[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Jeremy Miller jmlizard1 at attbi.com
Wed Jun 19 09:15:07 UTC 2002


> > Dallas parade I saw on Maximum Exposure or the Compton riots after
the
> > Rodney King verdict.
>
> Nevermind the fact that white europeans have oppressed the blacks of
>this
>country, and many times they are reacting to that oppression in the
>only way
>they can.

> Well I would hope that they would react to something that happened in
> our lifetime


Me too.  We can't do much to correct past wrongs.  Other than admit
wrong and try to move on.  And learn from the mistake.

But in the case of the Rodney King riot at least... they were. (Right or
wrong, their cause was most definitely in their lifetime.)  I was in
southern califonia at the time, and saw a little bit of it.  (Admittedly
not Compton, and the display I saw was pretty weak.  But there was
definitely an angry mob.  They just held themselves in check and didn't
damage anything other than sensitive ears.)


>  because the first slaves were Slavs

I'm not so sure about that.  I've heard it before, but I don't remember
the reasoning behind it.  I know many that would say the Hebrews in
Exodus were the first... but I'm not positive of that either.

But I'm more sure of that, or that there are other early instances, than
I am that Slavs were the first slaves.


> and I don't have any raping
>  my friends lately or on the news this morning either.

No.  (And I'm truly sorry to hear about that.)  But a Slav is certainly
just as capable of doing both as anyone else.  And just as capable of
being an illegal immigrant, or starting a riot for some reason.


> You put quotes around "breaking the law" for what reason?

I don't know why he did.  But I don't mind them, because it is possible
for our government and the enforcers of the law to err in judgement. 
They could determine an illegal riot (in need of breaking up) is
underway, while participants could argue they are excercizing their
first amendment rights to peaceably assemble in protest.  (I draw the
line at threatening to injure persons or destroy property.  Anything
short of that is legal. Enforcement might claim otherwise. Until a court
decides who is correct, quotes nicely bring attention to the fact that
the statement is in dispute.


>Is it legal to kick white people to death if you're black?

No.

>Are you so full of hate?

I didn't see anything implying that he was.

>Skin color led up to it.

Sometimes it does.  Racism abounds... and it's not all one way.  You're
pointing one direction very well.  Others are pointing the other way. 
Unfortunately, all are true.


>In the school districts here there is a man who was told he had nothing
> to say because he was white;

Definitely wrong.

>  he is the school board president.

Interesting.  Do you have a referential link with more details?  That's
pretty bad.

>In other words,  he was told by this woman at the school board meeting
> that he was being judged solely by his skin color,

Yes

> and that she hated him for his skin color

I wouldn't go that far with it. He was told that she gave his opinion
zero value, for reason of his skin color.  Pretty bad, but she hated
him.  For any reason.  I can see a distinction.


>And so it goes,  the illness is ok when it's poor immigrants or blacks
> whose great great grandfather was the son of a slave,

I don't think so.  And believe that puts us in agreement on that.  I do
realize that some people think that way.  I do not assume that any
person thinks that way based on observations that they have some things
in common with those that do.


>  the only people ever
enslaved.

Not by a long shot.

> Oh ya,  Slavs were.

Among many others.


> Ever travelled in Compton? How about the lower east side of Chicago?
> Yes,  and Oakland.
> Funny you should ask.  Why do you?  Were you also attacked for your
>skin
color?

Yes.  In Japan, while walking down a street toward a vending machine, 2
cars stopped out of the blue.  I was jumped and surrounded by
approximately 10 black men, and dealt blows (a few returned, of course)
by the 3 largest guys. Accompanied by various racial slurs and related
rantings.  Apparently for no reason other than the fun of ganging up on
a white dude.

Quite shameful.  Luckily, I don't go down very easy and the episode
didn't last very long.  Approximately 10 friends of mine of various
races (including black) happened to look my way, see what was going on, 
and head that direction.

Like a bunch of cowards afraid of a more equal matchup, they jumped back
in their cars and fled the scene.

A rather strange experience, to say the least.

>Did you approve of this animal behavior?

Of course not.

But I harbor no ill feelings (or wishes) about the matter towards any
black persons other than the ones that did it.  Other than carry the
knowledge that people like that exist.  I don't make the mistake of
believing any race or culture of people is lacking in those types of
people, either.


As long as we're telling stories and anecdotes, I've also had a cop grab
me from behind, throw me up against a wall, and do a pretty fair job of
trying to stick a 9 millimeter in my nasal passageways.  (It was an
honest mistake... I admit that I matched the description pretty well,
and that the real perp was probably pretty dangerous. Still, the gun in
my nose was a little much.)

I don't hate cops because of it.  I didn't sue or whine about it,
either.  I was apologized to profusely, after standing around in public
wearing handcuffs for an hour or so.  That was enough.


> > It is a minor side issue that you didn't hear it on the news and
that
> > whenever there is black on white crime they don't show the picture
of
the
> > perpetrator.
> What do you mean? They do it all the time. In fact, just this morning
> they had a mug shot of a black guy that did something to some white >
people.

>My point exactly,  what's yours.

Um... you said that whenever X, they don't Y.  He gave an immediate
example of X where they did Y.  I thought that was pretty clear.

I think that arguing this particular point is probably a waste of time. 
I know I've seen both myself.



> I don't recall seeing anything on the news about the black fellow  who
> jumped out of my friend's 13 yr old daughters window at 3AM one
morning,  he
was


The white dude (non-illegal immigrant) that brutally beat and raped one
of my best friends (and housemates) in Georgia never made the news
either.  I had to wash her bloody clothes and spend months helping her
get her confidence back.



> > also an univited immigrant and a statutory rapist.

If the person did not rape this young girl, please clarify.  (If so,
please do not... and I understand why you didn't.)  Is he a statutory
rapist because of this instance, or was it something else on his
record?  "Statutory rapist" refers to someone of legal age having sexual
relations with someone who is not, regardless of consent or lack of it. 
(The rules on this are confusing and vary from state to state.  It can
and does easily include two persons of similar age that intend to marry,
but are not yet of legal age to do so in their home state... even though
they would be in another.  Maybe not right, but I don't really consider
that rape in my book.)

Usually the term rapist on it's own covers all forms of non-consentual
sexual relations (far too tame a term for violence, but it is accurate)
regardless of age.  (This is the only reason I ask... to clarify which
you mean.  I think I know, but want to be sure I understand the
encounter and what you mean by it.)

Again, skip this paragraph if you like, and I'll drop it.


> Hmm. Well, the fact that he was black is irrelevant except for id
> purposes.

>Oh well the fact that I would have killed him would be.

I'd still say the fact that he was black is irrelevant.  I'd have killed
him whether he was black, white, yellow, spotted, or glowing
incandescent.

> Entering >uninvited
>again,  seems to be a common theme with criminals.

Not to mention some relatives. :)

(Yes, I see exactly what you mean.  But many crimes have nothing to do
with uninvited entry. And not every uninvited entry is criminal.)


> > What dream world are you living in?
>
> It's one you might try. It's called reality, with a hefty helping of
>realism.

A bitter but very neccessary pill.  Best washed down with a tall glass
of hope.







More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list