Is race relations something that can be really healed?

[harmonica]

no--read post # 39 on this forum:
THIS IS CNN: Vegas Shooting Because America ‘Silently Accepting the Rage of White Men’

 

[Mickiel]

Race relations can be healed , because we are men with power and ability; we just need focus and unity , and to remove that hate gene from us.

 

[Alan Stallion]

Race relations can be healed , because we are men with power and ability; we just need focus and unity , and to remove that hate gene from us.

Indeed, but this must take all parties to come together, and where there are voices of division, they must be shunned and scorned to the point that no person will pay attention to such divisiveness, and thus stripping them of their power to divide us. That has yet to happen and has only gotten worse despite the groundbreaking civil rights victories of the 1960s.

Booker T. Washington saw it in his own time (and has only gotten worse since) when he said, "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

As long as the dividers control the racial narrative, instead of the (I hope) majority that seek racial harmony and healing, there will always be division.

 

[IM2]

I was listening to a program about Trumps age and how he was really too old to change his views on race. Which is why he rehashed his same views on the KKK and Alt Right that got him in trouble already.

Yeah, that Ellis Island Award certainly endeared him to the KKK.

Trump is no racist.

80 NAMED AS RECIPIENTS OF ELLIS ISLAND AWARDS

Trump is a racist. But whites will declare how he isn't.

 

[IM2]

Race relations can be healed , because we are men with power and ability; we just need focus and unity , and to remove that hate gene from us.

Indeed, but this must take all parties to come together, and where there are voices of division, they must be shunned and scorned to the point that no person will pay attention to such divisiveness, and thus stripping them of their power to divide us. That has yet to happen and has only gotten worse despite the groundbreaking civil rights victories of the 1960s.

Booker T. Washington saw it in his own time (and has only gotten worse since) when he said, "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

As long as the dividers control the racial narrative, instead of the (I hope) majority that seek racial harmony and healing, there will always be division.

Yeah then Booker T saw his city get burned down by whites who hated the fact that black people were free. You got things backwards on who the dividers are.

 

[IM2]

Appare

Race relations can be healed , because we are men with power and ability; we just need focus and unity , and to remove that hate gene from us.

Indeed, but this must take all parties to come together, and where there are voices of division, they must be shunned and scorned to the point that no person will pay attention to such divisiveness, and thus stripping them of their power to divide us. That has yet to happen and has only gotten worse despite the groundbreaking civil rights victories of the 1960s.

Booker T. Washington saw it in his own time (and has only gotten worse since) when he said, "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

As long as the dividers control the racial narrative, instead of the (I hope) majority that seek racial harmony and healing, there will always be division.

Yeah then Booker T saw his city get burned down by whites who hated the fact that black people were free. You got things backwards on who the dividers are.

Apparently you know nothing about the Atlanta Compromise and how that compromise was shattered by whites.

Washington’s “Atlanta Compromise” is remembered as a betrayal and a sell-out because it accepted segregation, and argued against black political agitation. But in fact, at the time, the response from black America to the “Compromise” was at worst mixed, and at best quite positive. No less than W.E.B. Du Bois called the speech, “the basis for a real settlement between whites and black in the South.”

It makes sense, when you think about it. Washington basically said to the white South in 1895,“You win. We don’t want the right to vote. We just want to till our farms, better ourselves, and be left alone. Leave us in peace, and you’ll hear no more of this voting or integration business.” You have to remember the state of mind of black people, at that time. Reconstruction had been rolled back. The South was wracked by race riots. Three years after Washington’s speech, the only coup in American history was orchestrated in Wilmington, North Carolina by racist thugs. Washington was basically conceding what he'd already lost. In return he hoped to simply secure the right of good Christian blacks to work the land in peace.

The dominant logic of the post-Reconstruction era held that the real problem wasn't white racists, but carpetbaggers and meddlers from up North who’d elevated illiterate blacks above their station. The white Southerner, presumably, had no existential objection to blacks, they just didn’t want to live next door to them or have an illiterate and morally degenerate population electing their politicians. To this Washington, and much of black America, said Fine. Cease fire. You let us be, we’ll let you be.

In retrospect, this was a grievous error. In point of fact, whites actually did have an existential objection to black people. Their beef wasn’t that illiterates and moral degenerates might get too much power. Quite the opposite. Their beef was that blacks would prove to not be illiterates and moral degenerates, and thus fully able to compete with them. To see this point illustrated, one need only look at the history of race riots in the South. When white mobs set upon black communities they didn’t simply burn down the “morally degenerate” portions—they attacked the South’s burgeoning black middle and working class and its institutions. They went for the churches, the schools and the businesses. It’s one thing to be opposed to black amorality. It’s quite another to be opposed to black progress. The lesson blacks took post-Atlanta Compromise was that whites had used the former to cover for the latter.

The Tragedy And Betrayal Of Booker T. Washington

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Is racism a threat to the United states, or any other state for that matter.

Or has it become a beast that has enough support for it not to change? Racism is even behind North Korea's behavior; racism mixed with self survival is a deadly reality.

Before this topic can be intelligently discussed it will be necessary to arrive at one universally agreed definition of the word, "racism," as it occurs in the context of modern America.

Also, please be more specific about what you mean by racism being behind North Korea's behavior.

 

[IM2]

[...]

Is racism a threat to the United states, or any other state for that matter.

Or has it become a beast that has enough support for it not to change? Racism is even behind North Korea's behavior; racism mixed with self survival is a deadly reality.

Before this topic can be intelligently discussed it will be necessary to arrive at one universally agreed definition of the word, "racism," as it occurs in the context of modern America.

Also, please be more specific about what you mean by racism being behind North Korea's behavior.

We know what racism is (not what you want it t be) and what was meant was that racism ranks behind North Korea as an issue for people especially those here..

 

[MikeK]

We know what racism is (not what you want it t be) and what was meant was that racism ranks behind North Korea as an issue for people especially those here..

You're excused.

 

[IM2]

We know what racism is (not what you want it t be) and what was meant was that racism ranks behind North Korea as an issue for people especially those here..

You're excused.

I'll excuse myself when I am ready to be excused thank you

 

[Mickiel]

Appare

Race relations can be healed , because we are men with power and ability; we just need focus and unity , and to remove that hate gene from us.

Indeed, but this must take all parties to come together, and where there are voices of division, they must be shunned and scorned to the point that no person will pay attention to such divisiveness, and thus stripping them of their power to divide us. That has yet to happen and has only gotten worse despite the groundbreaking civil rights victories of the 1960s.

Booker T. Washington saw it in his own time (and has only gotten worse since) when he said, "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

As long as the dividers control the racial narrative, instead of the (I hope) majority that seek racial harmony and healing, there will always be division.

Yeah then Booker T saw his city get burned down by whites who hated the fact that black people were free. You got things backwards on who the dividers are.

Apparently you know nothing about the Atlanta Compromise and how that compromise was shattered by whites.

Washington’s “Atlanta Compromise” is remembered as a betrayal and a sell-out because it accepted segregation, and argued against black political agitation. But in fact, at the time, the response from black America to the “Compromise” was at worst mixed, and at best quite positive. No less than W.E.B. Du Bois called the speech, “the basis for a real settlement between whites and black in the South.”

It makes sense, when you think about it. Washington basically said to the white South in 1895,“You win. We don’t want the right to vote. We just want to till our farms, better ourselves, and be left alone. Leave us in peace, and you’ll hear no more of this voting or integration business.” You have to remember the state of mind of black people, at that time. Reconstruction had been rolled back. The South was wracked by race riots. Three years after Washington’s speech, the only coup in American history was orchestrated in Wilmington, North Carolina by racist thugs. Washington was basically conceding what he'd already lost. In return he hoped to simply secure the right of good Christian blacks to work the land in peace.

The dominant logic of the post-Reconstruction era held that the real problem wasn't white racists, but carpetbaggers and meddlers from up North who’d elevated illiterate blacks above their station. The white Southerner, presumably, had no existential objection to blacks, they just didn’t want to live next door to them or have an illiterate and morally degenerate population electing their politicians. To this Washington, and much of black America, said Fine. Cease fire. You let us be, we’ll let you be.

In retrospect, this was a grievous error. In point of fact, whites actually did have an existential objection to black people. Their beef wasn’t that illiterates and moral degenerates might get too much power. Quite the opposite. Their beef was that blacks would prove to not be illiterates and moral degenerates, and thus fully able to compete with them. To see this point illustrated, one need only look at the history of race riots in the South. When white mobs set upon black communities they didn’t simply burn down the “morally degenerate” portions—they attacked the South’s burgeoning black middle and working class and its institutions. They went for the churches, the schools and the businesses. It’s one thing to be opposed to black amorality. It’s quite another to be opposed to black progress. The lesson blacks took post-Atlanta Compromise was that whites had used the former to cover for the latter.

The Tragedy And Betrayal Of Booker T. Washington

The history of racism in America was ripe with a competitive fear from Whites toward the future of Blacks; now that future is here. But Whites need to be commended, they did not try to wipe Blacks out , they just tried to control us , it was not a racial genocide, we all still exist here. Blacks need to be commended, we did not try to kill all Whites for standing on our historical backs; we have thrived. Asians and Mexicans and people of color will survive here, this fear from some Whites that they themselves will not survive is simply fear of loss of status. But it worked, largely due to both Whites and Blacks to work this thing out; Whites needed us so they went and got us, and the world needed to see that a nation of mixed races could work without ethnic cleansing.

Now we need to get to the next stages of this incredible existence; which I suspect will need to involve more failure to promote more of the unity that got us to help each other in the first place.

 

[IM2]

Appare

Race relations can be healed , because we are men with power and ability; we just need focus and unity , and to remove that hate gene from us.

Indeed, but this must take all parties to come together, and where there are voices of division, they must be shunned and scorned to the point that no person will pay attention to such divisiveness, and thus stripping them of their power to divide us. That has yet to happen and has only gotten worse despite the groundbreaking civil rights victories of the 1960s.

Booker T. Washington saw it in his own time (and has only gotten worse since) when he said, "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

As long as the dividers control the racial narrative, instead of the (I hope) majority that seek racial harmony and healing, there will always be division.

Yeah then Booker T saw his city get burned down by whites who hated the fact that black people were free. You got things backwards on who the dividers are.

Apparently you know nothing about the Atlanta Compromise and how that compromise was shattered by whites.

Washington’s “Atlanta Compromise” is remembered as a betrayal and a sell-out because it accepted segregation, and argued against black political agitation. But in fact, at the time, the response from black America to the “Compromise” was at worst mixed, and at best quite positive. No less than W.E.B. Du Bois called the speech, “the basis for a real settlement between whites and black in the South.”

It makes sense, when you think about it. Washington basically said to the white South in 1895,“You win. We don’t want the right to vote. We just want to till our farms, better ourselves, and be left alone. Leave us in peace, and you’ll hear no more of this voting or integration business.” You have to remember the state of mind of black people, at that time. Reconstruction had been rolled back. The South was wracked by race riots. Three years after Washington’s speech, the only coup in American history was orchestrated in Wilmington, North Carolina by racist thugs. Washington was basically conceding what he'd already lost. In return he hoped to simply secure the right of good Christian blacks to work the land in peace.

The dominant logic of the post-Reconstruction era held that the real problem wasn't white racists, but carpetbaggers and meddlers from up North who’d elevated illiterate blacks above their station. The white Southerner, presumably, had no existential objection to blacks, they just didn’t want to live next door to them or have an illiterate and morally degenerate population electing their politicians. To this Washington, and much of black America, said Fine. Cease fire. You let us be, we’ll let you be.

In retrospect, this was a grievous error. In point of fact, whites actually did have an existential objection to black people. Their beef wasn’t that illiterates and moral degenerates might get too much power. Quite the opposite. Their beef was that blacks would prove to not be illiterates and moral degenerates, and thus fully able to compete with them. To see this point illustrated, one need only look at the history of race riots in the South. When white mobs set upon black communities they didn’t simply burn down the “morally degenerate” portions—they attacked the South’s burgeoning black middle and working class and its institutions. They went for the churches, the schools and the businesses. It’s one thing to be opposed to black amorality. It’s quite another to be opposed to black progress. The lesson blacks took post-Atlanta Compromise was that whites had used the former to cover for the latter.

The Tragedy And Betrayal Of Booker T. Washington

The history of racism in America was ripe with a competitive fear from Whites toward the future of Blacks; now that future is here. But Whites need to be commended, they did not try to wipe Blacks out , they just tried to control us , it was not a racial genocide, we all still exist here. Blacks need to be commended, we did not try to kill all Whites for standing on our historical backs; we have thrived. Asians and Mexicans and people of color will survive here, this fear from some Whites that they themselves will not survive is simply fear of loss of status. But it worked, largely due to both Whites and Blacks to work this thing out; Whites needed us so they went and got us, and the world needed to see that a nation of mixed races could work without ethnic cleansing.

Now we need to get to the next stages of this incredible existence; which I suspect will need to involve more failure to promote more of the unity that got us to help each other in the first place.

What has been worked out?

 

[Mickiel]

Appare

Race relations can be healed , because we are men with power and ability; we just need focus and unity , and to remove that hate gene from us.

Indeed, but this must take all parties to come together, and where there are voices of division, they must be shunned and scorned to the point that no person will pay attention to such divisiveness, and thus stripping them of their power to divide us. That has yet to happen and has only gotten worse despite the groundbreaking civil rights victories of the 1960s.

Booker T. Washington saw it in his own time (and has only gotten worse since) when he said, "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

As long as the dividers control the racial narrative, instead of the (I hope) majority that seek racial harmony and healing, there will always be division.

Yeah then Booker T saw his city get burned down by whites who hated the fact that black people were free. You got things backwards on who the dividers are.

Apparently you know nothing about the Atlanta Compromise and how that compromise was shattered by whites.

Washington’s “Atlanta Compromise” is remembered as a betrayal and a sell-out because it accepted segregation, and argued against black political agitation. But in fact, at the time, the response from black America to the “Compromise” was at worst mixed, and at best quite positive. No less than W.E.B. Du Bois called the speech, “the basis for a real settlement between whites and black in the South.”

It makes sense, when you think about it. Washington basically said to the white South in 1895,“You win. We don’t want the right to vote. We just want to till our farms, better ourselves, and be left alone. Leave us in peace, and you’ll hear no more of this voting or integration business.” You have to remember the state of mind of black people, at that time. Reconstruction had been rolled back. The South was wracked by race riots. Three years after Washington’s speech, the only coup in American history was orchestrated in Wilmington, North Carolina by racist thugs. Washington was basically conceding what he'd already lost. In return he hoped to simply secure the right of good Christian blacks to work the land in peace.

The dominant logic of the post-Reconstruction era held that the real problem wasn't white racists, but carpetbaggers and meddlers from up North who’d elevated illiterate blacks above their station. The white Southerner, presumably, had no existential objection to blacks, they just didn’t want to live next door to them or have an illiterate and morally degenerate population electing their politicians. To this Washington, and much of black America, said Fine. Cease fire. You let us be, we’ll let you be.

In retrospect, this was a grievous error. In point of fact, whites actually did have an existential objection to black people. Their beef wasn’t that illiterates and moral degenerates might get too much power. Quite the opposite. Their beef was that blacks would prove to not be illiterates and moral degenerates, and thus fully able to compete with them. To see this point illustrated, one need only look at the history of race riots in the South. When white mobs set upon black communities they didn’t simply burn down the “morally degenerate” portions—they attacked the South’s burgeoning black middle and working class and its institutions. They went for the churches, the schools and the businesses. It’s one thing to be opposed to black amorality. It’s quite another to be opposed to black progress. The lesson blacks took post-Atlanta Compromise was that whites had used the former to cover for the latter.

The Tragedy And Betrayal Of Booker T. Washington

The history of racism in America was ripe with a competitive fear from Whites toward the future of Blacks; now that future is here. But Whites need to be commended, they did not try to wipe Blacks out , they just tried to control us , it was not a racial genocide, we all still exist here. Blacks need to be commended, we did not try to kill all Whites for standing on our historical backs; we have thrived. Asians and Mexicans and people of color will survive here, this fear from some Whites that they themselves will not survive is simply fear of loss of status. But it worked, largely due to both Whites and Blacks to work this thing out; Whites needed us so they went and got us, and the world needed to see that a nation of mixed races could work without ethnic cleansing.

Now we need to get to the next stages of this incredible existence; which I suspect will need to involve more failure to promote more of the unity that got us to help each other in the first place.

What has been worked out?

How to get to October 2017 without killing each other and imploding as a nation. Just for starters.

How to keep forces from turning us into an ethnic unloading machine and dumping New Americans into camps all over this world.

How to survive without letting Trump transform America into his and Bannons dream , and we got past two Presidents before Trump , and will survive the next presidential example of human nature to come.

 

[IM2]

Appare

Indeed, but this must take all parties to come together, and where there are voices of division, they must be shunned and scorned to the point that no person will pay attention to such divisiveness, and thus stripping them of their power to divide us. That has yet to happen and has only gotten worse despite the groundbreaking civil rights victories of the 1960s.

Booker T. Washington saw it in his own time (and has only gotten worse since) when he said, "There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs -- partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

As long as the dividers control the racial narrative, instead of the (I hope) majority that seek racial harmony and healing, there will always be division.

Yeah then Booker T saw his city get burned down by whites who hated the fact that black people were free. You got things backwards on who the dividers are.

Apparently you know nothing about the Atlanta Compromise and how that compromise was shattered by whites.

Washington’s “Atlanta Compromise” is remembered as a betrayal and a sell-out because it accepted segregation, and argued against black political agitation. But in fact, at the time, the response from black America to the “Compromise” was at worst mixed, and at best quite positive. No less than W.E.B. Du Bois called the speech, “the basis for a real settlement between whites and black in the South.”

It makes sense, when you think about it. Washington basically said to the white South in 1895,“You win. We don’t want the right to vote. We just want to till our farms, better ourselves, and be left alone. Leave us in peace, and you’ll hear no more of this voting or integration business.” You have to remember the state of mind of black people, at that time. Reconstruction had been rolled back. The South was wracked by race riots. Three years after Washington’s speech, the only coup in American history was orchestrated in Wilmington, North Carolina by racist thugs. Washington was basically conceding what he'd already lost. In return he hoped to simply secure the right of good Christian blacks to work the land in peace.

The dominant logic of the post-Reconstruction era held that the real problem wasn't white racists, but carpetbaggers and meddlers from up North who’d elevated illiterate blacks above their station. The white Southerner, presumably, had no existential objection to blacks, they just didn’t want to live next door to them or have an illiterate and morally degenerate population electing their politicians. To this Washington, and much of black America, said Fine. Cease fire. You let us be, we’ll let you be.

In retrospect, this was a grievous error. In point of fact, whites actually did have an existential objection to black people. Their beef wasn’t that illiterates and moral degenerates might get too much power. Quite the opposite. Their beef was that blacks would prove to not be illiterates and moral degenerates, and thus fully able to compete with them. To see this point illustrated, one need only look at the history of race riots in the South. When white mobs set upon black communities they didn’t simply burn down the “morally degenerate” portions—they attacked the South’s burgeoning black middle and working class and its institutions. They went for the churches, the schools and the businesses. It’s one thing to be opposed to black amorality. It’s quite another to be opposed to black progress. The lesson blacks took post-Atlanta Compromise was that whites had used the former to cover for the latter.

The Tragedy And Betrayal Of Booker T. Washington

The history of racism in America was ripe with a competitive fear from Whites toward the future of Blacks; now that future is here. But Whites need to be commended, they did not try to wipe Blacks out , they just tried to control us , it was not a racial genocide, we all still exist here. Blacks need to be commended, we did not try to kill all Whites for standing on our historical backs; we have thrived. Asians and Mexicans and people of color will survive here, this fear from some Whites that they themselves will not survive is simply fear of loss of status. But it worked, largely due to both Whites and Blacks to work this thing out; Whites needed us so they went and got us, and the world needed to see that a nation of mixed races could work without ethnic cleansing.

Now we need to get to the next stages of this incredible existence; which I suspect will need to involve more failure to promote more of the unity that got us to help each other in the first place.

What has been worked out?

How to get to October 2017 without killing each other and imploding as a nation. Just for starters.

How to keep forces from turning us into an ethnic unloading machine and dumping New Americans into camps all over this world.

How to survive without letting Trump transform America into his and Bannons dream , and we got past two Presidents before Trump , and will survive the next presidential example of human nature to come.

And we still have not ended racism.

 

[MikeK]

The US is not "western society", plenty of western countries are nice places to live, Canada, Sweden, Denmark...

Are you aware of what has happened in Sweden, what is is happening in Canada, and what is beginning to happen in Denmark? Of course I'm referring to the invasion of aggressive, primarily military-age Muslim male migrants? Do you believe these are still nice places to live? If you do, click on the link in my signature line.

As it is, the U.S. is the remaining stronghold of Western society. But once these greasy Islamist bastards take over in Europe and Scandinavia we'll be next -- if we don't start doing something very radical about it very soon.

 

[IM2]

The US is not "western society", plenty of western countries are nice places to live, Canada, Sweden, Denmark...

Are you aware of what has happened in Sweden, what is is happening in Canada, and what is beginning to happen in Denmark? Of course I'm referring to the invasion of aggressive, primarily military-age Muslim male migrants? Do you believe these are still nice places to live? If you do, click on the link in my signature line.

As it is, the U.S. is the remaining stronghold of Western society. But once these greasy Islamist bastards take over in Europe and Scandinavia we'll be next -- if we don't start doing something very radical about it very soon.

Paranoid foolishness

 

[Taz]

The US is not "western society", plenty of western countries are nice places to live, Canada, Sweden, Denmark...

Are you aware of what has happened in Sweden, what is is happening in Canada, and what is beginning to happen in Denmark? Of course I'm referring to the invasion of aggressive, primarily military-age Muslim male migrants? Do you believe these are still nice places to live? If you do, click on the link in my signature line.

As it is, the U.S. is the remaining stronghold of Western society. But once these greasy Islamist bastards take over in Europe and Scandinavia we'll be next -- if we don't start doing something very radical about it very soon.

Actually, I lived in Canada for decades, it's a great place to live, much, much safer than the US. Not anywhere near the amount of hate from citizens directed at other citizens. No gun culture, virtually free healthcare... They have us beat by a mile as a nice, peaceful, safe place to live.

 

[Markle]

Actually, I lived in Canada for decades, it's a great place to live, much, much safer than the US. Not anywhere near the amount of hate from citizens directed at other citizens. No gun culture, virtually free healthcare... They have us beat by a mile as a nice, peaceful, safe place to live.

Nonsense. As usual more lies about Canada.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

 

[frigidweirdo]

I was listening to a program about Trumps age and how he was really too old to change his views on race. Which is why he rehashed his same views on the KKK and Alt Right that got him in trouble already. I also recently saw a banner in the stands of a sports game that read " Racism is as American as pie", or something along those lines until they removed it. I wonder if racism is so deeply inbred that we really can't change it, only tolerate it to some degrees?
Is racism a threat to the United states, or any other state for that matter.

Or has it become a beast that has enough support for it not to change? Racism is even behind North Korea's behavior; racism mixed with self survival is a deadly reality.

The question is, have race relations been improved in other places? The answer is yes. As long as you don't have people using race hate as a way of promoting their own agenda, then there are no problems.

You look at Rwanda and you see that you can have problems when people make others think there are differences even when others might think there are no differences. The Hutus and Tutsis were genetically from the same pot, it was the Europeans who caused people to think of them as different.

 

[Taz]

Actually, I lived in Canada for decades, it's a great place to live, much, much safer than the US. Not anywhere near the amount of hate from citizens directed at other citizens. No gun culture, virtually free healthcare... They have us beat by a mile as a nice, peaceful, safe place to live.

Nonsense. As usual more lies about Canada.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online