[sandisk5]

> Try googling "over-represented race in incarcerations", "over-represented race in police shootings"

Why did you leave off "over-represented race in violent crimes"?

> Michael Jackson tried to turn himself white

So that makes him not black? Are the people who idolize him confused and don't realize he's black? People loved him before his transformation. One funny anecdote is Michael Jackson, refusing that he "turned himself white", said that his grandmother told him that the reason they called them colored people is that they come in all different colors. :)

> MLK Jr was conveniently murdered

Conveniently? I'd say tragically. Abraham Lincoln was also assassinated. I don't know how this changes that both are among the most admired people in America today.

> Muhammad Ali was persecuted by the state

As were many white people who openly violated the draft or spoke out against the war (I'm not saying avoiding the draft is a bad thing or that Ali wasn't a legitimate conscientious objector).

> Barack Obama is routinely called racist slurs despite being the president.

Not routinely by any major national publications or widely popular figures. Also, being the current president doesn't mean people don't call you mean things, if anything it means you're called more mean things. People said plenty of mean things about Bush or Clinton while they were president.

[tptacek]

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated because he ended the slavery of African Americans.

Obama doesn't face slurs "routinely from widely popular figures"? The fucking GOP Presidential nominee was the head of the birther movement!

[achievingApathy]

Lincoln had absolutely no interest in freeing slaves. His main purpose was to maintain the union at all costs. “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.”

[idlewords]

Really you have no idea how Lincoln felt about slavery, nor how those feelings changed with time. His public statements are the carefully crafted words of a master politician.

For a guy with no interest in freeing slaves, he sure freed a lot of slaves.

[achievingApathy]

"I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race."

-- Someone who might know a little bit about being a politician

[tptacek]

This is fun and all but it has nothing to do with my point.

Someone upthread provided a short list of African Americans who were murdered as a result of their notability.

In an attempt to refute the argument that to be a notable black in America is dangerous, Abraham Lincoln was introduced as an example of a notable white leader who was killed. There were any number of white leaders that could have been introduced as counterexamples, but, amusingly, the commenter chose one who was murdered because of white enmity towards blacks.

The question of whether Lincoln had any ambivalence about freeing slaves has little bearing on the question of why he was murdered. Had Lincoln not emancipated the slaves, he would not have been murdered. His death clearly belongs in the tally of "people killed because it's dangerous to be a successful black person in America".

[aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA]

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/hodges....

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."

[achievingApathy]

He was very much against the expansion of slavery. This is clear in his writings and his voting record. I'm not saying that he was an outright racist, but take him in historical context. He resisted his party's call for emancipation for over two years into the Civil War, and he only issued the Proclamation once the North was all but sure to lose. And even then he only abolished it in states that were rebelling against the Union. He could never have abolished slavery outright given that there were six slave holding states that were fighting on his side that would have seceded immediately thereafter.

[aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA]

Lincoln repeatedly asserted that the President possessed no legal power to rewrite the United States Constitution. The only way he could justify emancipating the slaves was in his capacity as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, which meant that he had to wait until it became a military necessity.

[achievingApathy]

He had already exercised his power as Commander in Chief by sending troops into combat. He didn't have to wait for it to become militarily necessarily -- the Constitution gives the President wide berth in this regard. It was reigned in with the War Powers Act in 1973. I'm not sure he was much of a strict Constitutional kinda guy either, as the Founding Fathers made allowances for states to secede, or reject the Union in whole. New York made sure they could back out of the federal government at any time before ratifying.

[coldtea]

>Why did you leave off "over-represented race in violent crimes"?

Because those crimes are (for anything above the baseline for people in general at the same poverty levels) are results of centuries of being abused, held down and denied opportunities.

Even if all white people (and people in power) in some city X stopped being racist, it wouldn't automatically mean that the blacks there living in the wrong side of the tracks, in an underfunded school district, and working shit jobs, will suddenly have the same opportunities as the average white person. For one, as parents they will still be the same poor folks that didn't have a good education and can't afford (or know) to raise their kids properly and send them off to some good school. This things take generations to overcome, slowly trickling upwards (and in an era when the middle class is squeezed down and the working class is fucked, that's even less likely to happen).

If you believe in blacks being inherently more violent etc as a race outside of systemic causes (poverty, bad school districts, lack of opportunities, etc, caused by centuries of slavery, double standards and racism) then you might as well believe that they have inferior DNA.

>So that makes him not black?

No, that makes him an example of the kind of forces of American society towards blacks, where even idols can't be satisfied in their black skin.

>Conveniently? I'd say tragically. Abraham Lincoln was also assassinated. I don't know how this changes that both are among the most admired people in America today.

It's easy to admire a non-threatening murdered person, especially if you make him into a convenient sugary version of what he stood for. Unlike Lincoln he wasn't much admired by white American society in his day, and a black rights advocate in his vein wouldn't be that admired today.

>Also, being the current president doesn't mean people don't call you mean things, if anything it means you're called more mean things. People said plenty of mean things about Bush or Clinton while they were president.

About their race? Were they drawn as monkeys? Asked about being muslim?

[powertower]

> Because those crimes are (for anything above the baseline for people in general at the same poverty levels) are results of centuries of being abused, held down and denied opportunities.

Yet no matter where you look on this planet, no matter what the history of that location is, no matter how far back in history you go, the pattern (of violence such as murder and rape) stays the same - and even more so when those places are absent of the other races/groups.

[coldtea]

>Yet no matter where you look on this planet, no matter what the history of that location is, no matter how far back in history you go, the pattern (of violence such as murder and rape) stays the same - and even more so when those places are absent of the other races/groups.

I'm not sure I follow. What you mean by "the pattern (of violence such as murder and rape) stays the same"? The pattern of violence that black people do?

If so, that's absolutely wrong that it stays the same "no matter where you look on this planet, no matter what the history of that location is, no matter how far back in history you go".

In fact the amount of violence perpetuated by "white people", from the Crusades to the Holocaust, colonial wars, Cold War proxy wars, etc, and onwards, is so much higher, it's not even funny. And not even at their own house -- they pissed all over the world.

[powertower]

What I was referring to can be summed up here - http://www.colorofcrime.com/2016/03/the-color-of-crime-2016-...

As far as medieval history and the other things you've mentioned go, every type of tribe on this planet has engaged in conquest and warfare. Some won. Some lost.

[coldtea]

>What I was referring to can be summed up here

Well, checking for the crime rate between different races and attributing it to "race", instead of looking for the underlying causes, is the epitome of racism.

No different from 18th-19th century scholars, who concluded that blacks had inferior intelligence and reasoning skills etc, which they might indeed have as individual examples under study -- but those scholars also forgot to account for the fact that blacks didn't have the schooling and freedom to develop their personality, or that their original culture was stolen from them and they were abducted and had to operate in a hostile and foreign environment.

>As far as medieval history and the other things you've mentioned go, every type of tribe on this planet has engaged in conquest and warfare. Some won. Some lost.

And some caused endless bloodshed and massacre all over the world for profit and control, and those tended to be whites, from them, to the modern world and wars for oil and strategic interests...

[powertower]

Condemning the entire white population of this world into collective guilt and perpetual servitude for the actions of others is the epitome of racism.

> Well, checking for the crime rate between different races and attributing it to "race", instead of looking for the underlying causes, is the epitome of racism.

Unless that underlining cause is race. And there are quite a few studies backing this up, that did take into account all the typical factors (such as socioeconomic class).

I don't think we are ever going to agree, but I am curious of what you think a middle ground solution would be?...

I would gladly trade some type of payment (reparation) for absolute freedom of association (in all aspects of work and life).

> And some caused endless bloodshed and massacre all over the world for profit and control, and those tended to be whites, from them, to the modern world and wars for oil and strategic interests...

That is because white societies had the technological and strategic platform to do so... If you where to give that same platform to any African-country president/leader/warlord/etc, you would find the end result 10x worse.

[djtriptych]

Where else were laws drafted specifically to deny rights to some race of people?

Google redlining and tell me who else we've done that to without restitution.

[powertower]

The conservative value on the amount of resources provided to minorities through affirmative action, welfare, charity, government programs and hiring quotas, and other forms of restitution is 20 trillion USD minimum.

Also the costs associated with absorbing the negative factors related to minorities (such as crime related costs, various social costs, etc) likely geometrically multiplies the above amount in various ways.

[noobermin]

The GDP of the US is 16.77 trillion USD. I severely doubt your estimation unless it is integrated over the entire history of the US.

[powertower]

Is over the last several decades.

[djtriptych]

he is lying.

[djtriptych]

I assume you've removed benefits received by whites, which dwarf those received by blacks every year?