Congratulations Chicago!
- Thread starter JakeStratham
- Start date
The War on Drugs is a failure. I've said this a million times before but of course the peanut gallery gets a hard on spouting off racist "facts" instead of looking at the reality. What happened during Prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s? White people started killing White folks. Once it was repealed, the bloodshed stopped. Crime in the Black community only began to get out of control once illegal drugs from south of the border began to pour into those communities in the late 60s. The drug trade is a worldwide industry, the government can't even stop people and bootleg merchandise from coming across the border so how can anyone look at the 30+ year "war on drugs" and think that the government will win that? Repeal drug prohibition and the crime rate will drop like a bag of crack rocks. Just like they repealed alcohol prohibition and those bootleggers became respectable liquor store owners and liquor manufacturers.
I suggest those "affected" americans should move to Thailand, where thai(ladyboys) are more than willing to bow down at a snap of finger. You are a UNTOUCHABLE MOFO
I'd like to know what the magical baldness cure the Asians have discovered is according to that photograph, and why aren't they sharing?
Murder rate wasn't double.
Chicago is close to ending 2011 with fewer murders than last year, police say - Chicago Tribune
Chicago is close to ending 2011 with fewer murders than last year, police say - Chicago Tribune
Chicago's murder rate is high, but it's far from the highest per capita.
Here's a chart of the top 21 cities in the US based on murder rate (Some of the data is old, so Chicago doesn't show 500 murders). If Chicago had a per-capita rate similar to New Orleans, they would have had over 2,000 murders in 2012.
Now, here's the thing. Out of all the murders in the US, they are typically confined to comparatively small areas of very large metro areas. Pro-gun laws do have a positive effect on crime, however they only have a limited effect on areas of extreme crime.
I am in the process of doing a article on murder/crime prevention in the US. The data that is out there on crime in the US. I realistically have to limit myself to only my state of Ohio, as we represent a good cross-section of crime in the US, are a very populous state, medium to high crime rate as compared to everyone else.
Here's a crime & murder index map of Columbus Ohio.
Now, here's the thing - Population in the city is spread out almost evenly across the map. The MEDIAN murder rate for the city is 12.2, the median murder rate across the county is about 7.5 (This map consists of most of Franklin county in which Columbus is located).
The hot spots on the map (red areas) make up for something like 90% or more of the crime & murder in the city.
What's significant about this is the fact it's not just Columbus Ohio, it's every large city in the United Sates. The murders & crime that are taking place are mostly confined to very small areas of very big cities.
Those green areas? The murder rate averages 0.5 to 2 , much lower than median rates in Europe or Oceania. The rates inside the red areas will range from 20 to 50, 20 to 40 times higher than the green areas. Outside of the large cities, the rest of the state (and the US) has a extraordinarily low crime rate. My county which is directly south of Columbus by about 20 miles has a average murder rate of 0.5 per 100,000.
Now, what's so different about the red areas as compared to the green areas? Those red areas are the source of 70% to 90% of crime in the United States. These areas skew data against the US as compared to many other countries.
We find in those areas that :
The majority of homes are single-parent households.
Very few have college degrees, a very limited number have college education.
Home values are well under median values.
African-Americans are the predominant race.
Median household income is marginally lower than averages.
As far as data goes, we don't find this in areas outside of the hot zones. Most households have few of the above mentioned factors.
Rather than address the fact that most of the crime in our nation comes from very small warzones, the government (Federal and State) pass laws and regulate every American for the sins of a very small group of people. Our freedoms are rapidly being eroded at the hands of a select few.
Here's a chart of the top 21 cities in the US based on murder rate (Some of the data is old, so Chicago doesn't show 500 murders). If Chicago had a per-capita rate similar to New Orleans, they would have had over 2,000 murders in 2012.
Now, here's the thing. Out of all the murders in the US, they are typically confined to comparatively small areas of very large metro areas. Pro-gun laws do have a positive effect on crime, however they only have a limited effect on areas of extreme crime.
I am in the process of doing a article on murder/crime prevention in the US. The data that is out there on crime in the US. I realistically have to limit myself to only my state of Ohio, as we represent a good cross-section of crime in the US, are a very populous state, medium to high crime rate as compared to everyone else.
Here's a crime & murder index map of Columbus Ohio.
Now, here's the thing - Population in the city is spread out almost evenly across the map. The MEDIAN murder rate for the city is 12.2, the median murder rate across the county is about 7.5 (This map consists of most of Franklin county in which Columbus is located).
The hot spots on the map (red areas) make up for something like 90% or more of the crime & murder in the city.
What's significant about this is the fact it's not just Columbus Ohio, it's every large city in the United Sates. The murders & crime that are taking place are mostly confined to very small areas of very big cities.
Those green areas? The murder rate averages 0.5 to 2 , much lower than median rates in Europe or Oceania. The rates inside the red areas will range from 20 to 50, 20 to 40 times higher than the green areas. Outside of the large cities, the rest of the state (and the US) has a extraordinarily low crime rate. My county which is directly south of Columbus by about 20 miles has a average murder rate of 0.5 per 100,000.
Now, what's so different about the red areas as compared to the green areas? Those red areas are the source of 70% to 90% of crime in the United States. These areas skew data against the US as compared to many other countries.
We find in those areas that :
The majority of homes are single-parent households.
Very few have college degrees, a very limited number have college education.
Home values are well under median values.
African-Americans are the predominant race.
Median household income is marginally lower than averages.
As far as data goes, we don't find this in areas outside of the hot zones. Most households have few of the above mentioned factors.
Rather than address the fact that most of the crime in our nation comes from very small warzones, the government (Federal and State) pass laws and regulate every American for the sins of a very small group of people. Our freedoms are rapidly being eroded at the hands of a select few.
updated stats for 2012:
Looks like a real horse race between 1st and 2nd, leaving everyone else in the dust.
Looks like a real horse race between 1st and 2nd, leaving everyone else in the dust.
Chicago's murder rate is high, but it's far from the highest per capita.
Here's a chart of the top 21 cities in the US based on murder rate (Some of the data is old, so Chicago doesn't show 500 murders). If Chicago had a per-capita rate similar to New Orleans, they would have had over 2,000 murders in 2012.
Now, here's the thing. Out of all the murders in the US, they are typically confined to comparatively small areas of very large metro areas. Pro-gun laws do have a positive effect on crime, however they only have a limited effect on areas of extreme crime.
I am in the process of doing a article on murder/crime prevention in the US. The data that is out there on crime in the US. I realistically have to limit myself to only my state of Ohio, as we represent a good cross-section of crime in the US, are a very populous state, medium to high crime rate as compared to everyone else.
Here's a crime & murder index map of Columbus Ohio.
Now, here's the thing - Population in the city is spread out almost evenly across the map. The MEDIAN murder rate for the city is 12.2, the median murder rate across the county is about 7.5 (This map consists of most of Franklin county in which Columbus is located).
The hot spots on the map (red areas) make up for something like 90% or more of the crime & murder in the city.
What's significant about this is the fact it's not just Columbus Ohio, it's every large city in the United Sates. The murders & crime that are taking place are mostly confined to very small areas of very big cities.
Those green areas? The murder rate averages 0.5 to 2 , much lower than median rates in Europe or Oceania. The rates inside the red areas will range from 20 to 50, 20 to 40 times higher than the green areas. Outside of the large cities, the rest of the state (and the US) has a extraordinarily low crime rate. My county which is directly south of Columbus by about 20 miles has a average murder rate of 0.5 per 100,000.
Now, what's so different about the red areas as compared to the green areas? Those red areas are the source of 70% to 90% of crime in the United States. These areas skew data against the US as compared to many other countries.
We find in those areas that :
The majority of homes are single-parent households.
Very few have college degrees, a very limited number have college education.
Home values are well under median values.
African-Americans are the predominant race.
Median household income is marginally lower than averages.
As far as data goes, we don't find this in areas outside of the hot zones. Most households have few of the above mentioned factors.
Rather than address the fact that most of the crime in our nation comes from very small warzones, the government (Federal and State) pass laws and regulate every American for the sins of a very small group of people. Our freedoms are rapidly being eroded at the hands of a select few.
Here's the dilemma for me:
We know from statistics, and we've known for a long time that single parent households + low income = more likely to commit crime. We've also known that the majority of these individuals/households are African American.
Now....why is that?
Why are African American's less likely to go out, get a good education, get a good job, and have an "average joe" family? What is holding them back? Is it "the system", or is it themselves? Or something else?
The graphic posted by Netphase may be an over generalization of the situation, but there is truth to it. Why?
Many people will argue that past slavery, segregation, and racism have lead to today's statistics. I'd argue that the vast majority of African American's committing the crimes, creating the single parent households, not getting an education, etc... were born WELL AFTER 1964, most even a decade or more later. So, I conclude that none of these arguments can be the real cause.
Today (and many years before) if an African American wants to discipline themselves, study hard, get a good job, make the right family choices, etc...
there is absolutely nothing in the way to stop them. Nothing. Now, I'm not saying it will be easy, but it's not easy for a lot of people, regardless of skin color.
What about living in poverty? Well, a lot of people live in poverty, and they aren't out shooting at each other in record numbers. I think the poverty excuse is BS, because any kid that wants to can get an education through high school (even if it's an extremely crappy govt school), and then go to higher education of some sort, using loans and grants if they don't have the money. The ability to pull yourself out of that situation is there for anyone who wants it.
I graduated almost 15-years ago from a small town high school, basically Hickville USA, 98% white. Were the 2 black kids in our entire school ever subjected to racism? Treated differently in any way? Nope. They were simply 2 students. They had the same chance to succeed or fail as everyone else.
Does racism still exist? Sure, I'm sure it does. But not nearly as much as good ole Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would like for you to believe.
I think the increased violence is perhaps a combination of a lot of factors..but the #1 factor (by far), in my opinion (and this is something the lib media will never admit to), is the lack of a father figure in households. It's the breaking apart of the traditional family that is hurting so much. These kids have no one to get guidance from, no one to look up to and respect, more time to themselves (because the single parent is working), and this leads to the joining gangs, the violence, drugs, etc...
Who are their fathers, grandfathers, uncles and such?
Forget about race, but imagine a guy goes to the Vietnam War and in part because of that becomes an alcoholic with anger issues. He then has a child in 1970, and that kid becomes more likely to also have the same issues. Then in 1990 the second generation also has a child and we now have a kid that might have both an angry alcoholic father and grandfather.
If they commit a crime in 2012, it would be ridiculous if they tried to blame their relatives or the Vietnam War, but on some level it can't be denied that those type of things may have influenced the course of events.
Whites in the southern states overall have higher violent crime rates than whites in the rest of the nation. Criminologists have theorized that it might be in part because of cultural attitudes that go back to losing the Civil War.
Crime in Japan is considered very shameful for a person and for their family. The young generations there might not be as serious about it, but this would be another example of something cultural that goes back well before 1964.
This is the homicide rate by race for 10-24 year olds. At the same time, the divorce rate has continued to go up.
Having two good parents in a home is probably best, but that is not the makeup of all married couples. In many cases divorce helps to get children away from negative influences.
So, who are the roll models for these underprivileged black children?
Wanna be fucking gangsters!
What music do they listen to: Rappers who write songs about beating women and killing people!
What video games do they play? Grand Theft Auto where you get points for stealing, murdering and beating up hookers?
There is no one reason, but rather a series of events that has led us to this point. And like I said before, it's our societies problem.
We are enamored with sex & violence. It is what sells and it's what is force fed into the minds of our youth from every fucking medium available.
And now here we are full circle back to the "single" parent issue. Who prevents access to this "shit" that our kids digest? The parents, right? But, what do u do if you're a single mom that is working 2-3 jobs so you can put food on the table?
And round & round we go!
Wanna be fucking gangsters!
What music do they listen to: Rappers who write songs about beating women and killing people!
What video games do they play? Grand Theft Auto where you get points for stealing, murdering and beating up hookers?
There is no one reason, but rather a series of events that has led us to this point. And like I said before, it's our societies problem.
We are enamored with sex & violence. It is what sells and it's what is force fed into the minds of our youth from every fucking medium available.
And now here we are full circle back to the "single" parent issue. Who prevents access to this "shit" that our kids digest? The parents, right? But, what do u do if you're a single mom that is working 2-3 jobs so you can put food on the table?
And round & round we go!
People are gonna bitch at me for this.
But I think negative social effects on any race take generations to alleviate.
Some things get fixed in 1-2 generations. Others take several generations.
I think slavery was one of these things that just fucks a group of people up for generations.
Not slavery itself. But being treated like a piece of meat. Literally like an animal. Bred for labor and strength.
The genetic element is one thing- and it's why the NBA is dominated by blacks.
But mentally. Shit, a friend showed me this video a while back. Totally changed how I saw the effect of slavery on the mind.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu3j7rPscpY]Bid Em In - YouTube[/ame]
But I think negative social effects on any race take generations to alleviate.
Some things get fixed in 1-2 generations. Others take several generations.
I think slavery was one of these things that just fucks a group of people up for generations.
Not slavery itself. But being treated like a piece of meat. Literally like an animal. Bred for labor and strength.
The genetic element is one thing- and it's why the NBA is dominated by blacks.
But mentally. Shit, a friend showed me this video a while back. Totally changed how I saw the effect of slavery on the mind.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu3j7rPscpY]Bid Em In - YouTube[/ame]
Sir Richard Branson nailed it in this article
War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure - CNN.com
Editor's note: Richard Branson is the founder of Virgin Group, with global branded revenues of $21 billion, and a member of the Global Drug Commission. Sir Richard was knighted in 1999 for his services to entrepreneurship. Watch today for Branson's interview with CNN/US' Erin Burnett Out Front at 7pm ET and tomorrow (12/7) with CNN International's Connect the World program at 4pm ET
(CNN) -- In 1925, H. L. Mencken wrote an impassioned plea: "Prohibition has not only failed in its promises but actually created additional serious and disturbing social problems throughout society. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic but more. There is not less crime, but more. ... The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished."
This week marks the 79th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition in December 1933, but Mencken's plea could easily apply to today's global policy on drugs.
We could learn a thing or two by looking at what Prohibition brought to the United States: an increase in consumption of hard liquor, organized crime taking over legal production and distribution and widespread anger with the federal government.
News: Pot smokers enter legal limbo in Washington, Colorado
Richard Branson
Here we are, four decades after Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs in 1971 and $1 trillion spent since then. What do we have to show for it?
The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, with about 2.3 million behind bars. More than half a million of those people are incarcerated for a drug law violation. What a waste of young lives.
Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.
In business, if one of our companies is failing, we take steps to identify and solve the problem. What we don't do is continue failing strategies that cost huge sums of money and exacerbate the problem. Rather than continuing on the disastrous path of the war on drugs, we need to look at what works and what doesn't in terms of real evidence and data.
Opinion: The end of the war on marijuana
The facts are overwhelming. If the global drug trade were a country, it would have one of the top 20 economies in the world. In 2005, the United Nations estimated the global illegal drug trade is worth more than $320 billion. It also estimates there are 230 million illegal drug users in the world, yet 90% of them are not classified as problematic.
In the United States, if illegal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco, they would yield $46.7 billion in tax revenue. A Cato study says legalizing drugs would save the U.S. about $41 billion a year in enforcing the drug laws.
Branson: War on drugs a failure Workers not protected by pot law Medical marijuana for a 7-year-old? Marijuana's high profile election
Have U.S. drug laws reduced drug use? No. The U.S. is the No. 1 nation in the world in illegal drug use. As with Prohibition, banning alcohol didn't stop people drinking -- it just stopped people obeying the law.
News: Marijuana advocates hope to rise from 'prohibition'
About 40,000 people were in U.S. jails and prisons for drug crimes in 1980, compared with more than 500,000 today. Excessively long prison sentences and locking up people for small drug offenses contribute greatly to this ballooning of the prison population. It also represents racial discrimination and targeting disguised as drug policy. People of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than white people -- yet from 1980 to 2007, blacks were arrested for drug law violations at rates 2.8 to 5.5 times higher than white arrest rates.
Prohibition failed when the American people spoke up and demanded its repeal. Today, the American people are showing their dissatisfaction with the war on drugs by voting for change, often in the face of federal law.
Colorado and Washington recently became the first U.S. states to legalize recreational use of marijuana. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia allow the medical use of marijuana, and 74% of Americans support alternatives to locking people up for marijuana possession.
How would our society, our communities and daily lives improve if we took the money we use running a police and prison state and put it into education and health? Treating drugs as a health issue could save billions, improve public health and help us better control violence and crime in our communities. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from overdoses and drug-related diseases, including HIV and hepatitis C, because they didn't have access to cost-effective, life-saving solutions.
A Pew study says it costs the U.S. an average of $30,000 a year to incarcerate an inmate, but the nation spends only an average $11,665 per public school student. The future of our nations and our children should be our priority. We should be helping people addicted to drugs break their habits rather than putting users in prison.
When it comes to drugs, we should focus on the goals we agree on: protecting our kids, protecting public safety and preventing and treating drug abuse and addiction. To help unlock barriers to drug reform, last June, I joined the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which is bringing global leadership to drug reform to make fact-based research public and draw attention to successful alternative approaches.
Opinion: Mr. President, fix our broken drug policy
As part of this work, a new documentary, "Breaking the Taboo," narrated by Oscar award-winning actor Morgan Freeman and produced by my son Sam Branson's indie Sundog Pictures, followed the commission's attempts to break the political taboo over the war on drugs. The film exposes the biggest failure of global policy in the past 40 years and features revealing contributions from global leaders, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
It is time we broke the taboo and opened up the debate about the war on drugs. We need alternatives that focus on education, health, taxation and regulation.
If you ignore a serious problem, refuse to debate it and hope it will go away all by itself, you are very naive. The war on drugs has failed. It's time to confront the issue head on.
War on drugs a trillion-dollar failure - CNN.com
Editor's note: Richard Branson is the founder of Virgin Group, with global branded revenues of $21 billion, and a member of the Global Drug Commission. Sir Richard was knighted in 1999 for his services to entrepreneurship. Watch today for Branson's interview with CNN/US' Erin Burnett Out Front at 7pm ET and tomorrow (12/7) with CNN International's Connect the World program at 4pm ET
(CNN) -- In 1925, H. L. Mencken wrote an impassioned plea: "Prohibition has not only failed in its promises but actually created additional serious and disturbing social problems throughout society. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic but more. There is not less crime, but more. ... The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished."
This week marks the 79th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition in December 1933, but Mencken's plea could easily apply to today's global policy on drugs.
We could learn a thing or two by looking at what Prohibition brought to the United States: an increase in consumption of hard liquor, organized crime taking over legal production and distribution and widespread anger with the federal government.
News: Pot smokers enter legal limbo in Washington, Colorado
Richard Branson
Here we are, four decades after Richard Nixon declared the war on drugs in 1971 and $1 trillion spent since then. What do we have to show for it?
The U.S. has the largest prison population in the world, with about 2.3 million behind bars. More than half a million of those people are incarcerated for a drug law violation. What a waste of young lives.
Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.
In business, if one of our companies is failing, we take steps to identify and solve the problem. What we don't do is continue failing strategies that cost huge sums of money and exacerbate the problem. Rather than continuing on the disastrous path of the war on drugs, we need to look at what works and what doesn't in terms of real evidence and data.
Opinion: The end of the war on marijuana
The facts are overwhelming. If the global drug trade were a country, it would have one of the top 20 economies in the world. In 2005, the United Nations estimated the global illegal drug trade is worth more than $320 billion. It also estimates there are 230 million illegal drug users in the world, yet 90% of them are not classified as problematic.
In the United States, if illegal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco, they would yield $46.7 billion in tax revenue. A Cato study says legalizing drugs would save the U.S. about $41 billion a year in enforcing the drug laws.
Branson: War on drugs a failure Workers not protected by pot law Medical marijuana for a 7-year-old? Marijuana's high profile election
Have U.S. drug laws reduced drug use? No. The U.S. is the No. 1 nation in the world in illegal drug use. As with Prohibition, banning alcohol didn't stop people drinking -- it just stopped people obeying the law.
News: Marijuana advocates hope to rise from 'prohibition'
About 40,000 people were in U.S. jails and prisons for drug crimes in 1980, compared with more than 500,000 today. Excessively long prison sentences and locking up people for small drug offenses contribute greatly to this ballooning of the prison population. It also represents racial discrimination and targeting disguised as drug policy. People of color are no more likely to use or sell illegal drugs than white people -- yet from 1980 to 2007, blacks were arrested for drug law violations at rates 2.8 to 5.5 times higher than white arrest rates.
Prohibition failed when the American people spoke up and demanded its repeal. Today, the American people are showing their dissatisfaction with the war on drugs by voting for change, often in the face of federal law.
Colorado and Washington recently became the first U.S. states to legalize recreational use of marijuana. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia allow the medical use of marijuana, and 74% of Americans support alternatives to locking people up for marijuana possession.
How would our society, our communities and daily lives improve if we took the money we use running a police and prison state and put it into education and health? Treating drugs as a health issue could save billions, improve public health and help us better control violence and crime in our communities. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from overdoses and drug-related diseases, including HIV and hepatitis C, because they didn't have access to cost-effective, life-saving solutions.
A Pew study says it costs the U.S. an average of $30,000 a year to incarcerate an inmate, but the nation spends only an average $11,665 per public school student. The future of our nations and our children should be our priority. We should be helping people addicted to drugs break their habits rather than putting users in prison.
When it comes to drugs, we should focus on the goals we agree on: protecting our kids, protecting public safety and preventing and treating drug abuse and addiction. To help unlock barriers to drug reform, last June, I joined the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which is bringing global leadership to drug reform to make fact-based research public and draw attention to successful alternative approaches.
Opinion: Mr. President, fix our broken drug policy
As part of this work, a new documentary, "Breaking the Taboo," narrated by Oscar award-winning actor Morgan Freeman and produced by my son Sam Branson's indie Sundog Pictures, followed the commission's attempts to break the political taboo over the war on drugs. The film exposes the biggest failure of global policy in the past 40 years and features revealing contributions from global leaders, including former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
It is time we broke the taboo and opened up the debate about the war on drugs. We need alternatives that focus on education, health, taxation and regulation.
If you ignore a serious problem, refuse to debate it and hope it will go away all by itself, you are very naive. The war on drugs has failed. It's time to confront the issue head on.
How long do you think it will take until the Jews recover from the Holocaust?
Notice that most of the world's Jewish population is not near where the Holocaust happened. In the 1930s there was already over 4 million Jews living in the USA.
A Jewish wealth base was being built up in the US in the 1800s. Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers are some of the Jewish American banks that started during that time. People like Jacob Schiff might have been billionaires in today's dollars.
How many Jewish holocaust survivors were there? Many fled before the end of the war, but as far as the displacement camps go :
"Estimates of the number of Jewish displaced persons run at about 250,000...
With the exception of 10,000–15,000 who chose to make their homes in Germany after the war (see Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland), the vast majority of the Jewish DPs ultimately left the camps and settled elsewhere. About 136,000 settled in Israel, 80,000 in the United States, and sizeable numbers also in Canada and South Africa."
Sh'erit ha-Pletah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So they recovered almost immediately rather than using it as a debilitating mental crutch for 150 years? I dunno, I come from Irish peasants so what the fuck do I know.
Not all of them apparently..
The Effects of the Holocaust on the Children of Survivors - Judaism - About.com
Child of Holocaust Survivors, Swallowed Up By Addiction ||| Jewish Drug and Alcohol Addiction Rehab
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQPJ1Ujo7_U]exclusive interview with amare stoudemire - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtTXodmqkM4]Shyne on CNN Nov 18 2010 - YouTube[/ame]
Legit question.
Jews are one of the most culturally, socially and religiously insulated groups in the West. Within some flexibility, all behavior aligns to Jewish values and culture. At least up until very recently. A lot of people look down on Jews for how insulated they are. But I think that's how they survived.
I don't think blacks had that sort of insulation. Their names were changed, their identities were changed, their religion was changed. That kind of forced identity transformation is deep. Even the Jews didn't have to deal with that in the Holocaust. Through everything they went through, they had a strong identity which allowed their values to survive.
And with slavery, there was a moral component. The Jews knew, without a doubt, what was happening to them was evil. They knew they were human beings and had human rights to aspire to.
But when you're a slave, you tend to become morally indifferent. You don't even believe you have human rights, because you aren't even human.
I'm not a bleeding heart, and I'm not justifying shit. But the human psyche is profound.
ZuzanaDesigns
All Your Design Needs
You do realize that Blacks didn't get full civil rights until the 1960s, not "150" years ago. Also while the influx of drugs have decimated our communities many in the Black community have made great strides and have gone on to become college graduates, homeowners and business owners and overall respectable citizens of society.