logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Will White People Riot if McCain Loses?, Who will lose it and go off?
nighttimer
post Oct 30 2008, 07:33 PM
Post #1


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,660
Member No.: 504
Joined: February-16-03

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Newspaper columnist Wendi C. Thomas writing for The Root.com speculated on what might happen if Barack Obama lost the election.

Oct. 20, 2008-- "Would black people riot if Sen. Barack Obama didn't win the election?" That was the question a white man in Memphis recently asked a racial reconciliation group with which I am involved.

After five years of being a columnist for the daily paper in Memphis, I wasn't surprised by the absurdity of his query. Many whites still labor under the illusion that black folk act en masse and that if you ask the right one, you can get the official position of some 40 million people. If a few of us get angry, that logic allows, it must surely result in a riot.

The reply to the curious white gentleman: "No! There is no reason to believe black people will riot if Obama does not win."

But soon after getting this man's e-mail, I started to wonder if he was on to something, if he had noticed what I had: a seething, barely constrained, ugly anger and frustration that makes good riot fuel. The kind of anger that prompts people to shout "Kill him!" and "Off with his head!" at rallies. The kind of hatefulness that would prompt a man to bring a stuffed monkey with an "Obama" sticker on the toy's head to a campaign event.

That kind of group-fueled nastiness must surely beg the question: Will white people riot if Obama wins?
link

In what has been a highly volatile campaign there have been numerous reports of racially motivated ugliness directed at Barack Obama. Some of the low points include the Ashley Todd hoax, the ATF arresting two skinheads who wanted to kill Obama along with shooting 88 people and decapitating 14 African-Americans and Obama being hung in effigy on the University of Kentucky campus.

The question for debate:

1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Zack
post Oct 31 2008, 12:50 PM
Post #21


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 570
Member No.: 8,030
Joined: October-11-07

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 31 2008, 08:12 AM) *
QUOTE(Zack @ Oct 31 2008, 07:04 AM) *
1. If whites and blacks didn't riot in 2000 or 2004 why should they now? On the other hand blacks have a record of rioting when group emotion overwhelms them as a group.

...and whites don't?

Again does anyone have any evidence for this assertion?

QUOTE(Zack)
I think this is a result of being propped up by Democrats as victims for decades, but I could be wrong.

You are, in so many ways.

QUOTE(Zack)
I think the death count could be greater than that in your signature block if Obama loses and it will be five to one black counts and race relations in America will be set back six decades.

Just pulling numbers out of the air aren't we?

Care to summarize relation's in the late 1940's?
In American history there is very little record of whites burning their hoods, black’s hoods records?

My personal knowledge of relations with black people is that they have a group mentality, I noticed this same trend in the Korean people but white people generally don't share a group mentality of brotherhood. You are black so do you feel of act differently when you are in a segregated group of blacks or integrated group of whites/blacks? Blacks have been propped up by the Democratic Party under a label of "unfortunate" most of my life and I honestly believe many blacks buy that label. Just look at Rev. Wright, that dude is sold that his race is unfortunate and they are that way because of (not Republicans) but whites.

The single thing that integrated the blacks and whites into our culture is religion, it's the sharing of a common norm that makes us alike and caused the changes from the Underground Railroad through today. If a group acts like heathens when they don't get their way they are removed from the ties that bind, heathens was the justification for slavery and the conquering of lesser god people from American Indians to Mexicans in our history by the majority mob of Christians. Like I said, there was no riots in 2000, the most contested election in history and if McCain pulls a rabbit out of his hat and wins there shouldn't be a reason for a riot today unless one of the parties are heathens.

The basis of casualties would be the excuse of heathens and the radical groups of skin heads that exist in our culture. If the culture witnesses heathens the police respond slower against such reprisals.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 12:50 PM
Post #22


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Oct 31 2008, 07:48 AM) *
1. Black people are going to riot whether Obama wins or loses in Chicago at a minimum. ANY excuse to rape, pillage and destroy will do this. One would have to live with one's collective head up their rear end to not know this as it's happened about every time there is some sort of major event like the Bulls winning etc... Best thing that could happen is that it drops below 30 degrees and pray for early hibernation from the street corners as usual in Chicago.

I'm sorry are all those Bulls/Cubs riots entirely populated by black people? Care to support that argument?

QUOTE(tumpetplayer)
As a side note, pollster and people that live off of polls should understand a poll is NOTE a ballot or a vote. I would suggest the race is closer than polls show and recent history will bear this out saving of course for the tin foil hat crowd. It could be that more Conservatives simply don't wan't to be hassled with pollsters and machines calling their houses at 9 at night.

:snort: laugh.gif

Yep, that's it.

QUOTE(Zack)
In American history there is very little record of whites burning their hoods, black’s hoods records?

Another baseless assertion. Do you have any evidence?

QUOTE(Zack)
My personal knowledge of relations with black people is that they have a group mentality, I noticed this same trend in the Korean people but white people generally don't share a group mentality of brotherhood

Your expert opinion, huh?

QUOTE(Zack)
. If a group acts like heathens when they don't get their way they are removed from the ties that bind, heathens was the justification for slavery and the conquering of lesser god people from American Indians to Mexicans in our history by the majority mob of Christians.

Rarely have I been tempted to trip the profanity filter, I'm just not a very profane person.

But this is just... stupid.

There I said it.

"Heathens" because all those good Christians bombing black homes and burning black neighborhoods were just keeping the heathens in check?

The slaves were the heathens, not the people who enslaved them, right?

The slaughter of Amerindians was because they were heathens?

QUOTE(Zack)
Like I said, there was no riots in 2000, the most contested election in history and if McCain pulls a rabbit out of his hat and wins there shouldn't be a reason for a riot today unless one of the parties are heathens


I just wanted to print it again. laugh.gif

QUOTE(Zack)
The basis of casualties would be the excuse of heathens and the radical groups of skin heads that exist in our culture. If the culture witnesses heathens the police respond slower against such reprisals.

You trying to start a flame war?

Or is this seriously your best effort?

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 01:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Zack
post Oct 31 2008, 01:29 PM
Post #23


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 570
Member No.: 8,030
Joined: October-11-07

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 31 2008, 08:50 AM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Oct 31 2008, 07:48 AM) *
1. Black people are going to riot whether Obama wins or loses in Chicago at a minimum. ANY excuse to rape, pillage and destroy will do this. One would have to live with one's collective head up their rear end to not know this as it's happened about every time there is some sort of major event like the Bulls winning etc... Best thing that could happen is that it drops below 30 degrees and pray for early hibernation from the street corners as usual in Chicago.

I'm sorry are all those Bulls/Cubs riots entirely populated by black people? Care to support that argument?

QUOTE(tumpetplayer)
As a side note, pollster and people that live off of polls should understand a poll is NOTE a ballot or a vote. I would suggest the race is closer than polls show and recent history will bear this out saving of course for the tin foil hat crowd. It could be that more Conservatives simply don't wan't to be hassled with pollsters and machines calling their houses at 9 at night.

:snort: laugh.gif

Yep, that's it.

QUOTE(Zack)
In American history there is very little record of whites burning their hoods, black’s hoods records?

Another baseless assertion. Do you have any evidence?

QUOTE(Zack)
My personal knowledge of relations with black people is that they have a group mentality, I noticed this same trend in the Korean people but white people generally don't share a group mentality of brotherhood

Your expert opinion, huh?

QUOTE(Zack)
. If a group acts like heathens when they don't get their way they are removed from the ties that bind, heathens was the justification for slavery and the conquering of lesser god people from American Indians to Mexicans in our history by the majority mob of Christians.

Rarely have I been tempted to trip the profanity filter, I'm just not a very profane person.

But this is just... stupid.

There I said it.

"Heathens" because all those good Christians bombing black homes and burning black neighborhoods were just keeping the heathens in check?

The slaves were the heathens, not the people who enslaved them, right?

The slaughter of Amerindians was because they were heathens?

QUOTE(Zack)
Like I said, there was no riots in 2000, the most contested election in history and if McCain pulls a rabbit out of his hat and wins there shouldn't be a reason for a riot today unless one of the parties are heathens


I just wanted to print it again. laugh.gif

QUOTE(Zack)
The basis of casualties would be the excuse of heathens and the radical groups of skin heads that exist in our culture. If the culture witnesses heathens the police respond slower against such reprisals.

You trying to start a flame war?

Or is this seriously your best effort?
I suggest you read this account in its entirety. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576...d_Colonies.html And, read Encarta's account of the Key Word Anthropology.

I'm not trying to flame or stir any emotions because I have no emotion on the subject, to me both candidates suck, I would have preferred Hillary. If you are honest with yourself you will admit that if someone doesn't act like the group they get treated differently. I found it shocking that Joe the Plumber was investigated for asking a question but among the group harmed by the question he became a target for their hate for him not thinking like them.

When people act like heathens, absent of religious values, then they are treated as lesser value. If you take time to read the Anthropology article you will find information of how people treat people of lesser gods. When a group moves from a god like norm to a heathen, out of control mob they instantly become of less value. Haitians believe in Voodoo and they are considered as near heathen by many other people of higher god assumptions. Hang a root over your door and invite a Haitian and have a good laugh when they don't enter your home.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 01:42 PM
Post #24


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Zack)
I suggest you read this account in its entirety. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761576...d_Colonies.html And, read Encarta's account of the Key Word Anthropology.

Encarta?

Zack, Encarta was a favorite reference of mine... when I was in fourth grade.

I assure you I am well-read on the history of colonialism both in the Americas and around the world.

I'm no historian, but as laymen go I'm alright. (Captain of the 2008 HCASC national championship team, thank-you-very-much)

QUOTE(Zack)
If you are honest with yourself you will admit that if someone doesn't act like the group they get treated differently.

A kernel of truth. Actually you should say:

Acts Different
Looks Different
Thinks different

Is related to or mistaken for anyone who does any one of the above...

All of those have been motives for the oppression of different group by heathens, like the lynch mobs and slave owners.

QUOTE(Zack)
When people act like heathens, absent of religious values, then they are treated as lesser value.

No they are often exalted. The KKK was popular in it's day. George Wallace and Strom Thurmond had successful runs for president.

Terrorists often had police support back in the hey-day of the Civil Rights Movement. Jefferson Davis became president of his own, admittedly doomed, nation.

All of these were well known heathens, absent of religious values.

QUOTE(Zack)
f you take time to read the Anthropology article you will find information of how people treat people of lesser gods. When a group moves from a god like norm to a heathen, out of control mob they instantly become of less value.

We don't debate religion here, so I will leave this theologically challenged assertion alone.

QUOTE(Zack)
Haitians believe in Voodoo and they are considered as near heathen by many other people of higher god assumptions.

.....

That's a mighty ignorant assertion.

It might even have fooled a dim-witted person who doesn't know any Haitian people.

QUOTE(Zack)
Hang a root over your door and invite a Haitian and have a good laugh when they don't enter your home

Hang a pentagram over your door and you'll find lots of Americans stop cold too. Heck, Sarah Palin is on video getting blessed against "all forms of witchcraft"

Haiti is a nation of a wide variety of religious beliefs, if you could stop stereotyping people you clearly know nothing about, it'd be great.

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 02:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SuzySteamboat
post Oct 31 2008, 01:44 PM
Post #25


******
I'm in ur White House, packin ur courts.

Sponsor
July 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 410
Member No.: 962
Joined: August-3-03

From: Cincinnati
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Zack @ Oct 31 2008, 08:50 AM) *
In American history there is very little record of whites burning their hoods, black’s hoods records?

My personal knowledge of relations with black people is that they have a group mentality, I noticed this same trend in the Korean people but white people generally don't share a group mentality of brotherhood. You are black so do you feel of act differently when you are in a segregated group of blacks or integrated group of whites/blacks? Blacks have been propped up by the Democratic Party under a label of "unfortunate" most of my life and I honestly believe many blacks buy that label. Just look at Rev. Wright, that dude is sold that his race is unfortunate and they are that way because of (not Republicans) but whites.


Uh, apparently you've never watched a rerun of MSNBC's "Lockup" when you assert that white people generally don't share a group mentality of brotherhood.

This paragraph is a demonstration of egocentricity in action. Ever wonder why so many non-Asians think that "all Asians look alike" while Asians can generally tell the difference between Asians from different countries? Why so many black women across America have experienced being mistaken for "the other black woman" in that location, even though they personally don't see a strong similarity in appearance? It applies across the board. The less time you spend immersed in a culture different from your own, the less you are able to distinguish differences. It's not that there actually are so many similarities in an objective sense, but that you personally lack the exposure to notice the differences - and humans look for patterns. "All (musical genre) sounds the same." Sure, to an untrained ear. But listen to a number of songs from that genre, and you will begin to notice the subtleties that distinguish one artist from another.

I am not so arrogant as to believe that I can objectively evaluate and generalize about a phenomenon that I haven't fully immersed myself in, but that seems to be a hallmark in certain political circles. "I have foreign policy experience because I can see Russia from my house." rolleyes.gif What is so tired about this line of thinking, however, is that the person who believes in such generalizations about other groups of people never is able to apply it to his own demographics. Apparently, Zack, you believe the members of your race are special snowflakes in their diversity - a concept that you are unwilling to apply to other groups. A demonstration:

QUOTE(Zack)
Hang a root over your door and invite a Haitian and have a good laugh when they don't enter your home.
You sit there from a pedestal on a high horse in your moral superiority. Look at how dumb and superstitious heathen religions are! As opposed to believing in an omen of the number 666, right? No, believing that 666 is a sign of the devil isn't superstitious and arbitrary - no, that makes sense.

The dumb Africans believe if you have sex with a virgin, you can't get pregnant. As opposed to the smart American teens who believe if you douche with Coke after intercourse, you won't get pregnant.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trumpetplayer
post Oct 31 2008, 02:07 PM
Post #26


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 7,739
Joined: May-22-07

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Sorry turnea if you cannot accept the fact blacks riot at about every chance they can. Do white people get caught up into it or riot..hell ya. I remember the beer riots at ISU...not alot of blacks there doing the rioting if I recall. Sorry, but in Chicago, if there is an excuse to riot or be an arse or destructive the blacks will be leading the charge. That is a fact and you can take it to the bank. Gotta love leaders inthe Black community here like Wright and Jesse Jackass...makes it so much easier. laugh.gif

PS What do black people have against glass? Every black neighborhood that has a building left for a day unattended will get all the windows knocked out.

PSS Just remember in the Hood if you are looking for a toy store it's NOT Toys R Us.....look for We Be Toyz.


This post has been edited by trumpetplayer: Oct 31 2008, 02:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 02:15 PM
Post #27


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Oct 31 2008, 09:07 AM) *
Sorry turnea if you cannot accept the fact blacks riot at about every chance they can. Do white people get caught up into it or riot..hell ya. I remember the beer riots at ISU...not alot of blacks there doing the rioting if I recall. Sorry, but in Chicago, if there is an excuse to riot or be an arse or destructive the blacks will be leading the charge. That is a fact and you can take it to the bank. Gotta love leaders inthe Black community here like Wright and Jesse Jackass...makes it so much easier. laugh.gif

PS What do black people have against glass? Every black neighborhood that has a building left for a day unattended will get all the windows knocked out.

PSS Just remember in the Hood if you are looking for a toy store it's NOT Toys R Us.....look for We Be Toyz.

Fact?

...and what evidence do you have this is a fact and not racist vitriol?

I mean I know what it looks like.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you exhibits B (Zack) and C (trumpetplayer) of American race relations.

If anyone can remember who A is, pat yourself on the back. wink2.gif

Now, who do you think is likely to riot?

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 02:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 31 2008, 02:16 PM
Post #28


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

Which scenario does law enforcement feel they need to prepare for?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...S-election.html

QUOTE
US police fear riots could break out if John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, wins the election next month.


In Detriot, however, they are also preparing for an Obama victory, given the history there.

James Carville made this prediction awhile back on CNN, also referenced in the Telegraph article.

QUOTE
James Carville, a strategist for former President Bill Clinton and advisor to his wife Hillary's 2008 presidential campaign, hinted Democrat supporters could be angry if Mr Obama lost, given his lead in the polls.

"If Obama goes in and he has a consistent five-point lead and loses the election, it would be very, very, very dramatic out there," he told CNN.


I saw this and he was a bit more blatant than that.

Either way, there might be riots...by Democrats.

I highly doubt McCain supporters are going to riot. They may start pulling thier capital out of the country, but not riot. You have to believe that McCain supporters know they are facing an uphill battle at this point. A loss will not be dramatic and thus no spark for a riot.

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?

Riots should not happen in a civilized society.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 02:20 PM
Post #29


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord)
Which scenario does law enforcement feel they need to prepare for?

How successful has law enforcement been in predicting riots?

QUOTE(Amlord)
I highly doubt McCain supporters are going to riot. They may start pulling thier capital out of the country, but not riot. You have to believe that McCain supporters know they are facing an uphill battle at this point. A loss will not be dramatic and thus no spark for a riot.

That, I think makes lots of sense. Not foolproof though.

Letdown is one theory of the riot. Boil-over is another.

QUOTE(Amlord)
Riots should not happen in a civilized society.

I've always found that curious.

Can you name one civilized society without riots?

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 02:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Julian
post Oct 31 2008, 02:30 PM
Post #30


Group Icon

*********
Every day, when I wake up, I thank the Lord I'm Welsh

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 2,937
Member No.: 496
Joined: February-14-03

From: Swindon, UK
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Other



1. What's more likely? John McCain loses and White people riot or Barack Obama loses and Black people riot?

I don't know, but is either scenario automatically a bad thing? Rioting and civil unrest is a bad thing only if you sympathise with the status quo. If you sympathise with the rioters, it's sad but necessary, or even a positively good thing.

What determines whether a riot is good or bad is not who riots, but WHY they riot.

Let's face it, without rioting and civil unrest in the face of genuine injustice, America would not exist as an independent nation. The Boston Tea Party was not a Gandhi-like exercise in peaceful resistance, after all.

If there are riots after next Tuesdays' result, the reasons for it will be much more important than who does it, what their skin colour might be, or which candidate they may or may not have supported.

If the only reason they riot is that their preferred candidate lost, then it's a "bad riot" and they are just bad losers. If there is more to it than that - for example real tangible (i.e. non-blogosphere/conspiracy theory) evidence emerges that the election was rigged in one direction or another - then maybe a riot is just what's called for, since trying to make your opinions known through democratic methods is not working?

Defenders of the Second Amendment often say that the real reason for having an armed populace is to defend against government tyranny. If rigging elections - and if things stay as they are today, a McCain landslide (as opposed to a narrow win) couldn't realistically happen any other way - isn't tyranny, what is?

2. If neither scenario occurs, is that a sign of progress and maturity?

At this stage of the American experiment, I would say that it is, yes, notwithstanding my points above.

This post has been edited by Julian: Oct 31 2008, 02:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Amlord
post Oct 31 2008, 02:32 PM
Post #31


Group Icon

**********
The Roaring Lion

Sponsor

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5,884
Member No.: 572
Joined: March-4-03

From: Cleveland suburbs, OH
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 31 2008, 10:20 AM) *
Can you name one civilized society without riots?

Allow me to rephrase: Can I name one civilized society?

No, I can't. I can name civilized people, but since society is the sum of all of its members, it only takes a few bad apples.

I can see a rebuttal here that riots are analogous to storms. When there is a severe imbalance in nature, a storm occurs to even the pressure. They have various degrees of severity.

Riots might be described as a society's attempt to restore a balance. Of course, that puts the rioters as the victims of circumstance rather than the creators and controllers of the outcome.

In a civilized society, rioting would not be seen as a legitimate avenue of resolving a situation. MLK and Ghandi both realized that violence will not change society and thus cannot be legitimate avenues of resolving grievances.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 02:39 PM
Post #32


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Amlord @ Oct 31 2008, 09:32 AM) *
In a civilized society, rioting would not be seen as a legitimate avenue of resolving a situation. MLK and Ghandi both realized that violence will not change society and thus cannot be legitimate avenues of resolving grievances.

A good point, but that's certainly not the American way.

Julian made the excellent point that we Americans are one riotous bunch. laugh.gif

We believe violence is a solution to an untold number of things.

I would agree, a perfectly civilized society would not resort to violence except at absolute necessity.

...but that's not something to expect in this (or any) country.

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 02:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trumpetplayer
post Oct 31 2008, 02:52 PM
Post #33


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 7,739
Joined: May-22-07

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



tunea, I am simply stating what I see every time something of note happends in Chicago. If McCain wins, and this is a VERY real possibility because we all know how accurate polls are. laugh.gif I would expect a mass turnout of Democrtas thinking they have been robbed even though that isn't the case. This is why I suggest being well armed and ready to use that gun. Democrats tried to steal 2000 and 2004 I cannot see how they can accept losing in 2008. Most of the far left are so devoid of reality, they run to boards like this to find like minds so they can possibly be considered sane by someone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quick
post Oct 31 2008, 02:56 PM
Post #34


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Member No.: 6,407
Joined: August-22-06

From: USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(nighttimer @ Oct 31 2008, 04:41 AM) *
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Oct 30 2008, 09:40 PM) *
Unfortunately for you, over the last 40 years in this country, black people HAVE been more likely to riot en masse when they don't get what they want than white people. That's not a double standard, its simply a fact.


It is a fact that many of the most recent riots have been sparked by Blacks mad as hell and not going to take it anymore over something that sparked racial resentment into racial rage. The 1992 Los Angeles riots were terrible and 53 people lost their lives in the lawlessness that followed the exoneration of the policemen accused of beating motorist Rodney King.

However the New York Draft Riots of 1863 killed somewhere between 100 and 120 people, most of them Black, who were set upon by angry Whites.

Barnet Schecter's "The Devil's Own Work" gives the most thorough account yet of the riots that consumed New York over the course of four days, costing more than 100 American lives and leaving hundreds more injured, destitute or homeless. The infamous draft riots retain the dubious distinction of having the highest confirmed death toll of any riot in American history - claiming more White and Black casualties than the Tulsa riot of 1921, the Watts riots of 1965 or the Los Angeles riots of 1992.

Irish laborers subsisted only a notch above Black Americans - but it was a significant notch. There was no kinship between the downtrodden Irish and the lowly Blacks. Schecter writes: "[Irish Catholics] made the most of the racial caste system they saw all around them... Having once been the 'blacks of Europe,' the Irish insisted on their membership in the white race." Irish labor unions of the time were notoriously segregated. Irish craftsmen and longshoremen insisted upon segregated workplaces - and if necessary resorted to violence to enforce the mandate.

It was popularly, and falsely, believed among the Irish that if Black slaves were emancipated, they would steal Irish jobs. Schecter writes: "Blacks, rather than posing a competitive threat, in fact, occupied a lowly niche that kept the Irish on a slightly higher rung of the economic ladder."
link

Everyone is motivated by self-interest, Bikerdad, and when Whites feel their interests are being marginalized, they aren't adverse to picking up a rock or a torch and bashing in some poor bastard's skull, burning down some buildings and dusting off some cops and civvies.

The city's black citizens were perhaps the most obvious and visible targets of the rioters' wrath. By the end of the first day of rioting, It was not safe for African Americans to appear in public. Rioters beat individual black citizens and, in several instances, brutally murdered and mutilated African-American men. Black New Yorkers weren't even safe inside their homes as roaming bands of rioters attacked black neighborhoods. Not only were African Americans in danger; rioters also attacked white New Yorkers who provided shelter for endangered African Americans, sacking and burning the homes of white sympathizers. The crowd even attacked and burned brothels that catered to both white and black New Yorkers. link

Black people don't have a monopoly on violent and anti-social behavior. I'm not going to try and justify the Black riots of Watts, Newark and L.A. Don't try to sugarcoat New York or Tulsa and we'll be straight. There's a propensity by some people to act as if something horrible becomes less so as it recedes into history.

White people are just as likely as anyone else to go off when they don't get their way.

I seriously doubt White people will start breaking stuff if Barack Obama wins on Tuesday. A hardcore few will have to blow off steam, but the same principle will hold should a few knuckleheads of a darker persuasion decide to go outside and act a fool.

Most everyone else will handle any disappointment they may feel by getting quietly stoned or drunk on their butt. beer.gif dazed.gif

QUOTE(quick @ Oct 30 2008, 06:07 PM) *
1) Since there is so much racial crossover in this election, I think your question is tantamount to race-baiting, but I'll bite.


I rather expected you would and a large chunk at that. dry.gif


NT, I think you stumbled a bit here. Your question focused on which racial group would be more likely to riot after the Nov 4th, 2008 elections, not which racial group would be most likley to riot in 1863 or 1921....

Turnea, ever the social scientist, wants some "study" to document which race riots more often; well, I doubt such a study exists, but if you search newspaper headlines available online there does seem to be a disproportionate amount of demonstrations, protests, and yes, riots, in which the principal protagonists were black. Scientific? Hardly. But, NT's having to reach back to 1863 and 1921 for his examples of a mass riots in which whites were the principal protagnoists speaks volumes. Also, we do know white on black crime rates are much lower than the other way around (Turnea, here's your crime study: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm).

In any event, most blacks, whites, or others, will not riot however this election goes; but, I stand by my comment above: Blacks who haven't participated in the system until now, which group likely is composed of the poorer and less-educated blacks disproportionately (and I do not know how large a group that is, but it appears all blacks vote in lower percentages than whites generally, but Obama and ACORN have likely changed that this year http://www.civicyouth.org/quick/trends.htm ) and are heavily invested emotionally in this election, and who have listened to CNN tell them McCain cannot win based on polling data, are clearly the tinderbox group. A few skinhead types may riot on the white side, but the numbers would be so low as to be negligable. Whites just do not organize and participate in, at least not since Vietnam, huge "Million Man Marches" and such that can often devolve into violence.

This post has been edited by quick: Oct 31 2008, 02:57 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 02:57 PM
Post #35


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Oct 31 2008, 09:52 AM) *
tunea, I am simply stating what I see every time something of note happends in Chicago. If McCain wins, and this is a VERY real possibility because we all know how accurate polls are. laugh.gif I would expect a mass turnout of Democrtas thinking they have been robbed even though that isn't the case. This is why I suggest being well armed and ready to use that gun. Democrats tried to steal 2000 and 2004 I cannot see how they can accept losing in 2008. Most of the far left are so devoid of reality, they run to boards like this to find like minds so they can possibly be considered sane by someone.

...and you're expecting someone to believe your supposed anecdotal observations (with liberal pinches of racist rhetoric)?

Now he's back on the "well-armed" meme.

See, what I mean?

Who's the rioter?

QUOTE(quick)
Turnea, ever the social scientist, wants some "study" to document which race riots more often

I am an unrepentant empiricist, yep.

QUOTE(quick)
well, I doubt such a study exists, but if you search newspaper headlines available online there does seem to be a disproportionate amount of demonstrations, protests, and yes, riots, in which the principal protagonists were black

A survey of news pieces then?

It's less authoritative than a direct study, but might be informative.

QUOTE(quick)
Also, we do know white on black crime rates are much lower than the other way around (Turnea, here's your crime tudy

The link says "not found", but no matter, I believe you.

I don't see where it's relevant though. Riots and run-of-the-mill crimes are very different dynamics.

QUOTE(quick)
A few skinhead types may riot on the white side, but the numbers would be so low as to be negligable. Whites just do not organize and participate in, at least not since Vietnam, huge "Million Man Marches" and such that can often devolve into violence.

Most riots don't start as marches.

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 03:04 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SuzySteamboat
post Oct 31 2008, 03:00 PM
Post #36


******
I'm in ur White House, packin ur courts.

Sponsor
July 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 410
Member No.: 962
Joined: August-3-03

From: Cincinnati
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Here's the thing, Amlord. I said this earlier in the thread:

QUOTE
If Obama loses, I think there might be violent outbursts from people of all races. He wouldn't be winning in the polls if he was only supported by blacks.


No one has yet to contradict my position that it's not just blacks who are passionate about Obama - because it can't be done. Logically, you see an Obama-Biden rally and there is a rainbow of faces. Look at the photo provided at the top of your own friggin link - could you ever mistake that for a Million Man march? So in keeping with another statement that I've made:

QUOTE
At the root of this double-standard - "black people will riot if they don't get what they want," while white people are forever seen and hailed as law-abiding, peaceful citizens is really just a matter of the old deeply held belief that black people, or really, anyone who looks "dark" (see Hispanics, Arabs, etc.) are just naturally unevolved, reactive, barbaric, and violent.


Why is it that people of many races support Obama, but it's only the blacks who are expected to be violent if he loses? You have presented nothing that disproves anything that I've said. You still maintain that it is far more likely that Democratic supporters will riot if Obama loses than Republican supporters, but you cherry picked from your own article, which also cited this: James Tate, of Detroit's police department, which dealt with violent celebrations after the Detroit Tigers won the baseball World Series in 1984, told congressional newspaper The Hill that problems could flare whichever candidate wins. (emphasis mine)

So why do you believe anyone who says that it's the (black) Democrats who will riot, but so easily dismiss police who see the possibilities on both sides?

You see things as having such strict law and order, and apparently also believe that laws must be ethical by virtue of being laws. Why is someone who struggles to break free from chains immoral, but not the person who locked him up to begin with? Would a "civil" society have created the conditions of oppression that would drive people to violently rebel in the first place?

Are you a proponent of using force to defend yourself? Would you try to "talk down" someone who's holding your family hostage at gunpoint, or would you kick their butt? You seem to advocate strict pacifism only when being physical is a threat to the status quo - which, of course, is good and right, or it wouldn't still be around. Appeal to tradition. But using violence to stop "terrorism" - which I guess is what we are doing in Iraq - is okay. Using violence to defend yourself is permissible. But don't you dare use violence to bring about change. Don't you dare use violence to try to right injustice.

This post has been edited by SuzySteamboat: Oct 31 2008, 03:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
trumpetplayer
post Oct 31 2008, 03:01 PM
Post #37


******
Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 438
Member No.: 7,739
Joined: May-22-07

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 31 2008, 09:57 AM) *
QUOTE(trumpetplayer @ Oct 31 2008, 09:52 AM) *
tunea, I am simply stating what I see every time something of note happends in Chicago. If McCain wins, and this is a VERY real possibility because we all know how accurate polls are. laugh.gif I would expect a mass turnout of Democrtas thinking they have been robbed even though that isn't the case. This is why I suggest being well armed and ready to use that gun. Democrats tried to steal 2000 and 2004 I cannot see how they can accept losing in 2008. Most of the far left are so devoid of reality, they run to boards like this to find like minds so they can possibly be considered sane by someone.

...and you're expecting someone to believe your supposed anecdotal observations (with liberal pinches of racist rhetoric)?

Now he's back on the "well-armed" meme.

See, what I mean?

Who's the rioter?


We will see in 4-5 days wont we. I pray your are correct, but past history makes your view....rather naive.

Being armed and prepared to defend one's familly and property from idiots doesn't make one a rioter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lesly
post Oct 31 2008, 03:06 PM
Post #38


********
'Bryos before Hoes!

Sponsor
May 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 2,477
Member No.: 2,838
Joined: April-1-04

From: Columbus, OH
Gender: Female
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



Well, to quote Mrs. P, this thread is an eye-opener. Any excuse to rape, pillage and destroy? Black is the new Muslim. Or perhaps they always were.

Guys use evolutionary psychology to defend everything from cheating to rape, but it's not until race enters the picture that they distance themselves from the caveman myth. How interesting.

To further muddle things, I happened by this account of someone's experience with rioting v. celebrating yesterday:

QUOTE(Concurring Opinions)
I remember thinking, while shambling, that if this were only happening in Philadelphia I wouldn't be scared, because I would have a better situation sense of what was appropriate celebration and what was rioting. That is, a "riot" is a subjective thing, determined by your own contextual and culturally-determined view of what kind of public behavior is OK. I don't speak Italian well enough to know what happy screams sound like, and without a nuanced sense of language, smiles start to look like the prelude to a mugging.

This is a long way of saying that while fireworks, smashing bottles, and random people screaming in Naples made me fear for my life, those same activities on Broad Street last night only made me feel closer to my fellow celebrants. I was right: when you are home, raucous celebrations feel entirely appropriate.

That said, it is true that I left the party around 11:30, before a night's work of drinking kicked in and the scene turned a bit more ugly. (A few upturned cars, some smashed windows, but no reported serious injuries.)

Naples, Italy: full of black Americans.

This post has been edited by Lesly: Oct 31 2008, 03:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
quick
post Oct 31 2008, 03:14 PM
Post #39


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 824
Member No.: 6,407
Joined: August-22-06

From: USA
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



QUOTE(turnea @ Oct 31 2008, 10:57 AM) *
QUOTE(quick)
A few skinhead types may riot on the white side, but the numbers would be so low as to be negligable. Whites just do not organize and participate in, at least not since Vietnam, huge "Million Man Marches" and such that can often devolve into violence.


Most riots don't start as marches.


Turnea, you assertion sounds suspiciously like personal opinion not backed by an appropriate social science study. How dare you!

I would suggest to you that group psychology reminds us:

"Much of the time, groups of people end up doing things that group
members would never do on their own. This is true for groups of
teenagers, who take risks that individuals would avoid. It is true for
student organizations, labor unions, political protestors, police officers,
and juries. It is certainly true for those prone to violence,
including terrorists. "

From "Why Groups Go to Extremes" by Prof. Cass R. Sunstein [underlining mine]

Large groups have been regulated for centuries by most legal systems for good reason....


QUOTE(Lesly @ Oct 31 2008, 11:06 AM) *
Well, to quote Mrs. P, this thread is an eye-opener. Any excuse to rape, pillage and destroy? Black is the new Muslim. Or perhaps they always were.

Guys use evolutionary psychology to defend everything from cheating to rape, but it's not until race enters the picture that they distance themselves from the caveman myth. How interesting.

To further muddle things, I happened by this account of someone's experience with a riot v. celebrating yesterday:

QUOTE(Concurring Opinions)
I remember thinking, while shambling, that if this were only happening in Philadelphia I wouldn't be scared, because I would have a better situation sense of what was appropriate celebration and what was rioting. That is, a "riot" is a subjective thing, determined by your own contextual and culturally-determined view of what kind of public behavior is OK. I don't speak Italian well enough to know what happy screams sound like, and without a nuanced sense of language, smiles start to look like the prelude to a mugging.

This is a long way of saying that while fireworks, smashing bottles, and random people screaming in Naples made me fear for my life, those same activities on Broad Street last night only made me feel closer to my fellow celebrants. I was right: when you are home, raucous celebrations feel entirely appropriate.

That said, it is true that I left the party around 11:30, before a night's work of drinking kicked in and the scene turned a bit more ugly. (A few upturned cars, some smashed windows, but no reported serious injuries.)

Naples, Italy: full of black Americans.


Lesly, since Italians are not voting in this U.S. election and are not citizens of the US, I think this example is hardly relevant. Just as white Italians are different than white Americans, black Nigerians would be a bit different than black Philadephians.

Let's stick to the topic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Oct 31 2008, 03:30 PM
Post #40


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(quick)
Turnea, you assertion sounds suspiciously like personal opinion not backed by an appropriate social science study. How dare you!

I figured you'd say that. tongue.gif

QUOTE(quick)
I would suggest to you that group psychology reminds us:

I am aware.

I was merely pointing out that marches of any type are only one type of gathering that can turn into a riot and not the most common.

Of course it takes a bunch to riot, but any gathering can turn into a riot.

I am reminded of the opening of Stravinsky's Rites of Spring
QUOTE(Wikipedia)
The complex music and violent dance steps depicting fertility rites first drew catcalls and whistles from the crowd. At the start with the opening bassoon solo, the audience began to boo loudly due to the slight discord in the background notes behind the bassoon's opening melody. There were loud arguments in the audience between supporters and opponents of the work. These were soon followed by shouts and fistfights in the aisles. The unrest in the audience eventually degenerated into a riot. The Paris police arrived by intermission, but they restored only limited order. Chaos reigned for the remainder of the performance, and Stravinsky himself was so upset on account of its reception that he fled the theater in mid-scene, reportedly crying

Link

I've sat through ballet, if that can cause a riot, anything can... and sure enough.

QUOTE(Wikipedia)
Examples include:

* 1830 - Daniel Auber - La Muette de Portici (opera -- sparked the Belgian Revolution)[1]
* 1838 - Hector Berlioz - Benvenuto Cellini[citation needed]
* 1905 - Richard Strauss - Salomé (particularly the Met production in New York)[citation needed]
* 1913 - Igor Stravinsky - Rite of Spring (ballet)[2][3]
* 1917 - Erik Satie - Parade[citation needed]
* 1923 - Erwin Schulhoff - Ogelala[citation needed]
* 1923 - Edgar Varèse - Hyperprism[citation needed]
* 1926 - Bela Bartok - The Miraculous Mandarin (ballet)[citation needed]
* 1926 - Maurice Ravel - Chansons madécasses[citation needed]
* 1968 - Hans Werner Henze - Das Floß der Medusa[4]

Link

Here's one list of 20th century riots:
Link

Again, most don't start as marches.

This post has been edited by turnea: Oct 31 2008, 03:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Closed TopicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 19th, 2018 - 02:23 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.