, amoral, chip-on-the-shoulder, failure-prone, impulsive inner-city negro is today's sacred cow. Always quick to throw a temper tantrum at supposedly ubiquitous white racism, they are encouraged in this behaviour. Bad behaviour continually excused by bogus victimhood status and tales of slavery, they know what side of the bread is buttered, and it has a big toasty 'WR' emblazoned on it, which means 'WHITE RACISM'...the phrase that pays.

The black community is a bunch of wild, spoilt children who do not know what it is like to be disciplined, at least for the last 40+ years. In lieu of discipline, they are constantly doted upon by their touchy-feely egalitarian benefactors.

Starr
02-10-2007, 03:47 AM
Indeed, the world sure does seem to revolve around you. Your city, your yard, your neighbors.

they will generally turn any city they live in, in any large numbers into a war zone. And who picks up the bill for the results of that intraracial violence?

il ragno
02-10-2007, 03:49 AM
Interesting theory. Kind of flies in the face of the low levels of black crime while they were a primarily Southern population.


Yep. Jim Crow and the ever-present shadow of the Klan was good for those people - kept em all from dying of gunshot wounds at 17, if nothing else..

About time you came around, Sulla. Now you need to apply that kind of clear-eyed thinking to post Jim Crow America.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:50 AM
The prevailing culture is mainly to blame. The base, modern, crotch-grabbing, rapping, amoral, chip-on-the-shoulder, failure-prone, impulsive inner-city negro is today's sacred cow.

I do not in any way support the organized "black community" which is guilty of coddling and justifying bad behaviour wherever its found. I merely reject the premise that CULTURAL problems are actually racial ones. And I reject it on the evidence.

That being said, the most preposterous thing I see on these boards are people who are, in FACT, no better than the stereotype you describe prancing around claiming Master Race status.

Furthermore, people who deny that MOST black people are normal, law abiding citizens are quite clearly lying.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:51 AM
Yep. Jim Crow and the ever-present shadow of the Klan was good for those people - kept em all from dying of gunshot wounds at 17, if nothing else..


Not quite. This was, of course, an era where blacks were terrorized by gutter trash racialists. Likeminded fellows of yourself. This was a terrible phenomenon, but the most relevant point is that blacks were a far more RURAL population.

Pointing again to the contrast between rural and urban criminality. Economics and population density are the two largest factors in crime.

Ahknaton
02-10-2007, 03:52 AM
Thanks for posting more evidence of a primarily intraracial problem, Keystone.

But don't let that interupt you building a bunker in your backyard to keep yourself safe from BLACK ON BLACK violence. :rolleyes:
Black on Black violence isn't something that I rejoice in (nor am I assuming you do either), but it is symptomatic of serious issues within the Black community. Why did it increase in the post-Civil Rights era? White people aren't going to be able to insulate themselves from it forever, and if giving Blacks more control over their communities (i.e. racial separation, with Blacks able to elect their own leaders and enact their own measures against it without having to worry about whether Whites are okay with the civil liberties implications) helps solve the problem of Black on Black violence then wouldn't that be a good thing?

Ahknaton
02-10-2007, 03:53 AM
Not quite. This was, of course, an era where blacks were terrorized by gutter trash racialists. Likeminded fellows of yourself. This was a terrible phenomenon, but the most relevant point is that blacks were a far more RURAL population.
All the lynchings in American history don't even add up to the death toll of one year of gun-related violence in America.

il ragno
02-10-2007, 03:54 AM
The most preposterous thing I see on these boards are people who are, in FACT, no better than the stereotype you describe prancing around claiming Master Race status.


Attaboy. Change the subject to Nazi strawmen no one but you has raised on this thread.

Particularly since your argument of 'fuck you Jack, I'm all right' re Keystone's street becoming a war zone sounds as solidly conservative as Noel Iganatieff's course syllabus.

OVERWATCH
02-10-2007, 03:55 AM
I do not in any way support the organized "black community" which is guilty of coddling and justifying bad behaviour wherever its found. I merely reject the premise that CULTURAL problems are actually racial ones. And I reject it on the evidence.


Well, if one race is the primary cause, the epicenter, and the festering breeding ground from which these cultural problems issue forth from, then it is a racial issue..just not necessarily one that is innate to that race.

I also think innate, biological factors are at work here, but they play the smaller role.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:56 AM
Black on Black violence isn't something that I rejoice in (nor am I assuming you do either), but it is symptomatic of serious issues within the Black community.


Inarguable. It DOES represent a serious problem within the black community.


Why did it increase in the post-Civil Rights era?


One of the largest reasons is the drug epidemic. Crack cocaine was a disaster for the community, creating economic incentives for organized crime and violence.

But the fact that we see a sharp increase in crime argues AGAINST a racial predisposition towards it. Theoretically, black crime should have been constant if racialists were correct.


White people aren't going to be able to insulate themselves from it forever, and if giving Blacks more control over their communities (i.e. racial separation, with Blacks able to elect their own leaders and enact their own measures against it without having to worry about whether Whites are okay with the civil liberties implications)


No, because the black establishment which runs black communities now is little more than an old fashioned party machine.

Starr
02-10-2007, 03:57 AM
I do not in any way support the organized "black community" which is guilty of coddling and justifying bad behaviour wherever its found. I merely reject the premise that CULTURAL problems are actually racial ones. And I reject it on the evidence.

Certain aspects like "gangsta" culture make the problem much worse because it encourages and plays into the worst behavioral traits in blacks. The attitudes and behaviors present in that culture is somewhat a reflection of who they are and their true nature and that is why they so easily adopted it and why it is also so prevelant among them.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:57 AM
All the lynchings in American history don't even add up to the death toll of one year of gun-related violence in America.

They made up a large part of the deaths in the South. And since its proportionality which is relevant and not numbers (Especially when you're comparing a population of 300 million to 60 million in the pre-war South), it was pretty significant.

Janus
02-10-2007, 03:57 AM
Before 1940.There was both segregation and discrimination at that time. How are the two situations comparable?
They made up a large part of the deaths in the South.Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

EDIT: I was adding content.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 03:59 AM
Attaboy. Change the subject to Nazi strawmen no one but you has raised on this thread.


My point is simple. Once 'we' get rid of blacks, whose going to get rid of people like you? :rofl:

I mean, THINK OF THE CHILDREN. :rofl:

Janus
02-10-2007, 04:01 AM
Once 'we' get rid of blacks, whose going to get rid of people like you? Remember, Italians are somewhat more popular than blacks. ;)

Keystone
02-10-2007, 04:03 AM
I think you're mistakenly applying the 'lessons' of your dirty urban sprawl to a country you're largely unfamiliar with. We don't have your situation here in Vegas.
How can you say that? Are you calling our African Americans dirty?

You are ridiculous, sir.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 04:04 AM
Well, if one race is the primary cause, the epicenter, and the festering breeding ground from which these cultural problems issue forth from, then it is a racial issue..just not necessarily one that is innate to that race.


Well, I clearly meant it is not a biological problem. And if it isn't, then its repairable. And since we're talking about Citizens of the Republic, it would demean us to even entertain the question of robbing these people of rights or expelling them.


I also think innate, biological factors are at work here, but they play the smaller role.

That makes you more reasonable than most.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 04:05 AM
Remember, Italians are somewhat more popular than blacks. ;)

LOL I've heard that he isn't Italian, he's Greek. So no problem. :p

Janus
02-10-2007, 04:07 AM
LOL I've heard that he isn't Italian, he's Greek....even better. :rolleyes:

Keystone
02-10-2007, 04:11 AM
Well, if one race is the primary cause, the epicenter, and the festering breeding ground from which these cultural problems issue forth from, then it is a racial issue
Then get rid of them. Sulla can be Moses. Lead the niggras out of bondage to Nevada. Desert theme and everything. Perfect.

Ahknaton
02-10-2007, 04:15 AM
They made up a large part of the deaths in the South. And since its proportionality which is relevant and not numbers (Especially when you're comparing a population of 300 million to 60 million in the pre-war South), it was pretty significant.
The numbers are actually fairly insignificant:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html

Lynchings: By State and Race, 1882-1968 *
State White Black Total
Alabama 48 299 347
Arizona 31 0 31
Arkansas 58 226 284
California 41 2 43
Colorado 65 3 68
Delaware 0 1 1
Florida 25 257 282
Georgia 39 492 531
Idaho 20 0 20
Illinois 15 19 34
Indiana 33 14 47
Iowa 17 2 19
Kansas 35 19 54
Kentucky 63 142 205
Louisiana 56 335 391
Maine 1 0 1
Maryland 2 27 29
Michigan 7 1 8
Minnesota 5 4 9
Mississippi 42 539 581
Missouri 53 69 122
Montana 82 2 84
Nebraska 52 5 57
Nevada 6 0 6
New Jersey 1 1 2
New Mexico 33 3 36
New York 1 1 2
North Carolina 15 86 101
North Dakota 13 3 16
Ohio 10 16 26
Oklahoma 82 40 122
Oregon 20 1 21
Pennsylvania 2 6 8
South Carolina 4 156 160
South Dakota 27 0 27
Tennessee 47 204 251
Texas 141 352 493
Utah 6 2 8
Vermont 1 0 1
Virginia 17 83 100
Washington 25 1 26
West Virginia 20 28 48
Wisconsin 6 0 6
Wyoming 30 5 35

Total 1,297 3,446 4,743
4,743 deaths over 87 years (inclusive of both the start and end years) is 54 deaths per year, from a population of 60 million. That's a per capita rate of about 0.9 in 1 million per year. By comparison, the American murder rate (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita) is 42.802 per million per year across all of America, and much higher in certain cities. Since you're talking about lynching hot-spots rather than the America-wide murder rate then we should really compare the risk of death-by-lynching to the murder rates in America's murder hot-spots (http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html), which is up to 690 per million per year (in Washington DC). So Washington's murder rate is over 700 times that of the South's lynching rate (and obviously lynchings don't happen any more).

Lynchings were almost as rare as death by lightning strikes (0.3 in million per year). Bear in mind that I'm including Whites who were lynched too. If you are talking about racist lynchings of Blacks, the numbers are even lower. Also, lightening strikes can hit anybody, not just suspected thieves and rapists.

Starr
02-10-2007, 04:15 AM
[QUOTE=Sulla the Dictator]it would demean us to even entertain the question of robbing these people of rights or expelling them.


Is it not demeaning that whites have to live around a people who are much more prone to all kinds of negative and violent behaviors and have to watch as their neighborhoods turn into something out of the third world. And to have to pay with their tax dollars to support a people who are also, disproportionately, always in need of a handout?

In reality while you find the idea of judging blacks, collectively, and expelling them as appalling, you think nothing of sentencing whites, collectively to live around a violent and lawless people. If a black man was deported to Africa because of his race, you would be "outraged" and yet the thought of Keystone, for example having to put up with the effects of living around these people seems to be amusing to you.

il ragno
02-10-2007, 04:15 AM
One of the largest reasons is the drug epidemic. Crack cocaine was a disaster for the community, creating economic incentives for organized crime and violence.

But the fact that we see a sharp increase in crime argues AGAINST a racial predisposition towards it. Theoretically, black crime should have been constant if racialists were correct.


The major exodus of Southern blacks to the NYC area took place in the 1960s. New York's highest violent-crime rates were during the late 60s through the late 80s. They were legendary urban-hellhole years; seriously, you could look it up. All, or the vast majority of them, before crack.

They spiked during the administration of our one and only black mayor, and they only began trending down when a white mayor, often characterized as racist and insensitive, installed a (unofficial, of course) crack-down-on-niggers policy.

Of course, this downtrend has itself been subsequently corrupted by other officials - including his own successor - via finding shortcuts and loopholes in ways of interpreting and categorizing crime data so that the numbers are artificially kept as low as possible. But the original principle still solidly stands - you peacefully co-exist with blacks by not allowing them to co-exist any other way with you.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 04:18 AM
There was both segregation and discrimination at that time. How are the two situations comparable?


Beyond that issue, my point is that we can see the difference in criminality as a rural population becomes a heavily urban one. And even then, things aren't bad until the drug epidemic.


Do you have any evidence for that assertion?


Almost 5,000 people killed is a large number in American peace time before the second world war.

il ragno
02-10-2007, 04:22 AM
Almost 5,000 people killed is a large number in American peace time before the second world war.

Look at Akh's chart again - it's not "peacetime before the second world war". It's an 86-year span encompassing five wars.

It's a surprisingly low number.

Ahknaton
02-10-2007, 04:36 AM
During the 7-year period from 1995 to 2002, there were 4,044 Black-on-White interracial murders in America, and 1,676 White-on-Black interracial murders. That means that Blacks murdered more Whites in a mere 7 years than all the Blacks lynched by Whites from 1882-1968 (3,446).

http://racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/images/stats/US_interacial05.gif

Source (http://racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06-02.htm)

Keystone
02-10-2007, 04:37 AM
Sulla will have you argue about lynchings and other diversions, but when faced with real black nastiness today, it's "dirty urban sprawl."

:rofl:

Thanks for that, man.

Keystone
02-10-2007, 04:42 AM
During the 7-year period from 1995 to 2002, there were 4,044 Black-on-White interracial murders in America, and 1,676 White-on-Black interracial murders. That means that Blacks murdered more Whites in a mere 7 years than all the Blacks lynched by Whites from 1882-1968 (3,446).

http://racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/images/stats/US_interacial05.gif

Source (http://racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06-02.htm)
Sulla?

Bueller?

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 04:51 AM
The numbers are actually fairly insignificant:


Only if you use them inaccurately, which is what you've done.


4,743 deaths over 87 years (inclusive of both the start and end years) is 54 deaths per year, from a population of 60 million.


Yeah, except thats not how it worked. The deaths aren't divided evenly by year.


That's a per capita rate of about 0.9 in 1 million per year. By comparison, the American murder rate (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita) is 42.802 per million per year across all of America, and much higher in certain cities.


Another mistake you're making is including population figures for Maine and the Midwest instead of talking about the rather sparsely populated South, where the largest share of the lynchings took place. In other words, your taking local stats and applying them nationally which is either a mistake on your part of a deliberate deception.

Census of 1890.
U.S. population: 62,947,714
Black population: 7,488,676 (11.9%)


(Of which probably 20 million are Southern, including most of that black figure)

85 lynchings in 1890
113 in 1891
161 in 1892

Then a total 862 up until and including 1900.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/aap/timelin2.html


So when you take 15 million whites, who buck the trend in urban vs. rural criminality and are responsible for murdering 1100+ people in a span of 10 years, you have a VERY significant crime rate. Thats 110 a year or more accurately, 20% of New York's crime rate BEFORE you adjust for population density and add in THE REST of crime.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 04:55 AM
During the 7-year period from 1995 to 2002, there were 4,044 Black-on-White interracial murders in America, and 1,676 White-on-Black interracial murders. That means that Blacks murdered more Whites in a mere 7 years than all the Blacks lynched by Whites from 1882-1968 (3,446).


(Sigh) I find it interesting that you, in your desperation, are comparing cross-racial CRIME with deliberate racial murder.

Out of curiousity an you link us to the actual FBI statistic which shows this?

I mean, I hate to call your racialist sites liars, but they are.

il ragno
02-10-2007, 04:57 AM
Another mistake you're making is including population figures for Maine and the Midwest

Hey - Maine lynched one guy, and he was white!

I call anti-white racism on the Pinetree State.

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 04:57 AM
Look at Akh's chart again - it's not "peacetime before the second world war". It's an 86-year span encompassing five wars.


Not really, since the numbers aren't divided equally by year as I explained. But history is for Jews when it doesn't conform to what you want it to be. (Shrug)

Sulla the Dictator
02-10-2007, 04:59 AM
Oh, and Akhnaton, that 1890 to 1900 business is ONLY counting black victims.

Keystone
02-10-2007, 05:04 AM
So, Sulla, how do we solve our race problems in our filthy sprawling backwater of Pittsburgh? The coloreds seem to be at their wits' end, and us whites are on pins and needles as well.

We don't lynch anyone here, but would welcome your input.

Thanks.

il ragno
02-10-2007, 05:07 AM
But history is for Jews when it doesn't conform to what you want it to be. (Shrug)

What does that mean exactly?

(Shrug) It's not supposed to mean anything - it's just a generic I'm no Nazi Klan eugenecist boor like the rest of you aside meant to remind all and sundry that even if your argument is as shaky as Michael J Fox fucking Katherine Hepburn, the purity of your clean hands and noble intentions renders you a higher life form than the people you're arguing with - so you win on Wonderfulness Points anyhow.

Eat me.

Ahknaton
02-10-2007, 05:51 AM
Only if you use them inaccurately, which is what you've done.
Not really, I looked up the lynching stats (which aren't from a racialist site, btw) and made a simple comparison with modern murder rates in order to verify your claim that lynching was a significant cause of death for Blacks in the South. I didn't even distort the stats in my favour, in fact if anything I was conservative in my claims (i.e. biased in your favour) by including White lynching victims in the total, which inflated the number.
Yeah, except thats not how it worked. The deaths aren't divided evenly by year.
Well obviously. That's where the concepts of "average" and "per capita" come into it. Murder rates aren't divided evenly year by year or across different areas either. I'm looking at the big picture. If you took the worst spate of lynchings in the worst lynching hot-spot and condensed it down to a small time-window, you could arrive at a larger figure for the lynchings per year. But why would you do that except in order to provide a figure that is grossly biased towards your position? The thing is Sulla, when comparing lynching statistics to contemporary murder rates (which is what sparked this off, and was bought up by you) we're not talking about about a plus or minus 5 percent difference that you can spin away by massaging the statistics in your favour. We're talking several orders of magnitude difference, and even if we allow you all your little tricks they're not going to come close.
Another mistake you're making is including population figures for Maine and the Midwest instead of talking about the rather sparsely populated South, where the largest share of the lynchings took place. In other words, your taking local stats and applying them nationally which is either a mistake on your part of a deliberate deception.
Why wouldn't I include them? They're on the list.

Census of 1890.
U.S. population: 62,947,714
Black population: 7,488,676 (11.9%)


(Of which probably 20 million are Southern, including most of that black figure)
Okay. Adjusting the 60 million figure that I used (which was one you provided) to 20 million, the lynching rate is still tiny (less than 3 in 1 million per year).
85 lynchings in 1890
113 in 1891
161 in 1892

Then a total 862 up until and including 1900.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/aap/timelin2.html


So when you take 15 million whites, who buck the trend in urban vs. rural criminality and are responsible for murdering 1100+ people in a span of 10 years, you have a VERY significant crime rate. Thats 110 a year or more accurately, 20% of New York's crime rate BEFORE you adjust for population density and add in THE REST of crime.
This is what I'm talking about. Why take the two worst years (and subsequent 8 years) out of the lot? Can I find the worst examples of Black on White crime and use them for my statistics?
(Sigh) I find it interesting that you, in your desperation, are comparing cross-racial CRIME with deliberate racial murder.
ROFL, I'm hardly desperate here. Why would I be, when the stats are so convincingly on the side of my argument? The reason for comparing murder rates with lynching is because those are the statistics we are talking about here. Keystone started a thread about crime rates and you bought up lynching, claiming the statistics showed that the death rates from lynching were "significant". So I went and got some, and it turns out you're full of it. Don't try and back away and claim that "it's all irrelevent anyway because they aren't at all similar" now that you've been shown convincingly to be wrong.

It's interesting how you use the neutral, descriptive term "crime" to describe Black murder of Whites, but the more emotionally intense "murder" when it's the other way around. Also, don't try and tell me that all "5,000" (nice rounding up/exaggeration btw) lynching victims were just innocent Blacks who were targeted just for the colour of their skin.

Thomas777
02-10-2007, 06:09 AM
(Sigh) I find it interesting that you, in your desperation, are comparing cross-racial CRIME with deliberate racial murder.

So its your position that in cases of cross-racial crime, the offenders scrupulously ignore the race of the victim?

Vasily Zaitsev
02-10-2007, 08:17 AM
Thanks for posting more evidence of a primarily intraracial problem, Keystone.

But don't let that interupt you building a bunker in your backyard to keep yourself safe from BLACK ON BLACK violence. :rolleyes:

Still making that claim?

Did you not see my final refutation in the Tennessee thread (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=301235&postcount=137)?

If not, please return to that thread and read it. I posted it on page 14 before Jake and Thomas indulged your goalpost moving with a discussion about white family violence.

Richard Parker
02-10-2007, 11:11 AM
So its your position that in cases of cross-racial crime, the offenders scrupulously ignore the race of the victim?
Sulla never said that.

The race of the victim may or may not be a factor. It is quite plausible that it is not, in most cases. Money is green.

However in the lynchings in the south during the time he referred to, if a black man was lynched race almost certainly was a factor in every case.

Winston
02-10-2007, 02:37 PM
But the fact that we see a sharp increase in crime argues AGAINST a racial predisposition towards it. Theoretically, black crime should have been constant if racialists were correct.


Faulty reasoning. The post-civil rights increase in crime was caused because of the new circumstances blacks now found themselves in, and this change could still be attributable to racial characteristics in that different people react in different ways due to their biology.

marlowe
02-10-2007, 04:17 PM
Is it possible that black lynch mob "victims" were sometimes guilty of some offense against their white neighbors?

Sulla, do you sometimes wonder why there are so many real-estate laws written specifically to prohibit whites from free association?

Trolland
02-10-2007, 05:03 PM
Is it possible that black lynch mob "victims" were sometimes guilty of some offense against their white neighbors?

Yes. Often times they were lynched for having consensual sex with white women. On other occasions, they were lynched for being economically competitive with local white business.

This isn't to say that all black victims of lynching were completely innocent - certainly they were not; however, the explosion of lynching in the 1890s was largely the result of irrational hysteria on the part of southern whites.

Janus
02-10-2007, 05:06 PM
However in the lynchings in the south during the time he referred to, if a black man was lynched race almost certainly was a factor in every case.How do you know that is the case?

Fitz
02-10-2007, 05:40 PM
Yes. Often times they were lynched for having consensual sex with white women. On other occasions, they were lynched for being economically competitive with local white business.

This isn't to say that all black victims of lynching were completely innocent - certainly they were not; however, the explosion of lynching in the 1890s was largely the result of irrational hysteria on the part of southern whites.

Yes inded, Southern White women were lining up to have sex with some black buck nigger that had never seen a bathtub in its life. It must have been an explosion of the senses that few white women could resist :rolleyes:

And if you think lynching in the South was due to irrational hysteria, I'd like to drop you off in New Orleans some night near the Projects and see how you make out. You can only live around blacks when they are kept in their place. Since they have no inborn respect for the law or the white man, fear of the law and the white man is the best substitute.

Richard Parker
02-10-2007, 05:44 PM
How do you know that is the case?
Can you even entertain the possibility that in most (or many) lynchings it wasn't?

Thomas777
02-10-2007, 05:47 PM
It should also be noted that 'Lynching' was essentially standard operating procedure in a lot of places in America during the 18th and 19th Centuries based on mere suspicion of criminality.

The Frontier before about 1890 was not some bastion of enlightened jurisprudence where people were afforded Due Process of law.

White people hanged and shot each other en masse in the American West pursuant to all manner of grudges and dubious evidence of wrongdoing...it wasn't a unique phenomenon that affected Black populations and nobody else.

In fact, I would venture a guess that the lion's share of men who were exectued without trial in America have been White...based on sheer population demographics.

Thomas777
02-10-2007, 05:49 PM
Can you even entertain the possibility that in most (or many) lynchings it wasn't?

Because absent law and order and a well-functioning system of legal remedies, people fall back on 'self-help' when they decide that they have been wronged...'self-help' often involved organizing an armed posse, getting a noose, or some combination thereof. Its not as if there was some taboo in place that forbade White people to gun each other down in the street or hang some hapless soul who was suspected of stealing a horse.

Trolland
02-10-2007, 10:07 PM
it wasn't a unique phenomenon that affected Black populations and nobody else.
Prior to 1890 you are correct, as the majority of lynchings took place on the western frontier, and involved mostly white victims. But with the explosion in popularity of the myth of the black rapist, the number of black victims rose and significantly surpassed white lynchings. For instance, in 1892, 161 blacks and 69 whites were lynched.

Yes inded, Southern White women were lining up to have sex with some black buck nigger that had never seen a bathtub in its life. It must have been an explosion of the senses that few white women could resist :rolleyes:

Whether you refuse to believe it or not, white women had sex with black men in the 19th century. After the civil war, but prior to the late 1880s, black men were considered equal to white men.

And if you think lynching in the South was due to irrational hysteria, I'd like to drop you off in New Orleans some night near the Projects and see how you make out. You can only live around blacks when they are kept in their place. Since they have no inborn respect for the law or the white man, fear of the law and the white man is the best substitute.

This is a terrible analogy. Are modern New Orleans blacks fresh off the plantation, and highly imbued with the 'yess massa' mentality?

Starr
02-10-2007, 10:25 PM
[QUOTE=Fitz]Yes inded, Southern White women were lining up to have sex with some black buck nigger that had never seen a bathtub in its life. It must have been an explosion of the senses that few white women could resist

Consensual sex between black men and white women may have happened on a vary rare occasion, but the fact that something like that was highly frowned upon rather than encouraged as it is today would have made it unlikely that it was happening in any thing near a significant number. We can take a look at the stats on black rape today to see how fruadulant the idea that whites were just paranoid and irrational about these things is.

Trolland
02-10-2007, 10:37 PM
It may have happened on a vary rare occassion, but the fact that something like that was highly frowned upon rather than encouraged as it is today would have made it unlikely that it was happening in any thing near a significant number.

Despite the Victorian notion of the noble, pure white woman, there were plenty of white prostitutes willing to have intercourse with blacks. Additionally, there were enough occasions of consensual interracial sex being reclassified as 'rape' for a significant amount of literature to accumulate about it.

The idea that the perpetrators of said lynchings were anything but irrational savages on par with any black is delusional.

We can take a look at the stats on black rape today to see how fradulant the idea that whites were just paranoid and irrational about these things is.

I suggest you look at those stats.

Edit: Of course I am not referring to male on male rape, where the overwhelming amount of rape occurs in the form of black on white.

Starr
02-10-2007, 10:41 PM
It isn't even about an idea of anyone being "pure and noble", but more about societal standards and taboos that would have prevented it from happening in any significant numbers.

The idea that the perpetrators of said lynchings were anything but irrational savages on par with any black is delusional.

Killing someone who harmed someone else and is a danger to society does not put those people on the same level as the perpetrator of the original violent act.(when that was indeed, the case, anyway).It could be said to be an overreaction, possibly, but also an understandable reaction.
I think it is delusional to assume that these things were always a case of mobs of whites roaming around killing tons of 100% innocent blacks. I see from something you said earlier that you do not believe this, so i am not directing that at you, but that idea is sort of what we are led to believe, today.

Fitz
02-10-2007, 11:01 PM
Whether you refuse to believe it or not, white women had sex with black men in the 19th century. After the civil war, but prior to the late 1880s, black men were considered equal to white men.

What planet are you from? Black men weren't even considered equal by Abraham Goddamn Lincoln, much less by the average Southern man, woman or child. During Reconstruction Louisiana had a nigger governor, but that was at the point of a gun and not any measure of esteem the Whites held for the negroes.

As for white women having consensual sex with a nigger in the 19th century, I 'm sure that it did happen on rare occasions. Likewise on rare occasions a woman would have sexual relations with her pig or her plow horse. By the social standards of their time, there would be little tolerance for any of these acts of depravity.

This is a terrible analogy. Are modern New Orleans blacks fresh off the plantation, and highly imbued with the 'yess massa' mentality?

Are you suggesting that all freed slaves were docile creatures singing Zippity Doo Da? I propose that New Orleans blacks have reverted back to their natural state, and that can only be seen as an improvement by someone who has never witnessed the misery and cruelty they inflict on each other and the Whites forced to live around and among them.

tempus fugit
02-10-2007, 11:47 PM
What would a simple statistical correlational analysis of "% non-white" and "crime" show?

il ragno
02-11-2007, 01:13 AM
Prior to 1890 you are correct, as the majority of lynchings took place on the western frontier, and involved mostly white victims. But with the explosion in popularity of the myth of the black rapist, the number of black victims rose and significantly surpassed white lynchings. For instance, in 1892, 161 blacks and 69 whites were lynched.

Obviously there were two types of lynching scenarios: one where a white criminal would be killed, the other where a black victim is murdered.

Despite the Victorian notion of the noble, pure white woman, there were plenty of white prostitutes willing to have intercourse with blacks. Additionally, there were enough occasions of consensual interracial sex being reclassified as 'rape'

It's interesting how much of the Enlightened Knowledge of any given age manages to adhere tightly to that period's myths and superstitions.

In our own era, for instance, we have an embarrassment of riches:

* the myth of the White Oppressor

* the myth of Racial Nonexistence

* the myth of Diversity's Blessings

* the myth of the Strong Woman

* the myth of Black Male Potency

* the myth of the Victims of Katrina

* the myth of the Blameless Jew and/or the Six Million

and to them you can add some of the trickier Foucaultian riddles like the myth of the Myth of the Black Rapist.

People believe some crazy shit as long as there's someone with either a lab coat, a priest's collar, or a tenured professorship assuring them this is what all modern enlightened people "know" to be true.

Hartmann von Aue
02-11-2007, 04:00 AM
It isn't even about an idea of anyone being "pure and noble", but more about societal standards and taboos that would have prevented it from happening in any significant numbers.



Killing someone who harmed someone else and is a danger to society does not put those people on the same level as the perpetrator of the original violent act.(when that was indeed, the case, anyway).It could be said to be an overreaction, possibly, but also an understandable reaction.
I think it is delusional to assume that these things were always a case of mobs of whites roaming around killing tons of 100% innocent blacks. I see from something you said earlier that you do not believe this, so i am not directing that at you, but that idea is sort of what we are led to believe, today.

Notice how he glossed right over the issue of black rapists today?

It's very similar to the outrage Jews express at the fate of those convicted of ritual murder.

Of course, we see Jews at the highest level of our judiciary arguing that it is a constitutional right to dismember half-born full-term infants, while the organs are harvested.

So where's the real outrage?

Not at the fate of the victim, but at the punishment of the perpetrators!

They have brainwashed society into looking the other way as they act the part of the ghoul.

Der Sozialist
02-11-2007, 05:48 AM
Notice how he glossed right over the issue of black rapists today?

.
Black criminality has not remained static throughout the centuries. This current, high trend in Black violence has its origins in the 70s and 80s.

Overall, there are countries in Africa with low rates of criminality—like Kenya which has a population density slightly greater than the USA but with a murder rate 3 times lower. Kenya’s majority population is Negroid by far. This is just an example, indicating that groups of Blacks do not necessarily have to be violent.

Janus
02-11-2007, 06:03 AM
Can you even entertain the possibility that in most (or many) lynchings it wasn't? I can entertain any possibility. :)However in the lynchings in the south during the time he referred to, if a black man was lynched race almost certainly was a factor in every case.How do you know that is the case? Please answer the question.

Fitz
02-11-2007, 06:08 AM
Black criminality has not remained static throughout the centuries. This current, high trend in Black violence has its origins in the 70s and 80s.

The 60s weren't so great either, and that's when the old racial order came crashing down in America.

Overall, there are countries in Africa with low rates of criminality—like Kenya which has a population density slightly greater than the USA but with a murder rate 3 times lower. Kenya’s majority population is Negroid by far. This is just an example, indicating that groups of Blacks do not necessarily have to be violent.

I guess you missed the link to the documentary Africa Addio? The Mau Mau rebellion was a prime example of subhuman savagery.

Brechun
02-11-2007, 06:16 AM
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/debatebryant.html

Respect for human life was also little evidenced by white treatment of Africans. Aside from the inhumanity of slavery itself, there was the fairly common obscenity of holding lynch parties. As if it were not bad enough to murder someone and to do so without due process of law, these events were more than mere killings for the white crowds that would gather to enjoy the spectacle. Lynchers would drag blacks to death behind cars, torture them with blowtorches and burn them to death in what were advertised as "negro barbecues." One black couple had their fingers and ears chopped off one by one, their eyes gouged out and their bodies ripped open with corkscrews before being tossed in the fire (Thernstrom, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, 1997. America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible. NY: Simon and Schuster: 45).

Contrary to racist claims that lynchings were typically reserved for criminals in the black community who had raped or murdered whites, the reality is that lynchings were usually carried out for no reason at all, other than to demonstrate white supremacy over people of color. At the height of racial lynching, less than a third of lynchings were precipitated by alleged sexual assault (Russell, Katheryn, 1998. The Color of Crime: Racial Hoaxes, White Fear, Black Protectionism, Police Harassment and Other Macroaggressions. NYU Press: 21), and there were few murders of whites by blacks during this time. Rather, lynchings often stemmed from perceived "disrespect" of whites by blacks, "uppity behavior," and "forgetting one's place.

Guess it's relevant and credible, ignoring the obnoxious antifa bullshit.

oh wait here's more

As Grace Elizabeth Hale explains in her study of southern race relations from 1890-1940, oftentimes whites would lynch blacks merely for arguing over a sharecropping settlement, or for demanding better wages and work conditions. She quotes W.J. Cash from 1941 to the effect that lynching was socially defensible to whites because to "smash a sassy negro, to kill him, to do the same to a 'nigger lover'--this was to assert the white man's prerogative...to get a black man back in his place, so as to lynch" (see, Hale, Grace Elizabeth. 1998. Making Whiteness: The Culture of Segregation in the South, 1890-1940. NY: Pantheon: 201).

In the aftermath of slavery, the Freedman's Bureau recorded the circumstances surrounding lynchings in the south, noting that among the "reasons" given for such extra-judicial executions were a desire to "see (the victim) kick," or because the black person in question had failed to take his hat off in deference to a white man (Clarke, James W. 2001. The Lineaments of Wrath: Race, Violent Crime, and American Culture. Transaction Books: 78). In fact, lynchings for exhibiting "disrespect" were just as prevalent as those preceded by a charge of rape (with or without supporting evidence), and lynchings for alleged non-violent offenses were the most common of all (ibid: 146).

Lynching and mob violence against blacks in the wake of emancipation resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of African Americans between 1866 and the turn of the century (Clarke, 2001: 94, 113). Well into the 1900s such atrocities were common, and became even more depraved, with the instruments of death "progressing" from ropes and burning pyres, to blowtorches and boiling tar (ibid, 175, fn 38). In the aftermath of lynchings it was not uncommon for spectators to purchase the amputated body parts of the victim as souvenirs (ibid, 140). How any of this is consistent with white civilizational superiority remains a mystery.

Of course, this white violence against African peoples was hardly limited to the United States. European exploitation of African nations and peoples led to mass death as well, aside from the slave trade. Belgians, for example, turned their colonial outpost in the Congo into a virtual graveyard, in which King Leopold's forces extinguished the lives of as many as ten million persons, or about half of the territory's population (Cone, James H. 2000. "Whose Earth is it Anyway?" Cross Currents. Spring-Summer.)

Trolland
02-11-2007, 07:26 AM
Killing someone who harmed someone else and is a danger to society does not put those people on the same level as the perpetrator of the original violent act.(when that was indeed, the case, anyway).It could be said to be an overreaction, possibly, but also an understandable reaction.


White racism in the 19th century - defined as progressive millennialism -cannot escape being associated with savagery. Glossing over the behavior of lynch-mobs with the term "overreaction" is disingenuous, especially with regard to a race defining itself as more civilized than another.

I think it is delusional to assume that these things were always a case of mobs of whites roaming around killing tons of 100% innocent blacks. I see from something you said earlier that you do not believe this, so i am not directing that at you, but that idea is sort of what we are led to believe, today.

I agree. However, in a specific time period beginning in the 1890s, irrational white hysteria was largely to blame for white on black lynchings.

Are you suggesting that all freed slaves were docile creatures singing Zippity Doo Da? I propose that New Orleans blacks have reverted back to their natural state, and that can only be seen as an improvement by someone who has never witnessed the misery and cruelty they inflict on each other and the Whites forced to live around and among them.

Black on white rape numbers only started increasing over white on black rape numbers since 1960, so the reversion evidently took over a century to occur.

While I know this is a taboo term on this forum, I will propose that at least part of this phenomenon can be attributed to "culture."

The 1960s saw the emergence of the truly militant black. Eldridge Cleaver, for instance, was open about his decision to rape white women in Soul on Ice. Can we possibly consider that this belligerent change in behavior was caused at least partially by the emergence of Malcolm X-style politics?

It's interesting how much of the Enlightened Knowledge of any given age manages to adhere tightly to that period's myths and superstitions.

In our own era, for instance, we have an embarrassment of riches:

* the myth of the [etc.]

and to them you can add some of the trickier Foucaultian riddles like the myth of the Myth of the Black Rapist.



According to statistics of the 19th century, this was a transparent myth. The myth also has absolutely nothing to do with Foucault; who also, I add, admittedly named the Jew during the Vichy Regime.

People believe some crazy shit as long as there's someone with either a lab coat, a priest's collar, or a tenured professorship assuring them this is what all modern enlightened people "know" to be true.

It isn't even a debate that the black rapist was a myth in the 19th century.

Notice how he glossed right over the issue of black rapists today?

Because we weren't discussing today, but rather the era of lynch-mobs.

I readily admit that there are more black on white rapes than white on black rapes. However, 80 to 90% of all rapes occur intra-racially.

Jake Featherston
02-11-2007, 07:41 AM
I think you're mistakenly applying the 'lessons' of your dirty urban sprawl to a country you're largely unfamiliar with. We don't have your situation here in Vegas.

NEWSFLASH: Pittsburgh has a lot more of a claim on being an integral part of America than some assemblage of casinos, hotels, strip malls, and burger joints in the middle of a freakin' desert! The only purpose Las Vegas serves is to keep the number of people like you in the general populaton lower, as its a magnet for every sort of tasteless, materialist vulgarian. Pittsburgh is where a lot of the industrial activity used to build this nation (including, no doubt, the production of many of the girders used to build Las Vegas casinos & hotels, as well as useful structures in other parts of the nation) took place. You can't compare the two, just because they're both located on the USA part of the globe.

Jake Featherston
02-11-2007, 07:46 AM
Certain aspects like "gangsta" culture make the problem much worse because it encourages and plays into the worst behavioral traits in blacks. The attitudes and behaviors present in that culture is somewhat a reflection of who they are and their true nature and that is why they so easily adopted it and why it is also so prevelant among them.

A rep-worthy summation of the (c)rap "music"/"hip-hop" cultural phenomenon.

Brechun
02-11-2007, 07:47 AM
I readily admit that there are more black on white rapes than white on black rapes. However, 80 to 90% of all rapes occur intra-racially.

Most rapes are commited by someone the victim knows aswell, so white women have far more to fear from their neighbors and friends than a random ghetto black.

Jake Featherston
02-11-2007, 07:57 AM
If you are talking about racist lynchings of Blacks, the numbers are even lower. Also, lightening strikes can hit anybody, not just suspected thieves and rapists.

Yeah, no one ever seems to mention how most lynchees were murderers, rapists, etc., in other words, THEY DESERVED TO GET LYNCHED! Approximately one-third of the lynchees were White, after all; presumably we weren't lynching them due to racism. Black & White lynchees were often people who were going to be executed anyway, but the local community just go impatient and did the deed a little sooner; Black and White alike, they were mostly criminal scum (although a few were not, just as some innocent men rot in prison today). To Kill a Mockingbird was a great novel (Harper Lee's finest!*), but like all novels, it was fiction.


*Anyone get my little joke?

Jake Featherston
02-11-2007, 08:04 AM
So, Sulla, how do we solve our race problems in our filthy sprawling backwater of Pittsburgh? The coloreds seem to be at their wits' end, and us whites are on pins and needles as well.

We don't lynch anyone here, but would welcome your input.

You're supposed to become a real estate agent, a marketing executive, or some other vapid, Yuppie-femme pursuit, and move to some place like Vegas, Scottsdale, or Orlando. Duh.

Jake Featherston
02-11-2007, 08:11 AM
However in the lynchings in the south during the time he referred to, if a black man was lynched race almost certainly was a factor in every case.

Actually, there were no doubt a great many cases in which Blacks were lynched for committing crimes that would have gotten a White man lynched; remember, there were 1,397 Whites lynched among those approximately 4,700 lynchings. Most lynchees, Black or White, were lynched for being violent criminal degenerates, not merely due to some capricious desire to string someone up, whether inspired by racism or some other factor. Lynching were generally perpetrated on murderers and rapists, not civil rights activists.

Jake Featherston
02-11-2007, 08:24 AM
Most rapes are commited by someone the victim knows aswell, so white women have far more to fear from their neighbors and friends than a random ghetto black.

Due largely to the fact that most White women would almost rather die than enter a Black ghetto...and with very good reason, I might add.

tempus fugit
02-11-2007, 10:47 AM
What is the debate here?

Don Quixote
02-11-2007, 11:14 AM
Yeah, no one ever seems to mention how most lynchees were murderers, rapists, etc., in other words, THEY DESERVED TO GET LYNCHED! Approximately one-third of the lynchees were White, after all; presumably we weren't lynching them due to racism. Black & White lynchees were often people who were going to be executed anywayHow is this? Accounts of lynchings I've read did not involve a trial beforehand.
but the local community just go impatient and did the deed a little sooner; Black and White alike, they were mostly criminal scum (although a few were not, just as some innocent men rot in prison today).Which is why lynching is condemnable. Either you have the rule of law or the caprice of a mob.

Brechun
02-11-2007, 05:59 PM
I'll just pull up those stats I mentioned...

http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

Around the world at least I women in 3 has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family. (John Hopkins School of Public Health 2000)

An estimated 91% of victims of rape are female, 9% are male and 99% of offenders are male. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1999)

77% of rapes are committed by someone known to the person raped. (Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997)

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey there were an estimated 248,000 rapes and sexual assaults against victims over the age of 12 in the US in 2001. (US Department of Justice)

According to the National Victim Center, 683,000 women are raped each year. (1992)

Only 2% of rapists are convicted and imprisoned. (US Senate Judiciary Committee 1993)

Women of all ethnicities are raped: American Indian/Alaska Native women are most likely to report a rape and Asian/Pacific Islander the least likely. (National Institute of Justice 1998)

Reported rape victimization by race is: 34% of American Indian/Alaska Native; 24% women of mixed race; 19% of African American women; 18% of white women; 8% of Asian/Pacific Islander women. (Tjaden and Thoennes, National Institute of Justice 1998)

80-90% of rapes against women (except for American Indian women) are committed by someone of the same racial background as the victim. (US Dept. of Justice 1994)

American Indian victims of rape reported the offender as either white or black in 90% of reports. (Department of Justice 1997)

In a 1999 longitudinal study of 3,000 women, researchers found women who had been victimized before were seven times more likely to be raped again. (Acierno, Resnick, Kilpatrick, Saunders and Best, Jnl. of Anxiety Disorders 13, 6.)

93% of women and 86% of men who were raped and/or physically assaulted since the age of 18 were assaulted by a male. (National Violence Against Women Survey, 1998)

Among female rape victims, 61% are under age 18. (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995)

22% of females raped are under the age of 12 years; 32% are 12-17 years old; 29% 18-24 years old; 17% over 25 years old. 83% of those raped are under the age of 25 years old. (National Institute of Justice 1998)

In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4 women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape. (Warshaw 1994)

13% of college women indicated they had been forced to have sex in a dating situation. (Johnson and Sigler, Jnl. of Interpersonal Violence, 2000)

In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 42% of rape victims told no-one and only 5% reported it to the police. (Warshaw 1994)

1 in 12 male students surveyed had committed acts that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. (Warshaw, Robin 1994 "I Never Called It Rape")

In a survey of college males who committed rape, 84% said what they did was definitely not rape. (Warshaw, Robin 1994 "I Never Called It Rape")

A study of 477 male students, mostly 1st and 2nd year students, found 56% reported instances of non-assaultive coercion to obtain sex. Examples included: threatening to end a relationship; falsely professing love; telling lies to render her more sexually receptive. (Boeringer 1996, Violence Against Women:5)

Women with disabilities are raped and abused at twice the rate of the general population. (Sobsey 1994)

Of the 22 substances used in drug facilitated rape, alcohol is the most common finding in investigations. (Jnl. of Forensic Sciences 1999)

According to the First National Survey of Transgender Violence, 13.7% of 402 persons reported being a victim of rape or attempted rape. (Gender PAC 1997)

A 1991 study of college gay, lesbian and bisexual students found that 18% had been victims of rape and 12% victims of attempted rape. (Jnl. Of College Student Development)

15% of men who lived with a man as a couple reported being raped/assaulted or stalked by a male cohabitant. (1999 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

6 out of 10 rapes are reported by victims to have occurred in their own home or home of a friend, relative or neighbor. (US Dept. of Justice 1997)

Sexual assault is reported by 33-46% of women who are being physically assaulted by their husbands. (AMA 1995)

steve b
02-11-2007, 06:49 PM
Not quite. This was, of course, an era where blacks were terrorized by gutter trash racialists. Likeminded fellows of yourself. This was a terrible phenomenon, but the most relevant point is that blacks were a far more RURAL population.

Pointing again to the contrast between rural and urban criminality. Economics and population density are the two largest factors in crime.

Quite right, if only Whitey had kept his promise of 40 acres and a mule, black crime stats would be on par with humans. And that 40% of millionare NBA players who have been convicted of serious crime would be--39%.

http://www.myshelf.com/miscellaneous/04/outofbounds.htm

Keystone
02-11-2007, 06:50 PM
Quite right, if only Whitey had kept his promise of 40 acres and a mule, black crime stats would be on par with humans. And that 40% of millionare NBA players who have been convicted of serious crime would be--39%.

http://www.myshelf.com/miscellaneous/04/outofbounds.htm
SteveB in the hizzy!

Jake Featherston
02-11-2007, 08:20 PM
How is this? Accounts of lynchings I've read did not involve a trial beforehand...Which is why lynching is condemnable. Either you have the rule of law or the caprice of a mob.

I wasn't suggesting lynching was a good thing, merely that it wasn't nearly as bad as its portrayed. Lynching is constantly shown as innocent Blacks being terrorized for the color of their skin. In reality, it was criminals of both races being dealt with extra-judicially. Our country would have been better off without lynching, but its hardly the wanton, depraved murder of innocent, noble, Black philosphers that its portrayed to be.

Don Quixote
02-11-2007, 09:13 PM
I wasn't suggesting lynching was a good thing, merely that it wasn't nearly as bad as its portrayed. Lynching is constantly shown as innocent Blacks being terrorized for the color of their skin. In reality, it was criminals of both races being dealt with extra-judicially. Our country would have been better off without lynching, but its hardly the wanton, depraved murder of innocent, noble, Black philosphers that its portrayed to be.I don't think that's quite fair. The image I have of lynching is that of black's being hanged because a mob believed the victim to be guilty of some crime, usually sexual in nature, against white folk.
However, its certainly true to say that white lynchings have been airbrushed out of the representations.

Fitz
02-11-2007, 09:34 PM
I don't think that's quite fair. The image I have of lynching is that of black's being hanged because a mob believed the victim to be guilty of some crime, usually sexual in nature, against white folk.

That's all you have is an "image" of lynching, and the people who formed that image are about as fair to American Southerners as the British have been in portraying the Irish.

For the most part, blacks and whites coexisted peacefully in the old American South. The problems were created when traditional lines separating the two races were crossed. In the 1960s, cars and buses filled with Jews calling themselves Freedom Riders arrived in the South determined to erase those lines completely and naturally this led to violence. But to point to that violence (as portrayed in Hollywood Jewfest films such as Mississippi Burning) as being typical of how blacks were treated in the American South is inaccurate and misleading.

Don Quixote
02-11-2007, 09:56 PM
That's all you have is an "image" of lynching, and the people who formed that image are about as fair to American Southerners as the British have been in portraying the Irish.Yes, I realise that, but I was saying that this Lynching is constantly shown as innocent Blacks being terrorized for the color of their skin.
was not quite the image I had formed of it. The point I was making was, that in the image I had, some alleged crime was involved, rather than blacks being hanged simply for being black.
For the most part, blacks and whites coexisted peacefully in the old American South. The problems were created when traditional lines separating the two races were crossed. In the 1960s, cars and buses filled with Jews calling themselves Freedom Riders arrived in the South determined to erase those lines completely and naturally this lead to violence. But to point to that violence (as portrayed in Hollywood Jewfest films such as Mississippi Burning) as being typical of how blacks were treated in the American South is inaccurate and misleading.Yes, I'm quite familiar with all of this, including the nature of Hollywood.

Fitz
02-11-2007, 10:28 PM
Yes, I'm quite familiar with all of this, including the nature of Hollywood.

Well then , sorry to bore you. I shan't bother you again old boy. Niggers being niggers and what not, I'm quite sure you understand, toodaloo. lol.

Don Quixote
02-11-2007, 10:32 PM
Well then , sorry to bore you. I shan't bother you again old boy.Well, I didn't come down with the rain this morning. :p Niggers being niggers and what not, I'm quite sure you understand.Doesn't that rather undermine the point you were trying to make?

Der Sozialist
02-12-2007, 04:46 AM
I guess you missed the link to the documentary Africa Addio? The Mau Mau rebellion was a prime example of subhuman savagery.
This was a resistant movement fighting British troops stationed in Kenya. As of now, Kenya has a lower murder rate than the USA.

tempus fugit
02-12-2007, 11:04 AM
But a much higher crime rate.

Jake Featherston
02-12-2007, 09:45 PM
The image I have of lynching is that of black's being hanged because a mob believed the victim to be guilty of some crime, usually sexual in nature, against white folk.

While its probably true that lynch mobs have a greater margin for error than courts of law (which is perhaps the primary argument against them), the mobs generally believed what they believed on the same basis as the rest of us, which is to say the evidence at hand.

Don Quixote
02-12-2007, 09:57 PM
While its probably true that lynch mobs have a greater margin for error than courts of law (which is perhaps the primary argument against them), the mobs generally believed what they believed on the same basis as the rest of us, which is to say the evidence at hand.Mobs believe anything, juries are presented with evidence in properly controlled circumstances. There is an unbridgeable chasm of difference between mob rule and the rule of law.
I can't believe people are trying to explain away lynch mobs.

Keystone
02-12-2007, 10:19 PM
Mmm. No help forthcoming, I see.

Trolland
02-13-2007, 03:35 AM
While its probably true that lynch mobs have a greater margin for error than courts of law (which is perhaps the primary argument against them), the mobs generally believed what they believed on the same basis as the rest of us, which is to say the evidence at hand.

Lynch Mobs are also blatantly offensive to the ethical tenets of liberalism. Punishment in a progressive liberal society is not supposed to be a spectacle of butchery. The members of lynch mobs demonstrated a lack of behavioral control otherwise required in truly civilized communities.

The above objection is at least as "primary" as the illegality argument.