|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon wrote: |
| No mention of how the arbitrary borders that put competing tribes and ethnic groups effected the outcome, or how the international system demands that colonial borders become the defacto borders regardless of realities on the ground. |
Yeah, and nominal independence doesn't make the people there "free". Having the US military bomb country after country while the CIA stages coups around the world (propping up dictators and warlords) and then having the IMF bankrupt the same countries so they can be sucked dry by multinational corporations to top it off isn't exactly the fault of the average person caught up in the middle of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Quote: |
Here, for example, is a Times story on the fight against malaria. Often, as with politicians, journalists speak the truth in a fit of absent-mindedness, when their real concern is something else.
If you read the story, you might notice the same astounding graf that I did:
And the world changed. Before the 1960s, colonial governments and companies fought malaria because their officials often lived in remote outposts like Nigeria�s hill stations and Vietnam�s Marble Mountains. Independence movements led to freedom, but also often to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care.
Let�s focus on that last sentence. Independence movements led to freedom, but also often to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care.
I often find it useful to imagine that I�m an alien from the planet Jupiter. If I read this sentence, I would ask: what is this word freedom? What, exactly, does this writer mean by freedom? Especially in the context of civil war, poverty, and corrupt government?
What we see here is that independence movements � which the writer clearly believes are a good thing � led to some very concrete and very, very awful results, in addition to this curious abstraction � freedom. Clearly, whatever freedom means in this particular context, it�s such a great positive that even when you add it to civil war, poverty, corrupt government and the collapse of medical care, the result still exceeds zero.
Isn�t that strange? Might we not be tempted to revisit this particular piece of arithmetic? But we can�t � because if we postulate that colonial governments and companies (whatever these were), with their absence of freedom, were somehow preferable to independence movements, which created this same freedom (the words freedom and independence appear to be synonyms in this context), we are off the progressive reservation.
|
|
Ah, good old White Man's Burden.[/quote]
No mention of how the arbitrary borders that put competing tribes and ethnic groups effected the outcome, or how the international system demands that colonial borders become the defacto borders regardless of realities on the ground. The only thing keeping the sham countries together where strongman colonial governments, so the eventual outcomes are easy to predict. Not to mention that international corporations are still using former colonies like they did before the independence movement, or that former colonial powers often picked winners and losers in regard to which group would replace them. Yes, thank god for the Europeans.
In a more related topic, it turns out that the guy who shot the firefighters was sold the guns by a neighbors daughter. I hope that the legal consequences are sever. If people are going to have the rights to purchase fire arms, then they need to have the corresponding responsibilities, and making an example might help stop other people from casually arming felons and the like.[/quote]
+10 points to Gryffindor.
I wasn't sure what titus' post about former African colonial countries had to do with my post but the facts above are true.
As Leon said, the borders were arbitrary according to where one European borders ended and another started. The problem was that the colonial countries had competing tribes that the European powers often used a conquer and divide method to control the country. Certain tribes were given preferential treatment which resulted in resentment and civil war after the European powers left.
Almost always African civil wars were really wars between tribes. Sometimes tribes and religion (Nigeria for example).
Also the European powers often kept the masses un-educated or under educated and the professional positions were European and the merchant class non African (often Indian) and given preferential treatment.
The European powers kept the masses dependent on them for vital services and not enough of the native peoples educated or trained to provide any kind of meaningful infrastructure.
All this was a recipe for disaster once the European powers left. Civil war, corruption, etc., is not a surprise at all.
Although I would say that enough time has passed where they should recognize the problems of the past and start making sensible choices for the future generations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Titus wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| If its okay for the NYPD to arbitrarily stop Black and Latino males because of a stat. Even if they are obviously college kids in many cases who've been stopped multiple times. And lets be honest here, the run of the mill Black street thug and a Black econ major at NYU aren't dressing and acting the same and be worried about the cop who can't spot the differences. |
Stop and frisk works. Hostility to it reminds me of how liberal people think of de-colonialism.
|
So, the NYPD stopping and frisking Blacks and Latinos indiscriminately, violating their civil and constitutional rights, and at one time stopping cabs, going into buildings with no cause, is a good thing because it works.
However, the U.S. government using drones to indiscriminately kill suspected terrorists including American citizens, women and children is a bad thing even though it "works"?
Okay, got it.
PS: with regards to African colonialism, the European powers were not invited in by the natives and they were not there to save the natives. They went there to literally and figuretively rape the continent. Same as the Americas. While the church approved the whole thing under the guise that they were bringing them God...at least the European version of what God is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
So, the NYPD stopping and frisking Blacks and Latinos indiscriminately, violating their civil and constitutional rights, and at one time stopping cabs, going into buildings with no cause, is a good thing because it works.
However, the U.S. government using drones to indiscriminately kill suspected terrorists including American citizens, women and children is a bad thing even though it "works"?
|
I cannot even begin to fathom the mindset that feels killing random foreigners is of a kind with checking the pockets of random citizens. Doing something because it works does not necessitate doing absolutely anything that works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
So, the NYPD stopping and frisking Blacks and Latinos indiscriminately, violating their civil and constitutional rights, and at one time stopping cabs, going into buildings with no cause, is a good thing because it works.
However, the U.S. government using drones to indiscriminately kill suspected terrorists including American citizens, women and children is a bad thing even though it "works"?
|
I cannot even begin to fathom the mindset that feels killing random foreigners is of a kind with checking the pockets of random citizens. Doing something because it works does not necessitate doing absolutely anything that works. |
It's a difference of scale, but in a sense it comes from the same mentality. There is an alien group, be they foreigners or minorities, that is treated differently than the group that has the power. I mean poor New Yorkers have about as much in common with Bloomberg as he does with Afghani's. Also, how many black men/teenagers have been shot or beaten by the cops for "appearing to be aggressive" or having any kind of object that might somewhat resemble a gun, aka wallet or phone.
The drone program, stop and frisk, and the war on drugs all come from the same mentality, so where's the confusion, what's so unfathomable here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
It's a difference of scale, but in a sense it comes from the same mentality. There is an alien group, be they foreigners or minorities, that is treated differently than the group that has the power. |
1) Blacks and Latinos can vote in New York, and they have recourse to the courts. They have at least some political power here. Drone victims have none.
2) Whites are also stopped and frisked, even if it at a lower rate. You and Sirius, on the other hand, are not at risk of an American drone screaming out of no where and killing you.
This is a difference in kind, not degree. New Yorkers have made a mildly inconveniencing choice for New York regarding stop & frisk. Americans have made a lethal choice for Afghanis, Pakistanis, and so forth regarding drones.
| Leon wrote: |
| I mean poor New Yorkers have about as much in common with Bloomberg as he does with Afghani's. |
Bloomberg does not need stop & frisk to be safe. Neither do his rich buddies. The impetus for this policy does not come from the Mayor's desires. I am not going to say the implementation of this policy is perfect; the discrepancy between the percentage of whites found armed and the percentage of minorities found armed implies a different (and less accurate) standard of suspicion is being applied, and it is valid to challenge that. None the less, stop & frisk is for the sake of New York's citizens, and at worst it irritates someone wrongly stopped. Drones are assuredly not for the sake of foreigners, and it kills them. There is no shared ideological core here: one can rationally and consistently support stop & frisk without supporting America's drone policy.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, how many black men/teenagers have been shot or beaten by the cops for "appearing to be aggressive" or having any kind of object that might somewhat resemble a gun, aka wallet or phone. |
Probably some, but that happens entirely independent of stop & frisk. My white younger brother once got roughed up by the cops in Colorado. Was that because of stop & frisk too? Of course not; generalized police problems like brutality transcend such policies and stem from far deeper issues, ones which relate to the very concept of the modern police force and the role it is meant to fill. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
It's a difference of scale, but in a sense it comes from the same mentality. There is an alien group, be they foreigners or minorities, that is treated differently than the group that has the power. |
1) Blacks and Latinos can vote in New York, and they have recourse to the courts. They have at least some political power here. Drone victims have none.
2) Whites are also stopped and frisked, even if it at a lower rate. You and Sirius, on the other hand, are not at risk of an American drone screaming out of no where and killing you.
This is a difference in kind, not degree. New Yorkers have made a mildly inconveniencing choice for New York regarding stop & frisk. Americans have made a lethal choice for Afghanis, Pakistanis, and so forth regarding drones.
| Leon wrote: |
| I mean poor New Yorkers have about as much in common with Bloomberg as he does with Afghani's. |
Bloomberg does not need stop & frisk to be safe. Neither do his rich buddies. The impetus for this policy does not come from the Mayor's desires. I am not going to say the implementation of this policy is perfect; the discrepancy between the percentage of whites found armed and the percentage of minorities found armed implies a different (and less accurate) standard of suspicion is being applied, and it is valid to challenge that. None the less, stop & frisk is for the sake of New York's citizens, and at worst it irritates someone wrongly stopped. Drones are assuredly not for the sake of foreigners, and it kills them. There is no shared ideological core here: one can rationally and consistently support stop & frisk without supporting America's drone policy.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, how many black men/teenagers have been shot or beaten by the cops for "appearing to be aggressive" or having any kind of object that might somewhat resemble a gun, aka wallet or phone. |
Probably some, but that happens entirely independent of stop & frisk. My white younger brother once got roughed up by the cops in Colorado. Was that because of stop & frisk too? Of course not; generalized police problems like brutality transcend such policies and stem from far deeper issues, ones which relate to the very concept of the modern police force and the role it is meant to fill. |
The stop and frisk policy is not really for all of New York's citizen's though, and that's pretty obvious if you like at the different levels of service based upon things like race, class etc. If you look at how certain groups are policed, and look at how they are treated it's pretty clear what's going on. The idea that it's some polite checking of pockets is either naive or obtuse. There's tons of videos out there showing how rough it is, it's being used as a form of intimidation in some neighborhoods, and not at all in others. To call stop and frisk completely separate from police brutality is weird, it's an expression of police brutality. To bring it back to gun control, I could see the case for armed minorities policing the police, similar to the Black Panthers. Of course that's what prompted Reagan to be for gun control before he was against it.
Can one rationally and consistently support stop and frisk, but not American's drone policy, well if one goes around thinking that stop and frisk is just a polite request to turn out ones pockets, than I suppose one could. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The idea that it's some polite checking of pockets is either naive or obtuse. |
A totally accurate depiction of stop & frisk as being searched for weaponry is "naive or obtuse," while a comparison between it and randomly murdering foreigners is completely valid. Crystal clear, thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The idea that it's some polite checking of pockets is either naive or obtuse. |
A totally accurate depiction of stop & frisk as being searched for weaponry is "naive or obtuse," while a comparison between it and randomly murdering foreigners is completely valid. Crystal clear, thanks. |
| Fox wrote: |
| None the less, stop & frisk is for the sake of New York's citizens, and at worst it irritates someone wrongly stopped. |
http://www.thenation.com/article/170413/stopped-and-frisked-being-fking-mutt-video
"But often overlooked is how frequently police officers use some level of physical force in these encounters. People who have been stopped say that if they show the slightest bit of resistance, even verbally, they can find themselves slammed against walls, forced to the ground and, on rarer occasions, with officers� guns pointed at their heads.
The police used some level of physical force in more than one in five stops across the city last year, according to an analysis by The New York Times. In the West Bronx, the rate was more than double that. Yet the high level of force seldom translated into arrests, raising questions among black and Latino leaders about whether officers were using enough discretion before making the stops in the first place, much less before resorting to force."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/nyregion/in-police-stop-data-pockets-where-force-is-used-more-often.html?hp&_r=0
Anyways, now that we cleared that up, in regard to how all these people have to fear is a slight irritation, to get back to the main topic it's interesting how many side topics have come up. I mean hear we are talking about colonialism and stop and frisk. I think it's out of an unwillingness to come to terms that an evil act was committed by an evil individual and there is not much that could have been done, short of the local community recognizing and acting on warning signs.
I think many of these issues, like gun control or mental health are important in their own rights, but it's not clear how they would have mattered in any of the previously mentioned mass shooters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JustinC
Joined: 10 Mar 2012
Location: We Are The World!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JustinC wrote: |
| More guns in schools? I can see no problems at all coming from this... |
What do you mean "more" guns? As if there's been any guns up till now? Oh, I suppose you mean the guns held by the psychopath killers who go and shoot up schools every so often? If only the teachers had had any guns of their own at the time to defend themselves.
Moreover, the notion that it will be dangerous for properly trained teachers to have guns is baseless. The odds of any mishaps happening with these guns is no doubt minute to say the least, and compared to having more mass shootings with totally defenseless teachers and students getting massacred, it would be well worth the risk. Now, it's not as though each and every kindergarten teacher needs to be packing a loaded revolver around in class... but having guns kept under safe supervision somewhere on campus, with teachers trained to use them if need be, sounds like a good idea to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
So, the NYPD stopping and frisking Blacks and Latinos indiscriminately, violating their civil and constitutional rights, and at one time stopping cabs, going into buildings with no cause, is a good thing because it works.
However, the U.S. government using drones to indiscriminately kill suspected terrorists including American citizens, women and children is a bad thing even though it "works"?
|
I cannot even begin to fathom the mindset that feels killing random foreigners is of a kind with checking the pockets of random citizens. Doing something because it works does not necessitate doing absolutely anything that works. |
American citizens are involved in both and American citizens rights are being violated in both. I mentioned non Americans in the latter as an aside but you only mentioned them without mentioning American citizens are not allowed due process.
Obviously the degree are different but the essence of it is that rights are being violated because of results. One is deemed acceptable the other isn't.
I'm betting you know that but don't want to accept the similarities of both. Which is your right. It doesn't make it an invalid comparision though because you don't like the difference in degrees of the consequences of rights being violated.
The fact is one is accepted and the other isn't by some people.
Bottom line is constitutional rights are blatantly violated in both. I'm asking to agree with that. I'm not asking anyone to agaree that both situations are equal in consequences. Making excuses for blatant violation of civil liberties and constitutional rights but not accepting it another scenario is hyprocracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
It doesn't make it an invalid comparision though ... |
It's a completely invalid comparison. Stupidly invalid. Whatever, though. The extreme Right expresses its tribal identity by calling Obama a Communist-Nazi-Whatever, and you and Leon express yours by comparing stop & frisk to mass, impersonal murder of innocents. Have fun with it. Leon can pretend the article he posted somehow rebutted my nuanced case (it didn't, but he can't be made to understand that), and you can stop killing time before you arbitrarily declare victory and start telling me to stop posting, which we both know is the game plan here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you want to have safe streets yet have a large black population then a very aggressive policing strategy is needed. If you want gentrification in the great American cities (which we all do, even if we say we don't) then you need a soft police state that profiles and harasses "at risk" young men.
I note none of you are upset at the gender imbalance in stop/frisk? Some disparate impacts are more impactful than others!
| Quote: |
| The problem was that the colonial countries had competing tribes |
Now, all this time I've been told that diversity is our strength, and now diversity is blamed for the failure of African states? I can not keep the progressive line straight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443404004577579490354672410.html
| Quote: |
Omitted from these critics' complaints is any recognition of the demographics of crime. Blacks were 62% of the city's murder victims in 2011, even though they are only 23% of the population. They also made up a disproportionate share of criminals, committing 80% of all shootings, nearly 70% of all robberies and 66% of all violent crime, according to crime reports filed with the NYPD by victims and witnesses, usually minorities themselves.
Whites, by contrast, committed a little over 1% of all shootings, less than 5% of all robberies, and 5% of all violent crime in 2011, even though they are 35% of New York City's population. Given where crime is happening, the police cannot target their resources where they're needed without producing racially disparate stops and arrests. |
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0514hm.html
| Quote: |
Here are the crime data that the Times doesn�t want its readers to know: blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city�s population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings. Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies.
Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city�s population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. |
So much for the so predictable progressive lament that The Irish are doing it toooooooo....
These white spree killers are a horrible problem and though I'm a gun nut I'm more than willing to place some restrictions of firearm ownership to diminish the prevalence of these massacres.
But let us not pretend for one single little second that gun crime in the USA is a white thing.
All humans are *not* created equal. Obsessing about equality and freedom and civil rights (whatever the hell those are) will bring nothing but ruin and destruction to more and more cities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
