Massachusetts police arrest 9 men after standoff with armed group that 'does not recognize our laws' | Fox News
Yay, multiculturalism!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Massachusetts State Police arrested 9 heavily armed individuals following an hours-long standoff that started at around 4 a.m. off an interstate highway.
During a traffic stop early Saturday morning, nine men carrying rifles and handguns fled into the nearby woods off Route 95/128. Police say the men claim to be from a group that "does not recognize our laws."
State Police Col. Christopher Mason told Boston 25 News that the men have identified themselves as part of a group called "Rise of the Moors."
The scene, from a distance, looking northbound on Rt 95/128 (Mass State Police Twitter)
"Their self-professed leader wanted it very much known their ideology is not anti-government," Mason said. "Our investigation will provide us more insight into what their motivation, what their ideology is."
Police issued a shelter-in-place order for Wakefield and Reading residents until the issue resolved. The men made no threats, according to the Wakefield Police Department.
The group posted videos to YouTube throughout the incident, insisting the group is peaceful. The men in the videos also claim they are abiding by "federal laws and judicial opinions" of the United States, but do not specify state laws.
At least one of the men claims he has a body camera that has recorded the entire incident. One video showed the men standing in the middle of the highway holding a Moroccan flag.
The men said they have reassured the police they are not sovereign citizens, black identity extremists, anti-police or anti-government. The last video was posted around 7 a.m.
Northeastern Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council (NEMLEC) officers arrested two of the individuals at around 6:40 a.m., handing them over to State Police. The remaining individuals were taken into custody around 10:30 a.m., ending the standoff.
Police lifted the shelter in place order shortly before 11 a.m.
The southbound lanes have reopened, but the northbound lanes remain closed while police conduct sweeps of the vehicles and wooded areas involved in the incident.
Peter Aitken is a New York born-and-raised reporter with a focus on national and global news.
Tags
Who is online
43 visitors
Just when you think things can't get any stranger.
Yay, multiculturalism!
This isn't an example of multiculturalism, it's an example of criminality.
I think it is what multiculturalism could lead to. The Left seems to want to flood this country with immigrants, legal or otherwise. There is a tendency for them to congregate in certain areas of the country with other immigrants of their ethnicity. This country is breaking down fast due to polarization and a clown car government at all levels and both parties. It isn't difficult to imagine things like this happening more often in the not too distant future as we break down even more.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
I think multiculturalism will ead to a blending of cultures, nothing more.
You are the result of immigrants, they aren't so bad.
Not surprising. People like being around those that speak their language and have similar observed customs. Doesn't mean they aren't willing to learn and adapt, it is a comfort thing.
You are correct. The GOP doesn't stand for anything anymore and the Democrats have the willpower of a retarded hamster.
Time will tell I suppose. Maybe you will be surprised.
Don't they all. I remember a neighborhood in Chicago years back where the dominant language spoken in the area was Lithuanian.
At this very moment, Lithuania is leading Poland 50 - 45 in the European qualifying round!
That would be nice, if true, but, with things like CRT and BLM and whatever WS might be out there trying to get everyone to understand how bad everyone not them are, I have my doubts. Instead of trying to work together, it's a race to find some new thing to point the finger over. So, not much hope from me on that one.
I agree. I just think that, after all these years, we'd have worked out a safe, sane method for immigration to happen by now. That we haven't leads me to believe whatever power actually runs the government just wants to keep it around as a perpetual bogeyman to distract from all the ways we are getting screwed.
In the past, yes, I agree. What I'm afraid of is that, in this current environment, a rather sizable portion of society seems to be tearing things down and apart as fast as they can. They are trying to put up walls between people, races and communities. In order to learn and adapt, there kinda has to be this one thing, generally, to which to adapt. Something that unifies. Right now, too many people are trying to unify around the idea that one segment of the society or another is bad. That's a bad thing to attempt unity, don't you think?
I'm none to sure what the GOP stands for these days, either, but I don't think it's a willpower problem for the Dems. That's been mostly a cat herding exercise more than willpower. Conservatives have more or less had an advantage there because they are conservatives. Dems, especially the dreaded Progressive, tends to want to execute all opposition to their ideology, including other Progressives, the farther Left that particular Progressive is. Or so it seems to me.
One can hope.
Yeah right. Some conservatives got a new "boogeymen" to march through the center of conservative 'town.' Always with the fear factor. These Moors are ridiculous, dangerous, and are being dealt with under the law. Now, if we can just get the rest of these evil-doers under proper control.
And Drakkonis, multiculturalism has not a thing to do with "breaking down" society. If that is some conservative's fear: Y;all can stop that negative bull patty right now.
This coming from a conservative Christian who barely can hold a discussion with liberal Christians. Just sayin.'
Black Lives Matter is a boogeyman in isolated (polarized) sections of town. Let's get rid of them. /s
That power that be would be some conservatives who won't lift a finger to include the children and adults involved, because they SAY (that they know) that these immigrants want to be democrats in their hearts.
out here one says BLM they mean the bureau of land managment ....
Mark, I spelled BLM out, too. (Smile.)
yes you did , was just pointing out the initials if just used mean different things to different people ,
to me i dont need to add a race or color to what you spelled out , because lives matter to me , period .
I think most people agree that all lives matter yet we all know there is a faction of society that think certain lives are more important than others.
"All Lives Matter" has simply been an effort to minimize the message of "Black Lives Matter".
ALM proponents take a specific slogan and expand to encompass everyone. The hope is that BLM will lose meaning.
What can you do?
Is that the faction that calls someone a racist when they say All Lives Matter?
a lot of it depends on the details thats where the devil always has sway. and say.
We all know that phrase came out as a counter to BLM.
My question wasn't about your opinion of the origins of a phrase that I'm pretty sure has been used long before the advent of the BLM organization. It was about what "faction of society" you were referring to.
I never heard the phrase before...
What do you want me to say? That there are racist people? Would that be a lie?
No it wouldn't. Is that the faction you meant?
When 'all lives matter' morphed into 'white lives matter', yes, those are the ones I mean.
Not sure why you brought that phrase into it but yes I agree, assigning race to it makes it racist.
Nice try at twisting it.
No matter how some want to twist it, BLM came about as a response to unequal treatment.
Trying to turn that movement into something other than it was is just intellectually dishonest.
Oh !
On NT ??
Unthinkable....
they have to use BLM as their new boogeyman. commies are their friends now.
I'm not trying to twist anything, I was simply responding to your post. My original question had nothing at all to do with the phrase "white lives matter". Perhaps I should be more blunt. The post I replied to originally seemed to indicate that you think that the majority of people agree that all lives matter yet only racist say it. Is that what you think?
When you say assigning race to it, I assume you mean BLM. So yes, it was your way of trying to say BLM is racist.
Maybe not all people that say 'all lives matter' are racist yet all racists most likely do.
There is only one reason I can think of as to why they hate it so much.
Comical watching them deny and spin.
Assume away.....talk about twisting. Thanks for the non-answer. Is that kinda like not all Republicans are racist but all racist are Republican?
If a group started saying "Scandanavian Lives Matter" and running some protest I have a feeling there wouldnt be any "All Lives Matter" counter protesters. Just a hunch.
First you say assigning a race to a name or phrase is racist and say that we are not even talking about the phrase white lives matter.
So we were only talking about BLM and all lives matter yet you say assigning a race to it is racist. So what do you mean considering only one of those has race in it?
Very obvious to me.
Shake it up baby now twist and shout....
Is that like saying this? Is it like saying that? do you mean this? Do you mean that?
Yes you are twisting yourself into a knot for no apparent reason that I can think of except coming to the conclusion that you think one is racist and will defend the other no matter what.
Not at all. The thread isn't that long or hard to follow.
That doesn't even make any sense...
Using BLM as boogeyman is great for the Fascists. The can openly complain about Black people.
I'm not sure Scandinavians are often gunned down by the police.
Yes, you haven't made much sense after I asked a simple fucking question.
Answered, you just didn't like the answer and had to counter with different questions.
Funny that is all you are worried about and never once denied anything else I have said.
That I think depends very heavily on the individuals definition of "racist", so there will be a lot of definitions out there
I didn't ask different questions, I asked three time for clarification of what you meant in 2.1.12. The fourth question was sarcasm. As far as the rest I have zero fucks to give of what you think of me.
How many times can I say there is a racist faction in the country?
How does that even need clarification?
As far as I know the word only has one meaning.
Well thats a start .
and what would that definition be for you?
because i bet it differs slightly from mine. or anyone elses .
Unfounded hatred for different people.
see thats different from mine by night and day.
My definition of a racist is anyone that would use the race of an individual for either discrimination or advancement and based solely on their race .
i come to that definition because of a belief that race only matters to racists themselves .
Wouldn't that be the same thing though. Just unfounded hatred in a form.
they are similar , but which is left more open to individual interpretation? and application?
both are considered things that are wrong to do.
yours , to me can be applied over a broad area , where as mine is more focused on the individual problem and where it comes from to me .
I just think it all has the same base.
Individual interpretation is a muddying of the waters.
well then the problem will never be solved on more than an individual basis .
I wonder if it would ever be solved. Seems to have existed in some form or another throughout history.
that would be a very good question to ask oneself, (and i do so for myself from time to time ) , all one can do on an individual basis is make sure they themselves are not guilty of those things themselves . irregardless of what others might claim about them .
The last time we interacted you said I put words in your mouth, I asked questions so I wouldn't. BTW thank you for your answer finally.
"When 'all lives matter' morphed into 'white lives matter', yes, those are the ones I mean."
I also appreciate you posting your opinion that,
"Maybe not all people that say 'all lives matter' are racist yet all racists most likely do."
doesn't really jive with,
"I think most people agree that all lives matter yet we all know there is a faction of society that think certain lives are more important than others."
unless of course that you think the majority of people are racist?
I tend to blurt out whatever is in my head at the time. Haha
A faction of society is not necessarily a majority.
Yes, just opinion.
As opposed to being based on actual facts. ..(Well, at least you were honest enough to admit that!
)
Nope.
So we were only talking about BLM and all lives matter yet you say assigning a race to it is racist.
BLM occasionally has different means to different people.
I have seen articles about demonstrations in support of the police...some participants holding big "BLM"signs (meaning "Blue Lives Matter"). Not that common, but I have seen it on more than one occasion.
I'm not sure Scandinavians are often gunned down by the police.
But, but...aren't they Socialists?
Very succinct, thanks for that.
Not that it matters but we all knew what group I was referencing.
And lives matter to me too. Are you blissfully unaware that Black Americans were being assaulted, shot at, choked to death and killed (murdered) en masse for several years now? Something needed stirrin' and up sprang from the roadway Black Lives Matter. It is not an assault on any other racial group! Also, can you tell me when have you (assuming you are a white male) ever been 'violated' for simply being a white and a male in this country. You might say to me, that whites are maltreated by other whites and killed by other whites and I would return with - say something, speak out, do something. Be heard!
I do not have many issues associated with my skin color (that I know about that is)- "Yay" for me. However, I would be remiss to ignore that other Black males do face violence and mistreatment for a host of reasons and in some cases it is evidentially racial-even if impulsively.
Assigning race to it makes it descriptive. And I am fed up with the lack of comprehension on the Right! Social-Comprehension Matters
It is not the message that needs 'tackling' - Engage the 'messenger.' Got it! /s
good-bye
Whatever. (Smile.) "Goodbye." Be good out there!
So the phrase "white lives matter" is merely descriptive and not racist? Ahhh a new phrase, could you express your opinion as to what it means, since you coined it.
It's a-spir-at-ion-al. This country set itself a tall order and it needs to get underway to seeing that request fulfilled. These 'stops' and regressions along the way are not helping the striving together.
Our nation spends too much time trying to take 'stuff' from its citizens and keep capital (wealth) locked away (except its crème de la crème citizens of course) from the citizenry-at-Large that earns it for the nation as parties to a whole vibrant and viable system.
My good-bye was not a sarcastic one .
i have requested a DOR of my account from management
you
are the only one i have said it too
if i can still sign in tomorrow , I will start a campaign to get myself banned for violations of the COC(betting i can do that in 2 days or less)
better to let me go quietly and not the messy way i have planned .
its already a done deal.
_______________ Lives Matter or any color combinations you can place on the line is not about race, per se. It is about a problem area in our mutual society needing some definite attention and problem-solving:
And so on and so forth. . . . .
Do not let it escape notice that "Blue" is not a color of living skin. Moreover, "Asian/Pacific Islander" is not a skin concentration.
Okay. Got it! Thanks for the information. (Smile.)
Yes... there is that...
But more importantly, they are White. White people can do pretty much whatever they like. Just ask Ammon Bundy. Or Kyle Rittenhouse. Or George Zimmerman. Or... Or... Or... Or... Or... Or... Or... Or...
The only 'crime' that has been cited is that they refused to 'comply' with LEO's commands. So we'll have to wait and see what 'probable cause' the LEO's had for arresting them...
Fleeing police might be against the law.
... merits getting shot (in the back)...
If you have any evidence these clowns were shot in the back or that I even came close to suggesting they should be, let's have it!
... but hey!
If we're going to imagine that fleeing police is against the law, why not go the whole nine yards?
Its been more than 30 years since i lived in Mass. , but just from one aspect i can see a couple things in this article and another i read that would lead to their arrest in that state .
One would be possesion of a firearm without the required paperwork , if they are state residents they would need the required permits and lic , if not state residents they would have had to have the firearms in a case and in a secured part of their vehicle , not on their person , and not out in the open uncased .
another would be tresspass with a firearm, yes that is a crime in that state that can get you arrested and is up to the individual to know they are on private property , even if it borders a public roadway .
Perhaps you didn't understand my comment.
Here it is again.
Fleeing police might be against the law.
I would think standing in the middle of a highway and waving a flag would do it. Haha
The other article i read was the trooper who initially came on them , they were refueling one of the vehicles on the side of 95, so the initial contact was not a criminal traffic stop from what i see it became different when the firearms were discovered in sight . as for standing in the highway at 1 or 2 in the morning with a flag ?likely came about after it involved more cops called in and the stand off started as an opertunistic chance to get their 30 secs of fame .
but yes protesting or demonstrating on the highway would do it too , pedestrian traffic is illegal on that interstate . traveled it many times when i was a wee yonker .
Ah. So the officer was basically doing a wellness check and noticed all the firearms.
I'm not going to go another round.
Tko
Is waving firearms around a problem in Massachusetts?
Not unless you committed a crime Tex. Based on the seed, their only 'crime' was following the commands of LEO's.
AGAIN, what probable cause did the LEO's have to order them to submit to disarm and submit to arrest?
Why characterize them as 'clowns' Tex? I haven't seen you do so for the plethora of white guys running around similarly outfitted.
doesnt matter if its a problem or not Bob , if the state has a law , they can and will enforce it to their advantage , and when i lived there( things can and have changed significantly , and being told by relatives still there , for the worse in restrictions on use and carry) , one could not step outside their own home with gun in hand that is called brandishment and IS illegal , it had to be in a case or a holster AND one better have the right permits on their person , otherwise they would be arrested .
Since Mass. is respiratory with many states, it would depend on where the person resides. They were on the side of the road so they could open carry if they are licensed.
From what I can find, there is no law that requires anyone to identify themselves unless they are IN a motor vehicle. So from what the seed states, they didn't violate the law by refusing to ID themselves. The seed doesn't indicate that the LEOs requested their gun permits so it's hard to speak to that.
That would presume that the LEOs somehow knew that they WERE on private property AND that they didn't have the owners consent. The seed said that the reason the LEO initially made contact was to 'assist' them. Doesn't sound like the LEO was on a specific call about trespassers.
Because they ARE clowns to me.
I am not responsible for what you see and don't see.
Been to Mass lately? I have , the state may have reciprocy with some states on firearms permits( very few actually , and most border the state) , but the individual HAS to conform with mass regulations and comply with their laws, not their state of residencies laws , so no ARs in mass , they illegal , no handguns over a certain calibre , No firearms the state has deemed illegal in any way or fashion the only "out " is if they are holstered or cased for interstate travel , and they are "just passing through ( federal protection ), brandishing( having a firearm unholstered or uncased ) by anyone has been illegal since the 1800s in Mass ironically considering the location of lexington and concord .
Sounds like , ( and i wont be as nice as tex and call them clowns) retarded imbicilic reprobated idiotic morons did not check into the details well enough, the devil always is in the details , sounds more like a stunt for publicity to me .
Never.
The article doesn't say anything about ARs or what caliber the handguns were.
Doesnt fucking matter. whether they had permits or not , they were to comply with mass law and part of that is when armed and an LEO wants to see permits , you comply , period , non compliance is reason for detainment and arrest and prosecution.
i hope the fucking retards get a nice hefty fine and a long stay in the states facility of detention.
Triggered?
Again, the seed doesn't indicate whether the LEOs asked for their weapons permits either. Per the article, they were asked for ID, NOT weapons permits...
So still NO 'probable cause'...
Horse shit , the entire time i lived there , if an LEO saw a firearm, they had probable cause to ask to see permits , in the case of long guns the firearms ID card that was required to be carried on ones person , in the case of handguns if one was saw concealed or openely carried , there was probable cause to ask to see the permit , and there were 2 different permits one for open and one for concealed , and better not get caught doing the wrong one , simple view of a firearm IS considered probable cause for LEO to see permits in that state , better stick with your home state and its regulations , you know jack shit about other states gun laws , what will matter is the jurisdiction it happens in, and it definitely ISNT what you think it is where yo live . , and in Mass jurisdiction , these jackwads are likely cooked
triggered ? no im just not going to do the inevitable word dance that muddies the waters , you obviously have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to Mass laws and jurisdiction.
have a good forth , and may it be with you .
Rinse and repeat.
I am basing my comments on the FACTS presented, NOT what shoulda, coulda been said or done. Give it a try.
Well, get back to us when those arrested have their lawyers sue.
wow what a difference 8 hrs since my last post can do .
fact presented in additional reporting , individuals travel from R.I. to Maine , so NOT Mass residents so they likely dont have state permits , a chargable offense if transortation of firearms through the state is not in accordance with state and federal law , active open carry is NOT in accordance with either whether its allowed in their state of residency or not . And it was their responsability to make sure such was in accordance with established laws and regulations , and both state and federal , they simply got caught , they let someone see them do it.....
Fact presented in further reporting , claims of not being connected to a soverign citizen movement found to be untrue , the movement they do claim , states that they have no obligation to follow US or state law , much like the house stealing squatters seen of late .
another "'fact' that should be introduced or pointed out , is its not a good idea to try and get into a quasi paralegal discussion of the laws and practices of a place one has never been and thus has never had exposure to the jurisdictions firearms laws with one that was born and bred in the jurisdiction , has been licd in the jurisdiction with firearms permits , who has immediate family in the LEO profession ( 6 members ) and last i knew 15 distant relations working for various LEO and fire depts across the state . Some one that has themselves worked in the profession that does know what the standard operating procedure is for such an incident within said jurisdiction that the instance occured , and what possible actions would be chargable in that jurisdiction.being "talking shop " is common with such a profession regardless of jurisdictions.
So it would appear that another fact is you hooked your team ( opinions ) to a wagon with no wheels with as you said are should be or could be items assigned little importance since the jurisdiction has differing regulations and laws than you think appropriate , so you have 2 avenues , double down on your errors because i can assure you the people of the jurisdiction in mass are very much like the people of the jurisdiction where i currently reside , and think since your not in the jurisdiction , we dont give a flying rat fuck how you do things there. or what YOU think is right or wrong or how things should be done .
You can also claim the limited initial facts availabe, for you walking naked into the running Buzz saw of the situation you had no actual clue or idea about except your preconceived ill informed opinions .
I for one dont care about your opinion because i understand opinions are like assholes , everyone has one , my opinion is based on actual experience in the areas of both LEO AND the specific state jurisdiction involve , YOURS? based on knee jerk fantasy outcomes made to sound quasi intelligent .
I wonder if these jack wagons have contacted the morroccan government or the moorish church yet for legal assistance.....
Perhaps you should post a seed.
Your posit seems to be that members shouldn't base their comments on the content of a NEWS seed until they wait for additional facts are reported. Do you support seeds being locked until more facts are known?
Maybe he is looking for people to do more research on their own and not rely solely on one news source.
You know, to make more sense when they post, to have more depth to their arguments.
maybe , but dollars to doughnuts i just wasnt in the mood for the usual site stupidity yesterday....
and i should confess i had some inside information before it was actually reported by the MSM...
why? this one is doing fine enough.
Morocco is one of the US's oldest and staunchest allies dating back to 1775 when the sultan offered to send troops to help the US in its fight for independence.
Our history with Morocco is quite interesting from our inception to today.
As they don't believe in laws, I doubt any firearms were legal for them to own.
Actually paula , since they dont believe in laws , they could arm themselves with whatever they wanted since the federal and state laws and regulations are limitations , IE fully auto capable actual military weapons , grenades and the like . all highly regulated or illegal for those without proper licencing.
but i do get your point.
I read something about that that one of the "excuses " these folks used was some 1780s treaty that allows them to do as they want in one of the numerous now articles about this group.
The problem would be that the morrocan government of the 1780s , no longer exists , and was taken over during the european colonization of the continent .
Actually, Morocco was never a "colony". For a while, it was a French "protectorate", and pretty much run by French administrators. But there was always a Moroccan monarch.
In otherwords a more polite word for colony, letting the locals think they mattered to the established superior government ...... kinda like french cuisine, the art of making what others consider garbage seem edible.
Why do Americans envy France so profoundly?
how does one envy where ones ancestors came from if they are glad they are not one of them ? in my case its more like distain for the little surrender monkey losers.
No, it's " cheese eating surrender monkeys ."
I doubt it since he came back 8 hours later with information that wasn't available at the time we made out prior comments.
Oh the seed that you claim doesn't contain any of the 'inside' information you have?
again your a day late and a dollar short , more than 24 hrs later and i now count at least 20 different articles from such sources as CNN,ABC,CBS , NBC, PEOPLE(?) THE DAILY BEAST , FOX ,WASHINGTON TIMES AND POST , NY TIMES AND POST ETC,ETC. pick your own poison.
anything i knew yesterday before it was reported has now been released and out for scrutiny by the general public .
All that does not negate the fact your comments were incorrect because of lack of knowledge , nor a care of how things go in the stated jurisdiction or its laws , not to mention im in no particular mood to coddle ones intellectual hormonal deficiencies ( read that as dont care how you FEEL things should have gone, frankly dont care what you feel) of someone who self inflicted foot in mouth syndrome and is not smart enough to admit a mea culpa for their ignorance , but was stupid enough to admit they had never been to the mentioned area and try to start a conversation with one that was born raised and lived and worked there with family that are LEO currently .
[Deleted]
Gee your statement actually supports what I said--that maybe he is looking for people to do some personal research instead of relying on one source.
Thanks!
complaints of the 8 hr delay ... most of it spent on the phone talking to relations in the area that had just got off work with what they knew .
never mind the fact i never was or am under any obligation to divulge anything i find out about anything to anyone .
I just think he wanted to argue--well, nothing, really--and really has no interest in any of the facts.
i seem to attract ones like that, they are trolls/ stalkers , they are easily dealt with , rip them to shreds with the facts and then put them in the ignore pile , and i have many different levels of ignore , one is not ignored until they are truely ignored .
they become jane curtin to my dan aykroid, (blank ) you ignorant slut .....
LOL!!!
"Jane, you ignorant slut" was a classic line!
i may never have said it . but you can bet whenever i get into such discussions i think it before i start typing. ....
From its thousand of years of tradition, France understands your envy...
its not envy you just cant comprehend the difference between what you think it is and distain , which is a form of disgust, that being explained stop being disgusting .
ever seen the movie "What about bob?" want to go sailing? someone should take you .
Your words are soaked in envy.
as your is with denial
and i dont mean the river in eygpt.
Why do Americans envy France so profoundly?
you must be in france and its your daytime , because your up late for an 80 year old in this hemisphere , and i repeat its not envy , its distain and disgust , because france and the french are not to be trusted , they will assuredly stab an ally in the back and feign innocence , to bad the world has caught on . personally i would and will never trust the french.
If you dont like that answer and it wont change , and it offends you , you should not have asked the question.
France won the American Revolutionary War. America is currently abandoning its Afghan allies.
Are you sure that your prejudices are in the right direction?
which was paid back for 3 times already ,WW1 when their asses got bailed out , ( more like britain was being bailed out and extended a lifeline , WW2 when britian was extended a lifeline again AND france was allowed back into france after their ignoble surrender /capitualtion , and the 3rd time was after france bailed in vietnam and the US took over and listened to degualles advice for south east asia, , yeah the debt you mention has been paid more than in full and actions of its government as of late are those of someone that needs to be watched . all those nuke centrifuges and plants in the middle east are of french design and construction are they not ? did the french not sell those exocette missle to argentina that their "ally" britain had to face?
tell me again how trustworthy the french are today , just try not to tell me its raining while pissing on my shoes . i still wouldnt trust them with a pile of shit or a horse .
lets see?
am i a marxist? No
am i a socialist? no
am i communist ? no
do i like marxist socialist communist racist surrender monkeys that cant be trusted ? no
are my prejudices focus on the right things? YES
yup they focused in the right direction .
you mean the current administration which is run by the progerssive left is abandoning them , and yes i think that is a disgusting thing for this administration to do and i am very glad i didnt vote for or support this administration. they should not act like france .
Mark...
America is still a young country. Adolescent, perhaps. America has lost most of its recent wars, but somehow manages not to notice. Remember:
Over its thousand years, France has won some and lost some. Most of those many wars were of no great importance, in the larger scheme.
Becoming an adult means learning to put things in perspective. In the coming days, we will surely see heart-wrenching photos of the Afghans we are now abandoning.
In a few hundred years, no one will give a shit.
Have you been drinking?
if i had been i would have said so before hand as per my usual warning when i do.
unfortunately for you i have been the church mouse , munching dry communion waffers, in my case saltines and cheese
They probably have those.
In relation to this incident , as i was told before it being reported , 3 ARs (thats what i was told about ), a bolt action rifle , a shotgun and a short barrelled rifle and 2 handguns were recovered , None of the accused were residents of the state so no permits from this particular state , unclear if the ones from rhode island had their states permits , or the ones from Ny or the ones from detroit ... the 17 year old wouldnt have been able to get a permit anyway in any of the jurisdictions , now if they had followed the mcClue - volkner act of 86( that covers transport between states for firearms ) and had them in a locked case in the vehicles , no questions would have been asked , the only possible violation of federal gun law would be the short barrelled rifle(NFA item requiring a special permit from the feds ) and likely would not have been caught if it was cased up per federal and state law .. 25 -30 min ride to the nh border and even uncased they wouldnt have been asked much ( different state and jurisdictional regulations ).
I would say if they were not already on their home states radars or the feds , they are now .
And in addition,
if they are driving through several states-- some of them have differing laws on the books!
(Although apparently they d0n't recognize the authority of any American government-- whether it be federal, state-- or even local).
But OTOH, didn't Marocco support the barbary Pirates' attacks on U.S. ships?
The Barbary pirates, who had been marauding off the coast of Africa for centuries, encountered a new enemy in the early 19th century: the young United States Navy.
The North African pirates had been a menace for so long that by the late 1700s most nations paid tribute to ensure that merchant shipping could proceed without being violently attacked.
In the early years of the 19th century, the United States, at the direction of President Thomas Jefferson, decided to halt the payment of tribute. A war between the small and scrappy American Navy and the Barbary pirates ensued.
By the early 19th century the pirates were essentially sponsored by the Arab rulers of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.
In March 1786, two future presidents met with an ambassador from the pirate nations of North Africa. Thomas Jefferson, who was the U.S. ambassador in France, and John Adams, the ambassador to Britain, met with the ambassador from Tripoli in London. They asked why American merchant ships were being attacked without provocation.
The ambassador explained that Muslim pirates considered Americans to be infidels and they believed they simply had the right to plunder American ships. (LINK)
But by obtaining a license they would be admitting to (they would be recognizing) the government authority doing the licensing. Since they recognize no American government (be it state or federal) they have not gotten any licenses (for guns...or for that matter for anything a government licenses).
Morocco is one of the US's oldest and staunchest allies dating back to 1775 when the sultan offered to send troops to help the US in its fight for independence.
Our history with Morocco is quite interesting from our inception to today.
I believe that some time ago I read that Marocco had been a very "pro-American" country for some time. (They had a problem with Islamic extremist terrorists from time to time especially since 9/11, ,but the Moroccan government is committed to fighting the terrorists).
However these people are by no means indigenous Americans.
Also found that they consider themselves descendents of The Moabites (the Moabite were not from Africa, rather they lived in the area near the Dead Sea next to the ancient Hebrews (that area is now the modern country of Jordan-- a long way away from Morocco!)
Some of their views seem a bit bizarre, but apparently they are most pretty much non-violent.
What is there about France to envy when compared to the US?
Ummm........ That was the question...
Fuck'em.
I don't know what this has to do with multiculturalism but if their skin color bothers you you could always support the Bundy gang, white as the snow, and their God-fearing Christians.
And here come the deflections....
No deflections he made the comment, Yay, multiculturalism! and of course you can read his comment 2.1 that is what I'm responding to. Don't like my comment go whine to Drakkonis or the mod's.
Highlighting crime committed by certain "ethnicities" and not others is a time honored tradition on NT.
Not at all what I did. I didn't mention crime or address it at all. What I was speaking of was their lack of recognition of the authority of the state. From my perspective, I can see diehard BLM activists possibly doing the same sort of thing. In fact, I might be able to put these "autonomous zones" we have all read about as evidence of such efforts having already been made. We've seen attempts by White Supremacists attempting the same thing for years with their efforts to attract like minded people in attempts to create enclaves for themselves. In today's toxic environment where so many are actively attempting to divide us in the name of "social justice" I see it only getting worse unless people wake up.
So, you guys can keep on trying to make this about race if you want to but I find that tedious and boring. I don't care about race. I care about what people believe and how they behave. I believe there's a right way to live, which is pretty much summed up by the golden rule and accountability for one's actions. That's it. You guys do what you want to.
Sure is!
Bad guess. Culture is not a result of skin color. Take a bunch of children of one skin color, raise them in the culture of another skin color and their culture would be the same as their adoptive culture.
What I am referring to concerning my beef with multiculturalism is that, in todays world, especially in America where there seems to be a concerted effort to divide groups of people as much as possible, multiculturalism isn't likely to produce anything good. Multiculturalism won't unite a country. I don't mean trivial things like food or holidays or dress. I mean values.
And while I think the Bundies left the reservation a while ago, it doesn't mean they are entirely wrong. If you look at what the government did to ranchers and farmers in the western states in order to seize land you might understand them a bit better. In fact, you might understand better than most.
That isn't true at all, there is a reason ICWA and adoption agencies try to always place children of color with adoptive parents of the same race.
So in your opinion with diverse races and cultures, America cannot be united. So what race/culture do you believe should be allowed to stay in the US? I wasn't aware that you feel that your values are any better than anyone else's.
I'm quite familiar with the west, federal land et al. I actually lived there for a good portion of my life. I really do understand better than most and that would include you, the two groups you're trying to say have a like argument with the feds is pure BS. Are you totally unaware that the reserve that they illegally occupied had burial grounds for the Paiute Tribe and many artifacts were stored there. The Bundy Bunch plowed up sacred ground and disturbed ancient artifacts stored there. I'm sure that the Bundies were supporting the tribe. /s
Go sell that Sagebrush Rebellion BS to people of your like mind.
BTW the Bundies were never on a reservation, you really should stop with the stereotyping.
You believe culture is genetic?
Your thinking is so twisted, having turned multiculturalism into a divisive concept incapable of bringing different groups together, that you actually have it all completely bassackwards...
America, this United States of America, was founded upon the base principle of multiculturalism.
"OUT OF MANY, ONE".
The main ideal our nation was founded on was that disparate peoples from different places with different beliefs and cultural backgrounds could unite into one indivisible nation where people are free to be different and yet still accepted as equal.
I don't know where you are but everywhere I have ever been in this great nation of ours has been more or less multicultural.
In my opinion, what you mean is, it isn't true in your opinion. The question is, what is the reason they attempt to do so? Is it not because they think that keeping the Native American bloodline as pure as possible is what is most important? If so, apply that to White Nationalists. Would they not also be justified in wanting the same thing?
Personally, I think what causes most racial problems is people thinking there's some significance to their race. To me, that makes about as much sense as thinking there's significance to how tall one is. That is, they see their significance as people as linked to how tall they are. Imagine if there was a movement where their identity came not from their race but, rather, that they were six feet tall or taller? They didn't allow marriage to shorter people nor allowed their children to be adopted by short people unless that child was not going to be as tall as necessary for their society?
Silly, right? In the same way, I think placing children of any color with only like colored people is silly. Probably more than silly. Probably just plain immoral. The only criteria that should count is will the adoptive parents love and cherish the child? Anything else just heads in the direction of racism. You have to place a Native American child with a Native American family because it's Native American. That's racist. It's saying that the child's identity is, first and foremost, Native American and can't be allowed to be anything else rather than as a person in it's own right. Or Chinese. Or Italian. Semitic. African.
Heritage is crap. I'm white but I don't care about my heritage. My heritage could be full of assholes. But even if they were all saints, it doesn't say a damn thing about me. I could be an asshole. My heritage, my skin color is completely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is how I live my life. How I treat others. I would no more celebrate my heritage than I would celebrate the shape of my ear lobes.
Not precisely what I said. I said that I doubt it can be united in today's culture, meaning it unlikely, not that it can't. But even with that caveat, uniting cultures was never easy in America, or anywhere else for that matter. Just ask the Irish, the Italians, the Catholics and others.
Do you not believe your values are better than others? If not, why do you think placing Native American children with Native American families is the moral thing to do as opposed to those who do not? If you didn't believe your values are better than others, you wouldn't post a lot of what you do. So, please, don't pretend I'm somehow saying something different than you yourself do when it comes to values.
I'll say this, though. If you do not ascribe to the golden rule and to accountability for one's own actions, then yes, I would say my values are better than yours.
More importantly, where did I suggest anything about who should be allowed to stay or go? I didn't suggest anything like it. What I did suggest is that if we are going to unite, there has to be something that unites us and that we all ascribe to.
Thanks for your opinion.
What I think would be more relevant is that humans pretty much finished reaching all of the Americas at least 15,000 years ago, which means they must have begun a lot earlier than that. For the sake of simplicity, let's say 30,00 years ago. Considering the timescale, it makes me think it likely you couldn't swing a cat without hitting some sacred something or other. Pretty much that way all over the world, not just here. So, my question is, is there anywhere that doesn't have some sacred significance?
Dunno what a Sagebrush Rebellion is and I'm pretty sure I don't care. Whatever it is I doubt my mind is the same as theirs.
Sorry. Don't have a clue to what you are referring to.
Your reading comprehension is so lacking. What I have said is that in today's America, where so many are trying to build walls, like BLM, multiculturalism isn't going to happen, since such movements are geared towards the opposite.
Not really...
Drak,
Multiculturalism is not the same thing as BLM. BLM is a movement with a specific agenda. These thugs have their own ideology and it has nothing to do with multiculturalism. It is criminal and wrong.
Multiculturalism has always been a part of this country. It is sharing and enjoying the different cultures that have come to this country. It is attending a San Genero fair, going to Mardi Gras, the Aloha Festival, watching the St Pat's or Puerto Rico Day parades, or going to a Pow Wow. Good stuff. Happy stuff.
Look, I'm not trying to argue with you but I don't think you get it. I know BLM is not multiculturalism. At least, not as you're thinking of it. It's actually the opposite of it but they claim it anyway. They, and groups like them, are trying to twist multiculturalism to mean they get to wall off everyone else not them and they get to do their own thing their own way by their own rules and nobody gets to say anything about it. Worse, all other people have to shape their cultures around that. That's BLM. BLM is Black Supremacism.
Every group making demands based on their race today are pretty much moving away from any sort of good definition of multiculturalism or anti racism. For anti racism to be an actual thing then one can't actually be an activist based on race. An actual anti racist should be one who recognizes that one's race should not matter. One's behavior should matter much more than skin color.
While I agree with multiculturalism having always been a part of this country, the rest of what you say has serious problems. It's a myopic view of present day attitudes. The good, happy stuff you refer to was arrived at through pain, blood and suffering. I'm not trying to be critical of you or attack your view, but if you look at the history of what preceded these things today it wasn't good happy stuff. A lot of it was pretty awful.
The point I've been trying to make all along is that we are not first and foremost our race, our culture or sex. We are first and foremost human beings. But people seem to want to find their identity in race, culture or sex. Why? Why not find your identity in what you think is morally right? I think most would agree that the Golden Rule is a good thing to live by. What difference would race, culture or sex have in such a view? Further, an obvious extension of the Golden Rule would be personal accountability. That is, the things I do, matter. They affect more than just me. I am responsible for how what I do affects others. Why would race trump that? Why would sex? And, wouldn't that make for a great culture? That my accountability to others matters more than my personal desires?
Good argument. You've convinced me totally. I'm going to start feeling shame for being white, buy a copy of Marx and go throw myself at the feet of the nearest BLM rep. Thanks for helping me see the light.
I would offer you my unabridged copy , but i keep it in the bathroom in case i run out of TP, and last year was not a good year for that here....
Obviously, you have no idea why ICWA was put in place and it had nothing to do with bloodline. It wasn't racist at all it was meant to stop the racist control of NA children by the government and states. Do yourself a favor and google it so you actually know what you're talking about.
Ah, great assumption that your values are better. Who's golden rule, yours? what makes you think that you're values are better than anyone else's including mine?
If your premise is that multiculturalism doesn't work what is the solution to solving the problem. We can leave the US as is with multiculturalism which has been around for centuries, the only difference is that people of color have a bigger voice. Or we can force all cultures to become one, tried and failed, or those that will not give up their culture leave the country. There aren't many other options.
You're welcome, perhaps you learned something about two diverse groups.
Quite the strawman argument. Since you commented on the Bundy Bunch I thought mistakenly it seemed that you had some knowledge of the incident. Seems you have no idea at all. They disturbed/damaged burial grounds and yes there is much of the US that doesn't have sacred significance to us. How about you, are your burial ground/cemeteries sacred to you. How about your churches and places of worship?
I know, once again my mistake since you said the Bundies and how the federal government hurt the farmers and ranchers and the Bundy Bunch were not all wrong you would understand what they stood for. Obviously, you didn't. Google is your friend.
Obviously and not at all surprising.
IMO, the greatest divider in the US isn't multiculturism but religion.
huh?
If culture is not the result of skin color how can skin colors have cultures?
More dissembling. Racism is the belief of racial superiority for some. If you are anti-racist you are against that concept. It is literally impossible to be anti-racist without referencing race and racism.
My point is that skin colors dont have cultures, groups of human beings do though. The Irish have a culture , the Polish have a culture, Israeli jews have a culture,aboriginies have a culture, Muslims in India have a culture, as do Catholics in India. Motorcycle clubs have a culture, and "soccer moms" have a culture. The U.S. military branches have a culture.
Race is a social construct, which is one of the precepts of critical race theory.
Agreed.
Also... we do not live in a vacuum. There is racism around us. So those who say we should be color-blind are in fact saying we should ignore racism.
Eventually we could get to a point where skin color could be completely ignored in a society. We are far from that point today.
I used to spend professional time in Tunisia, where skin color went from coal. black to paper white. Tunisia is economically stratified. Skin color is only vaguely related to stratum.
Obviously, you have no idea what is being discussed, forgotten or you are intentionally trying to change the subject. I'm hoping you've just forgotten. So, let me remind you.
Rather than address how racist and religiously demeaning a comment this is I just put it down as a bad guess and attempted to explain to you why skin color doesn't determine culture but, rather, being raised in a culture determines culture.
Granted, I failed to consider my audience when I said this. I'm hardly going to claim that I know your people's history as well as you do but I don't need to Google anything. I'm aware enough to be getting on with. I should have considered how this might have been received by you. I assure you I didn't literally intend that we "Take" a bunch of children in the manner historically done to your people's children. The statement simply states that, all else being equal, a child's culture is determined by the culture in which it is raised, not by the color of it's skin.
And yes, I'm aware my statement is oversimplified but I'm certain whatever anyone could bring up as an example would not be attributable to skin color but, again, culture. Take a look at this vid , if you have the time. It's short.
What I hope you see from it is both what I mean and how the culture of our society attempts to destroy something beautiful. Skin color is simply the excuse, not the reason.
Anyway, back to the point, which is, again, why multiculturalism as spoken of in today's environment isn't going to work. That was the comment you responded to, remember. So, moving on, you responded with...
Which, as a statement, doesn't actually counter or explain why my statement is wrong. Within the context of what I have said so far about multiculturalism I took your statement here to be about race, especially since your opening remark erroneously attributed my problem with multiculturalism today with race. I responded with ...
Admittedly, hindsight of what you say after this makes me see how you saw this statement and I realize I wasn't considering my audience. That doesn't mean I think what I say here is wrong. I think it's right. However, I can see that you won't have an easy time of pulling out of your history and considering what I'm saying clinically.
Before going further, I'm aware of not only the government's attempt to essentially what the CCP in China is attempting with the Uigurs currently, I'm further aware of the shameful way Christianity often was complicit in that effort. I've been aware of both for a while now. Obviously not as much as you are but I know what your talking about well enough to understand where you are coming from.
Having said that, what I said took nothing of history into consideration. It only considered motivation for why you said " there is a reason ICWA and adoption agencies try to always place children of color with adoptive parents of the same race, " which I replied to with the idea in mind that this is about race for you as you made it about that from the beginning. As such , I naturally assumed that, for you, it is about preventing the disappearance of NA bloodlines. I remain convinced that this is a concern for you and has more to do with why NA children should be with NA parents for reasons more than simply historical treatment of NA's.
A good thing, in my opinion, but quite obviously wrong about having nothing to do with bloodline, meaning race. After all, what's the number one determining factor concerning whether one is NA or not or accepted into a tribe? T he Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians require a minimum of 1/16 degree of Cherokee blood for tribal enrollment, apparently. If a mother who is 1/16th Cherokee, living within the tribe, has a child, how concerned will the ICWA be about the mother giving up the child for adoption if the father has no NA blood at all? Are they going to insist that child be placed with NA parents? I don't know but, logically, since this particular tribe sets a minimum allowable bloodline for even being part of the tribe, one would think they wouldn't be too concerned about it.
But all of that misses the point, which began with your racist assumptions about my comment concerning multiculturalism. Since your assumptions are racist, you don't actually understand what I've been saying about multiculturalism in the present environment. You don't have to Google my comments. There right here. All you have to do is read them.
Um...I'm not sure how to respond to this. I'll deal with the Golden Rule question first, since I never considered that there could be more than one. A quick search didn't reveal much except the following...
There were no other easily discoverable lists that I found so I just went with this one. It's from a Christian religious site , if that matters to you. I didn't read what it says there. I just copied the list and exited quietly.
So, admittedly, it may be that the person who came up with this list may have only selected what suited whatever purpose he or she was after but, as I said, I couldn't find other examples. If you know of others that are markedly different than these which, essentially, all say the same thing, please share it.
What you refer to as "my" Golden Rule comes from Matthew 7:12, which you can find in many different translations here . Since you don't actually list any other Golden Rule to which I can compare it and provide an argument as to why I consider "my" version better I am at a loss as to how to proceed.
Further, since I don't know what your values are I'm not about to think mine are better than yours. I don't know why you think that I do.
That isn't my premise. Are you only reading what I've said to you or have you considered what I have said to others? My premise is and has been that, in today's environment, multiculturalism is a bad thing, precisely because of how multiculturalism has or is being redefined. See my comment to Perrie at 4.2.8 . I would also recommend you become familiar with Thomas Sowell's work in this area.
Not at option I advocate for or think necessary, with one narrow exception. I don't want the homogenization of cultures, I want something outside all cultures that all cultures ascribe to. A touchstone, if you will, that unites all in spite of culture. There are some cultural issues that can't be tolerated under any circumstances, like female genital mutilation, honor killings and the like, but generally, I don't demand or even want other cultures disappear into another. What I want is, just like the individual should treat others like they themselves would like to be treated, so cultures should treat other cultures as they would like to be treated by cultures not their own.
People erroneously think that's what America's past was. I think you know better. Again, I refer you to 4.2.8
Correction. It isn't that I have no idea at all (although I admit I am completely unaware of anything having to do with the Bundy's and sacred land) but that I didn't say something that addressed your concerns. My comment wasn't about the Bundy's themselves but, rather, the government's persecution of ranchers and farmers like them in the pursuit of land. The only reason the Bundy's came up at all was you, in your racist attack on me, in the first place.
Not in the slightest. Not in any way. The Church is not a building. Remains of a person are not in any way the person any more than a car that carries around a person is the person. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that others feel differently and honor that to the extent reasonable. But if the dead get in the way of the living, I'm going with the living, within reason.
Once again, the only reason the Bundy's are in this is because of you, not me. And once again, regardless of what the Bundy's are about, politically, the federal government is persecuting ranchers and farmers all over the west in order to grab as much land as possible. They often use "artifacts" to do so. I've seen it done. So, please, get off the Bundy train. I could care less about their politics. I'm sorry if they violated something sacred to you but the issue here isn't NA's. The issue is your issue with my take on multiculturalism as practiced today.
Can't agree or disagree with you, since I don't know why you feel that way. But, to an extend, I agree with the statement. Can't say I agree with you without knowing why you feel this way.
I'll do my best to explain it to you.
Culture can be defined as...
To say that culture is the result of skin color one would have to demonstrate how a physical attribute dictates, causally, what a society thinks about the things in the definition. For instance, if a tribe (of whatever color) thought it right to go attack and slaughter a neighboring tribe due to an accidental death in order to satisfy their sense of justice, one would have to demonstrate how their skin color is responsible for that attitude.
Further, if, through whatever chain of events, a tribe of one skin color happened upon an infant of another skin color and had mercy on it, raising it as one of their own, that child would grow up with the same arts, beliefs, customs, institutions and other products of that tribes work and thought.
In other words, a tribe of a given skin color can certainly have a culture but it isn't a product of that skin color.
You literally defeat your own argument. I said...
You call it dissembling but then, inexplicably immediately say..
If racism is the belief in racial superiority and being anti racist is being against this concept, would not this mean that what one's race is doesn't matter in matters of superiority? You presumably present this as a counter argument, even though it says exactly what I said, just using different words.
Uh...yeah? It's impossible to be anti car without referencing cars. And?
Completely and utterly false. When people say we should be "color blind" what they mean is that we should stop making assumptions about a person because of their skin color or how they look and, instead, treat them according to what their actions deserve. There's nothing about that which suggests holders of such a view don't believe racism exists.
In my experience, people who say that people who believe in color blindness don't believe racism exists actually mean that such people don't think people of other races should be afforded special privilege's based on their race.
Which is as stupid an idea as the idea that biological sex is a social construct. If you're white, you're white. If you're black your black. That isn't a social construct. What is a social construct is how a given society feels about it.
Thrawn had a good comment the other day, something like "if you broke it you have to fix it". He was referring to relations between the races in America, and the fact that "whites" broke it. Whites broke it by displaying overwhelming racial prejudice against non whites for 350 years, or more, after the 1619 arrival of the first African slaves. Roughly the same time period applies to white racism towards the natives.
Whites broke it, whites have to fix it. Part of that fixing is affirmative action and other "advantages " given to non whites. Are you one of those who feels that we should not take into consideration those 350 years, and more, and just decide that everyone began life with equal advantages?
Your presumption is that "black" culture is lacking some of the necessities of success. Let's say that is true. Whose fault is that? At what point during those 350 years were blacks given an even break by the larger white society?
At what point? , give me a year, a decade, an era during those 350 years when blacks and other people of color were given an even break by whites.
I don't think you can.
Is the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History a "stupid" institution?
They (among countless others) say race is a social construct.
Is Race a Social Construct? The Natural History Museum Investigates | At the Smithsonian | Smithsonian Magazine
Not at all. Your stance seems to be that racism can be defeated by ignoring it. Anti-racism is not a passive position depending on the good will of those who will judge "content of character" . Anti-racism generally requires expression. Anti-racism cannot be expressed without referencing race and racism.
Maybe we are just using terms differently.
"Blind" means "not see". It doesn't mean "not make assumptions".
Duh.
Not at all. I said nothing like this. You are just imposing an unwarranted meaning to continue your argument. Saying that someone's character trumps their skin color says absolutely nothing about whether or not racism exists. It only speaks to how one should treat another human being.
This is obvious, yet you continue as if something else is being talked about here. Apparently, if we do not actively go out seeking people you judge to be racist and do some thing to them then we aren't anti racist. Total crap.
If they are saying race is a social construct then, yes, they're stupid. Race is an objective fact. Being tall is not a social construct. One is either tall or they are not. You either have green eyes or you do not. You have black skin or you do not. What is a social construct is a given society's reaction to a person's race.
Totally agree. I didn't break relations between races. I didn't institute slavery or have any slaves. I don't believe a person's opportunities should be restricted or advanced based on their race. Therefore, I have no responsibility for fixing anything beyond treating people as I would like to be treated and being accountable for my own actions.
Horseshit! That's just a continuum of racism. It's what CRT is about, which says we can only relate to each other on the basis of race. More horseshit. Jim Crow laws were not wrong because whites implemented them. Jim Crow laws were wrong because Jim Crow laws were unjust. If one is a supporter of the many worlds theory, somewhere out there is a universe where another Earth exists, only the Jim Crow laws were enacted by black people against whites. Those laws were not wrong because of black people. They were wrong because they were unjust.
Insisting that I bear some responsibility because I am white is simply racism. It takes no account of what my morals are. What my character is. What I believe or anything else. I'm white so I'm responsible. That's no different than someone saying that because this guy is black, he's a criminal.
Eminently debatable.
Nice loaded question. In spite of that, yeah, we forget about the 350 years, and more, except as a learning tool. That's all it can be if we are truly going to fight racism. Certainly, the idea that some individual today deserves something because of what happened to some ancestor 350 years ago is ludicrous. What I am I owed, being Irish, because of how the British treated my ancestors?
Ever heard of the phenomena called "stolen valor"? Basically, it's someone who claims to be a veteran, when they aren't, in order to claim certain benefits and honor. To my mind, that is similar to what the vast majority of those who think as you do are doing. Taking what happened to someone else and insisting I see another, to whom it did not happen, in that light. Not going to happen.
Let's consider the black farmers whom the liberal congress wants to give all that money to, of which a part is mine in the form of taxes I pay. Not only is it stupid, it's unjust. If black farmers were the victims of racist discretionary lending by banks, would not the obvious and just solution be to make the banks redress the crime? Why am I and everyone else being put on the hook for something I didn't do?
No. We just decide that everyone is born with equal rights and do our best to protect those rights, which is what the civil rights movement was all about. The idea that we're all born with equal advantages, or even should be, is stupid. More, it's impossible. My brothers children sure as hell weren't born with the same advantages that Bill Gates children were. A child born to abusive parents don't have the same advantages as children born to supportive parents. A child born with birth defects doesn't have the same advantages as one who wasn't.
Since there is not one "black" culture but, rather, many, to which are you referring?
Further, there isn't a single, homogenous culture for any of the other races, too.
Again, it depends on which culture you're talking about. For the sake of argument, I'll refer to the "black" culture known as gang life since I'm guessing you think that's the only thing I have in mind concerning black culture. Not true by a long shot, but...
I fault, first and foremost, the black people in that culture. Incidentally, there are people of other races who do and believe the same things and I fault them in the same way. White, yellow, red, pink, purple. Doesn't matter. I must fault them first because to do otherwise is to assume they have no free will. That they bear no responsibility for what they do.
Second, I fault progressive thought. I fault the idea that "these poor, poor people aren't responsible for their actions or conditions" and we need to shove money at them to make it all better. Bullshit. People of every race are in situations exactly the same. People working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. In other words, it isn't a racial issue, it's a social issue.
Third, I fault the idea that it is somehow my responsibility, being white, to do something about their situation. Nope. I know lots of black people who have what I have and I wasn't involved in their success at all. They did it themselves, just as I did. It may have been harder for them due to prejudice, but they still succeeded.
What do you consider an even break?
The right to vote?
Desegregated schools?
Desegregated military?
Access to higher education?
Right to run for office?
Right to own a business?
Right to assemble?
Right to own land?
Right to legal recourse?
Maybe it would be shorter and easier for you to list ways they, or anyone else, aren't being given an even break? And don't bother with dredging up the past. It's the past and can't be changed. That's not a denial that people weren't given an even break back then. They certainly weren't, regardless of color. It's recognition that the past is not the present.
If "you" don't who does? Give us a name or a range. If everyone said "it's not my problem " it wouldn't be anybody's problem, would it?
Kettle meet pot, your comments are a litany of racist BS and ignorance.
An "even" break means something relatively even.
Blacks had a right to own land in the shabbiest, most run down and undesirable part of the town, -----the right to vote maybe, if they jumped through hoops. There were places where a requirement to vote if you were a Negro was to recite the entire constitution from memory. --------There are people alive today who attended segregated schools. And even after desegregation there was defacto segregation in many areas based on the fact that there was residential segregation and kids attend neighborhood schools. Hence busing and all the hate that bought on. -----Inferior schools led to much less access to higher education, and even when qualified many blacks were turned down by schools they wished to attend. -------- For the past 100 years you could count the number of Republican U.S. Representatives who were black on one hand. And there weren't that many more Democrats.-----Right to own a business? In the black part of town. ------Right to assemble? Near the end of that 350 year period civil rights protesters in the south had dogs sicced on them at peaceful marches and sit-ins--------The black writer Ta-nehisi Coates wrote an epic magazine article in 2014 on redlining and the creation of the ghetto How Redlining Kept Black Americans From Homeownership and Still Does (businessinsider.com ---------There is an entire area of legal scholarship that deals with unfair treatment of blacks under the law. You may have heard of it - critical race theory.
You have one major problem trying to make your argument that you cannot get past- you want to be seen as an individual but you see other people as parts of groups. You mention a black dysfunctional culture , I believe you called it gang culture. Where do you get any more right to put "blacks" in a gang culture , if according to you, whites are individuals and not part of some faceless mass of racism?
Is there such a thing as "American" ideals and values or are we all just lone individuals living on the same continent? If there are shared principles and codes of conduct then there is shared responsibility to spread them and make them applicable to all.
Already answered in the portion of the quote you didn't include.
Which would be relevant if we were in those days. Here's a little factoid for you, though. In the middle school my nephews attended, the black kids would congregate at one of the exits from the school grounds. The reason was to intimidate and try to coerce white kids into a fight. The school knew about it but was afraid to take any action because the kids were black and they feared the inevitable repercussions. These kids didn't want an even break. They wanted the gang life.
Dunno anything about that except to say where I lived determined where I went to school so, not sure what the issue is with attending neighborhood schools.
As for the rest, you rely on the past, not the present to make your case. I suggest you look into time travel and do your fighting there.
You continue to call yourself an individual and those you want to criticize a group.
"Black Lives Matter" and the aftermath of the George Floyd killing has given this country a great opportunity, the chance to address racial issues in a comprehensive and serious way. Tens of thousands of whites took to the streets to protest the murder of George Floyd and also some other incidents between blacks and the police. This has signaled an opportunity that I am afraid we will blow over nonsense criticizing the 1619 Project and "critical race theory".
Lets not blow the chance before us.
Um... are you just making crap up as you go along? Do you think it is me who puts black people into gangs? Is it not the fact that, if a black person is a member of a gang, he is therefore in a gang? And are not gangs, by their very nature, dysfunctional concerning a properly functioning society?
Further, it isn't according to me that whites are individuals not part of some faceless mass of racism. That's obviously a strawman created by you because I'm not saying what you need me to say in order for you to feel you're making a valid argument. What I said was that I am not responsible for what others have done. And, as I said about black cultures, there isn't just one white culture. Obviously there is a culture among white people who think being white makes them superior. There's a culture that thinks that's nonsense. There's a culture that thinks we owe fealty to God and a culture that doesn't. There's a culture that thinks Capitalism is the answer and a culture that thinks the opposite.
But guess what? That's also true of blacks, reds, yellows browns and whatever that doesn't cover.
Couldn't agree more! That isn't the same as saying I'm responsible for what someone else did or does simply because my skin is a certain color. You get that, right? That there's a difference?
BLM is a sewer and people are drinking from it. It deluded people into thinking that police brutality is a racial issue with racial causes but it isn't. All anyone has to do is look it up on YouTube and you will find countless videos of police brutalizing people of EVERY race. You think there's something unique or special about what happened to Floyd? Nope. Ever heard of Otto Zehm? Zachary Hammond? Isiah Murrietta? Justine Damon? Oh, and you gotta check out Tony Timpa ! Daniel Shaver ?
The evil of BLM is that they take what is a pandemic affecting everyone and deluding fools into thinking it's only affecting black people. That it's a racial issue. And when people say All Lives Matter, they're branded as racists.
Yeah, let's not. You can start by ceasing to support BLM, which doesn't give a damn about black lives. They care about using black deaths to gain power for their own ends.
Well, I guess that depends on one's definition of racism, doesn't it? Apparently, yours is rather elastic.
I can't see how anyone sees that as racist. /s
U.S. law enforcement officers 2019 | Statista
Feb 02, 2021 · In 2019, there were 697,195 full-time law enforcement officers employed in the United States. The number of full-time law enforcement officers …
============================================
There are tens of thousands of racist cops in the United States. Many tens of thousands.
Uh, how does the first statistic support your second? You realize there's no empirical, logical or anecdotal connection, right?
Dude, if a white person wakes up in the morning, you consider that racism, so your opinion doesn't really have much pull with me. But, feel free to keep on being ignored.
Bingo.
If only 10% of law enforcement officers were racist that would be 67, 719.
10% would be a low ball figure.
Is that a fact or is it your opinion? If fact, please present the data.
What do you think the percentage is? You do know there are locations in this country where virtually everyone in town is racist, dont you?
In 2012 a survey was taken showing 51% of Americans had racist attitudes.
Do you think things have gotten that much better since 2012? Keep in mind that two thirds of that span has occurred with Trump in the forefront.
Majority of Americans racist – poll — RT USA News
Oct 27, 2012 · Majority of Americans racist – poll . The election of Barack Obama failed to usher in a post-racial US, with a new poll showing that 51 percent of Americans hold explicitly anti-black views. That figure is up from 48 percent in 2008, the year America elected its first black president. Those expressing implicit anti-black attitudes also spiked ...
tell them to hide their lunch money in between the pages of their bibles.
Wholly unrelated to anything he wrote.
Don't bother. He never contributes anything useful.
True enough.
Don't have a clue. I'm not God.
Well, gosh! If you can't trust the Russians, who can you trust???
Concerning racism? Can't really say. But I think race relations have gotten worse. Hard not to when for years now a concerted effort to demonize white males. And, BONUS! Especially if they're Christians! But they moved on from that and now claim simply being white is racist, as it is some invisible quality we have due to our genetics or something. And if you fight back against the idea, why, that's simply evidence of racism! Isn't that convenient???
the poll was not taken by Russians. I'll look around for the original source.
I'm a white male and it hasnt bothered me a bit.
I don't know that I agree with calling the organization BLM (Black Lives Matter) thugs. For one thing, that would place mayors (in D.C. and other cities) in aconspiratorial position to paint "BLack LIves Matter" on sections of their streets and maintain it there. That, would not make good political or civic sense.
That's smashing to distinct things together wrongly. Culture is what people do-not sets of physical traits. Furthermore, it is. . . impotent. . . of some conservatives to sit on their hands while for one Trump says any damn thing he wishes even destroying and ruining his "fellow" republicans and dividing conservatives and liberals so far and wide apart that you can mentally see 'gaps' forming along state borders that touch each other. Some conservatives create and exploit the problem and then "jump" on the other side to be the first in shouting: "Uh, we see division here!"
Stop dividing the country, yourselves - some conservatives! Be a union!
A Conservative Christian who is "not sure" a Liberal Christian is Christian. Just sayin' - It's a values 'problem.'
Whats the old saying? politics makes strange bedfellows?
i would consider tammeny hall to be a political organization made up of some questionable people ,
any place that bootleggers and politicians were just doing what the people wanted in the 20s and 30s , the base in both those cased things were enforced by thugs , and the criminal element striving to maintain control both civically and politically. so they could continue doing what they were .
Nope. What causes most racial problems is bigotry. Keeping children with their biological parents is best. Keeping them with familial ties is second best. Keeping them with social/cultural ties is third best. Finally, keeping them connected to community/humanity is essential to them not becoming sociopaths.
Other than that, I really don't know where you are going with that statement. Racial problems do not occur in a vacuum there are attitudinal causes.
And no, I see no problem with children starting out with their families, familial ties, social/cultural communities and then branching out to properly socialize with their fellow humanity in peace, harmony, and yes - love.
Cart before the horse thinking on display. I am sorry. I am struggling to keep up with your statements and any connective points you are leaving out (or dismissing?). That said, if a "kid" is not anchored to his familial history, s/he will try to seek it out at some point in life as a matter of foundational background. Better to 'ground' a child close to its own group/tribe (in order to settle in) before asking for social exploration and expansion. Of course, this depends on it being possible to proceed in a sequence of events.
What Black Lives Matter organization are you talking about? I must have missed something. (Hint: There are multiple races and social 'vibes' influencing and associating BLM.)
Oh brother. (Sighs.) Where was. . . "all this" when red-lining and Jim Crow and some conservatives were in their 'hey-day' before their numbers begin to negate (under Donald Trump)? So pathetically predictable. Now some conservatives want to 'extend a hand to remind people we're all one.' Dubious. Yet, let's all vote "the Conservative Way" in 2022! That's so "fork-tongued."
BTW, Donald Trump wants America to vote "the Conservative Way" can you at least acknowledge the association? (No. Won't. Not allowed to.)
Give equity, justice, and "upright the overturned (apple) cart of humanity and then we can 'talk'! Don't lecture us while holding all the best cards in society, about wrongs you feel okay? I am on the move right now. So I hope this one comes out like I mean it to sound. I can't spend enough time on it as I wish.
What I am referring to concerning my beef with multiculturalism is that, in todays world, especially in America where there seems to be a concerted effort to divide groups of people as much as possible.
In today's world, yes.
Whereas in the past no politicians would ever even consider ever trying to use race (or cultural differences) to divide Americans in order to get votes.
Nevah!
Evah!
/sarc
There are some cultural issues that can't be tolerated under any circumstances, like female genital mutilation, honor killings and the like
Some cultural issues...can't be tolerated...under any circumstances?
And yet the ones you just mentioned are tolerated...in some societies.
Take a bunch of children of one skin color, raise them in the culture of another skin color and their culture would be the same as their adoptive culture.
Unless, of course, when they're old enough to understand...they rebel against being taught different cultural values other than that of their ancestors, of their biological) family... and want to learn about the culture of their people and adopt it.
(Happens a lot actually).
Some folks are slower than others to recognize when they are being called racists--or just don't mind it.
Hey JBB! Actually, Black American church-goers know that Jesus was not a white man and more to the fact; a spirit is not defined by a color 'container.' Our churches settled many of these types of issues 'eons' ago.
Some of our churches indulge in harmless traditions and tropes for their own ease of comfort and time-saving.
Now all we need, is for White American church-goers to know the same.