Racial Profiling (Is it done? Is it helpful? Is it wrong?)

[Blindf8th]

Just curious on where most of you stand. For me its simple. Yes its done. Yes its helpful (I believe statistics win out in this category). Yes, I do not personally condone it although I believe everyone does it to a certain degree whether they admit it verbally or not (especially officers of the law).

Droop

[opus512]

Yes it is done, yes it is helpfull, yes it is wrong.

Yes, that's a contradiction :D

Problem with it being done is it is rarely done responsibily<?).

[dookiebot]

I'll add to opus's answers.

Yes it is done, yes it CAN be helpful, yes it CAN be wrong, yes it CAN be harmful.

[Ibanez]

Crossing the line Ibanez... -msan

[Coop 1.04]

To add to opu512 and dookiebot.

Racial profiling works because of statistics. Problem is that it is not done equally. When they profile white upper class executives as embezzlers and stock frauds than I will support it.

[DUKE HARDKNOCK]

I think racial profiling is inherently stupid - you should try profiling by culture/habitat/social-economical rank instead since that's what makes the difference, not someone's genetical lineage (Mississippi residents excluded).

[Ibanez]

Originally posted by Ibanez
Crossing the line Ibanez... -msan

No I'm not. It's the damn truth. Girls need to racial profile otherwise there would be more rapings then ever.

[Blindf8th]

Its just interesting to hear peoples thoughts on it. I was watching CNN last night and it was interesting. Fairness is hard to come by I suppose...

Droop

[EG]

Depends on the situation....

[1badjedi]

Originally posted by Coop 1.04
To add to opu512 and dookiebot.

Racial profiling works because of statistics. Problem is that it is not done equally. When they profile white upper class executives as embezzlers and stock frauds than I will support it.


Well said;)

[ukstatboy]

Originally posted by Malachi
Just curious on where most of you stand. For me its simple. Yes its done. Yes its helpful (I believe statistics win out in this category). Yes, I do not personally condone it although I believe everyone does it to a certain degree whether they admit it verbally or not (especially officers of the law).

Droop

The problem with racial profiling is that you are making an implicit assumtion that certain races are highly correlated with certain crimes. By using this correlation, one presumes that somebody is guilty of a crime simply because they fit the profile.

Individuals then have to prove that they are innocent of a crime. It's fishin' for criminals.

This practice seems to go counter to "innocent until proven guilty," and the 4th Amendment.

[opus512]

Originally posted by Coop 1.04
When they profile white upper class executives as embezzlers and stock frauds than I will support it.

Harumph!

[EG]

Originally posted by ukstatboy


The problem with racial profiling is that you are making an implicit assumtion that certain races are highly correlated with certain crimes. By using this correlation, one presumes that somebody is guilty of a crime simply because they fit the profile.

Individuals then have to prove that they are innocent of a crime. It's fishin' for criminals.

This practice seems to go counter to "innocent until proven guilty," and the 4th Amendment.


depends....

suppose we get a message from a foriegn intelligence agency that middle east-terrorists will smuggle a nuclear bomb in the country?

I suppose you ignore everyone of middle east ethnicity and only check white and asian passengers?

[1badjedi]

I disagree with the peeps who jump on the bandwagon about RP. I hate hearin this crap in the news about cops in a black neighborhood that is high crime and drug infested bein accused of RP. Thats jes ridiculous.

We recently had a shooting of a black dude in a neighborhood of this type and the guy was killed. The cop also took a slug and barely made it and after a few weeks in icu he is still not out of the hospital. His career may be over from what they say. Yet all the shooters family and certain neighbors have to say is bad things about the cop and cops in general. Thats nuts.

The guy had a rap sheet like a phonebook, was on a known drug corner at the time and took off running when he saw the cop on foot approaching the corner. Then he shot the cop in an alley. Wtf was the cop supposed to do?

Criminals and their families make me sick. It's usually the family that made them that way in the first place and they enable these perps when they dont turn em in when they are wanted.

I feel that when a person who is known by the cops in the first place and places themselves in a high crime or drug trafficking area they are not bein profiled, they are flaunting their disrespect for the law plain an simple. If you dont wanna be connected to crime dont hang in areas where everyone and their mother knows wtf is goin on in said area. Claimin I didnt know jes dont work.

[sj_hurst]

Originally posted by Blidd
I think racial profiling is inherently stupid - you should try profiling by culture/habitat/social-economical rank instead since that's what makes the difference, not someone's genetical lineage (Mississippi residents excluded).

*Suspect is white, male, in his 30's...*

Racial profiling is not the same thing as being prejudice. It can result from prejudice, but not always. Of course, being prejudice (i.e. thinking that it's all based on genetics, etc) is immoral and wrong. FBI "Profilers" can profile a suspect based on a number of things. Race is only one of thousands of profiling types. Ideally, profiling is merely a method/tool used to narrow down a list of suspects or to make a suspect easier to identify.

[GrimFaceOfReality]

Anyone remember RP fiasco that followed Oklahoma City bombing?

[ukstatboy]

Originally posted by EGhadsGhost



depends....

suppose we get a message from a foriegn intelligence agency that middle east-terrorists will smuggle a nuclear bomb in the country?

I suppose you ignore everyone of middle east ethnicity and only check white and asian passengers?

That's different. You have reason to suspect somebody based on a description.

On the other hand, to pick a vehicle on the highway and pull it over just because it matches a drug runner's profile isn't reasonable unless there was additional information matching that type of car to a particular crime (e.g. witnesses, etc.).

[sj_hurst]

Originally posted by GrimFaceOfReality
Anyone remember RP fiasco that followed Oklahoma City bombing?

Yes, but that wasn't RP on the part of the authorities. Eye-witnesses claimed to have seen suspicious Arab men around the vehicle involved in the bombing (prior to the bombing). Hmmm... Sort of like the (false) witness who said that the sniper was driving a cream-colored van and had olive colored skin. Albiet, maybe the witnesses in OK City bombing weren't lying. It's possible, however unlikely, that McVey had connections to a terrorist group. And perhaps the government covered it up to prevent widespread panic (like we experienced from 9/11). Just my speculations, of course. ;)

[merlin262]

Originally posted by sj_hurst


*Suspect is white, male, in his 30's...*


YES THANK YOU.

I'd like to know WHY THE F*CK (censored for Msan) it's perfectly fine to Profile the Washington DC killer as a White Male, but profiling against black people is racist.

WHY?

I really wish some people would just STFU and stop charectorizing everything as racist. "As a young, male, white male, I take exception to the racist bigotry shown in regards to the Washington DC area killings. I feel it is the result of an evil and currupt origanization of blacks to charector young white males as serial muderers." Replace any other ethnicity above, and tell me you haven't heard similar things on the news.

If this man was profiled as black/hispanic/asian/ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHITE, the press would be having a day with this.

Tell me, in the next 6 years when whites dip into a minority where I live(factoid: only 10% of DISD students are white) will there be an association for the advancement of white people? Or would such an association be seen for what it really is: evil.

[DUKE HARDKNOCK]

Originally posted by sj_hurst
*Suspect is white, male, in his 30's...*

Racial profiling is not the same thing as being prejudice. It can result from prejudice, but not always. Of course, being prejudice (i.e. thinking that it's all based on genetics, etc) is immoral and wrong. FBI "Profilers" can profile a suspect based on a number of things. Race is only one of thousands of profiling types. Ideally, profiling is merely a method/tool used to narrow down a list of suspects or to make a suspect easier to identify.

I've got no qualms with that, really - it's just that when people start making an issue out of someone's race rather than someone's cultural/socio-economical background I think we're going the wrong way about trying to solve the problems.

[msan_msw]

Originally posted by ukstatboy


The problem with racial profiling is that you are making an implicit assumtion that certain races are highly correlated with certain crimes. By using this correlation, one presumes that somebody is guilty of a crime simply because they fit the profile.

Individuals then have to prove that they are innocent of a crime. It's fishin' for criminals.

This practice seems to go counter to "innocent until proven guilty," and the 4th Amendment.

Great post. I think there's some confusion about what racial profiling is around these parts. There's a difference between building a profile of an individual (suspect) and building a social profile of a race in which you are suspected of crime or criminal behavior just because of your skin color. I don't have a problem with a profile of a suspect being created which is linked to a specific crime whether it be black, white, or brown fur. I do have a problem with police pulling over people just because of their skin color just to see if they're up to no good, e.g.

The truth of the matter is that I've seen racial profiling in action as well as blatant racism. I've been pulled over in a car where the driver was black (white passengers) , where the driver was white (and a black passenger), and myself been pulled over. There are distinct differences on how each situation was handled. I won't bore folks with the three stories but I'll say the black guy should have never been pulled over, the white guy got away with something he shouldn't have, and I should have probably gone to jail for DUI. There is no doubt in my mind I'd have a DUI on my record if I was anything but white.

It's bad enough to get pulled over because of your skin color but it just adds to it when the consequence of being pulled over is also based on racial discrimination.

[dookiebot]

w0rd

[Blindf8th]

Would you agree or disagree that whatever race you are, by statistics alone you are more prone to certain acts of crime? <includes everyone ofcourse>?

Droop

[msan_msw]

Originally posted by Malachi
Would you agree or disagree that whatever race you are, by statistics alone you are more prone to certain acts of crime? <includes everyone ofcourse>?

Droop

Nope.

Lets look at that sentence.. It speaks volumes.

"...whatever race you are, by statistics alone you are more prone to certain acts of crime?"

Why am I prone to more acts of crime because I'm white? Should I be labeled because most CEO's that are ripping off American's of billions of dollars every year are white? Should I be tailed on the street because of the possibility I could be a white collar criminal? Just because you are of a certain skin color doesn't mean you as an individual a criminal.

Oddly enough, Montana is a fairly white state. We also have crime up here too (and gangs and drugs and all the other problems you see in our country).

Not only is racial profiling bad because you label individuals by race it's also bad because you favor one race over others AND you change the consequences for crimes based on race....

Just another fraud perpitrated by The Man to bring a brotha down!!!

[opus512]

Race alone is not a factor, however, race combined with other factors makes it one.

A black crack head looking bum skulking around an affluent, mostly white neighborhood could possibly be up to no good.

Conversly, a white crack head looking bum skulking around an affluent black neighborhood could also be up to no good.

The question is, in a sense, is a person more prone to criminal acts for no other reasons then their race? I don't think so.

Take inner city crime. A lot of it perpetrated by blacks? Sure. Most of them poor. What's the percentage of rich, educated blacks out selling crakc and pimping whores? Probably little to none. So race alone is not the factor, but rather race, education, income level, area of residence, social structure, all these factor in.

Lot of poor white trash out there commiting crimes, too.

[PaleDuke]

Originally posted by Malachi
Would you agree or disagree that whatever race you are, by statistics alone you are more prone to certain acts of crime? <includes everyone ofcourse>?

Droop


The sad truth is that a correlation DOES exist.


Implying cause & effect is completely wrong and an all too common mental trap. One does not lead to the other.


HUGE difference between correlation and cause & effect.

[msan_msw]

I think I'm losing my touch. I've been missing some of the more obvious things lately. Yup, correlation isn't causation. If every criminal has a light in their house should we arrest everyone with a light?

[ukstatboy]

Originally posted by PaleDuke


The sad truth is that a correlation DOES exist.

Implying cause & effect is completely wrong and an all too common mental trap. One does not lead to the other.

HUGE difference between correlation and cause & effect.

/me gives PD a pat on the back for remembering some statistics.

My favorite example of this is the correlation between the sale of pints of ice cream and deaths due to drowning. Sometimes a third variable (like the time of year in my example) is what the true cause is. Hopefully nobody would say that ice cream sales would cause deaths due to drowning, but that doesn't stop many folks from using correlation as proof of a cause/effect relationship.

A major problem with the creation of a profile is that the underlying data that the profile is based on might be biased. For instance, let's say that a police force has racist tendencies, and tends pick up black individuals more than white individuals. Any profiles made from years of arrest records would have a built-in bias. And then they can hide behind the statistics, saying that they found a correlation between black individuals and some particular crime, in order to pull black people over more often.

[EG]

Originally posted by msan_msw


Great post. I think there's some confusion about what racial profiling is around these parts. There's a difference between building a profile of an individual (suspect) and building a social profile of a race in which you are suspected of crime or criminal behavior just because of your skin color. I don't have a problem with a profile of a suspect being created which is linked to a specific crime whether it be black, white, or brown fur. I do have a problem with police pulling over people just because of their skin color just to see if they're up to no good, e.g.

The truth of the matter is that I've seen racial profiling in action as well as blatant racism. I've been pulled over in a car where the driver was black (white passengers) , where the driver was white (and a black passenger), and myself been pulled over. There are distinct differences on how each situation was handled. I won't bore folks with the three stories but I'll say the black guy should have never been pulled over, the white guy got away with something he shouldn't have, and I should have probably gone to jail for DUI. There is no doubt in my mind I'd have a DUI on my record if I was anything but white.

It's bad enough to get pulled over because of your skin color but it just adds to it when the consequence of being pulled over is also based on racial discrimination.

If I was a cop I would pull you over just on gp you shady lookin bastige you :D

[Blindf8th]

"Just another fraud perpitrated by The Man to bring a brotha down!!!"

heh... Overall I think you are way off base, but I respect that. I just wonder if your one of the supporters in favor of paying restoration fees to those that are ancestors of slaves? Racial profiling does help period... Staying on topic, I see it as an invaluable tool for all law enforecement, whether its stated out loud or not...

Droop <wonders why he posted here on Friday NIGHT!! hehe>

[msan_msw]

Well, maybe we should just round up all the people of color and put them behind bars? It's a good bet that if these people were behind bars or in "camps" they couldn't cause anymore crime... Can we get a HELL YEAH!!?!

[BCRICH]

Bunch of racist bastages :P :D

[sj_hurst]

Originally posted by Malachi
I just wonder if your one of the supporters in favor of paying restoration fees to those that are ancestors of slaves?

I have an Uncle who is in favor of that. He also thinks that Clinton should've been crowned king. I'm serious.

IMO, what was done to blacks in the past (slavery) was immoral, and evil to boot. We should've left 'em in Africa or offered 'em land or something in exchange for brief, voluntary servitude. Regardless, we now owe them nothing more than equal treatment. They're already getting "restoration" thanks to something called affirmative action. If I were black, I wouldn't have to pay a single out-of-pocket dime for college. That would be awesome, but regrettably I'm just a po' pale skinned boy who can't jump or dance (as society dictates). Also, I'm only good at anal lytical things (again, as society dictates). I can't dance, I can't talk, and the only thing about me is the way that I walk. Uhhu uhuhuh, hell yeah! lol

BTW Msan, great job stereotyping of Malachi/Texans/Southerners (whatever) with the "hell yeah." Subtle, but effective. ;) Personally, I don't believe in prejudice thinking or behavior. Needless to say, I believe that your idea of profiling is liberal doctrine. In theory, profiling is used as a tool to limit mistakes, limit risk and help identify suspects. Of course a light to criminal correlation isn't going to work. It just doesn't make sense because almost everyone has lights where they live. To be candid and argue justifiably, we should remain within the context of the subject and/or discussion. How does this "correlation" suit you? ----> What about a group of peeps dressed in dark baggy clothes, standing outside of a jewelry store in the middle of the night? Or even if they were on a corner, just loitering (dark clothes, late at night, etc). If you were a cop, wouldn't you feel compelled to investigate that "profile?" Anything can be demonized if it's judged by narrow range of examples or taken out of context.

Some of the examples you've noted (in regard to your friends/acquaintances) are a mix of prejudice and profiling, and not profiling in the strict sense of the word. Are you not correlating prejudice with profiling or are you thinking that the two are one in the same? Any tool can be abused. Science and Technology can be abused. Money and authority can be abused. Profiling can be abused (when used in conjunction with "race hate" or the like). As I've already demonstrated, a white person can be profiled. Indeed, all serial killers are profiled (assumed) to be white males (usually in their 20's-30's, I think). The stats indicate that it's true. Why argue with the stats when they're so effective and help solve crimes more often than not? If profiling results in the unlawful violation of someone's rights, then yes, it's wrong. IMO, unless that occurs, it's just a tool/method and not a form of prejudice.

[Blindf8th]

<STANDS> $ <APPLAUDS>


chanting.... HURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST FOR PRESHURST :o)

Well stated... /agree

Droop <damn its Monday again>

[PaleDuke]

I'm not going to get in a long, drawn-out quote-counter about this as there certainly is a "gray" area involved, at least w/profiling.

As to this off-topic paragraph...

Originally posted by sj_hurst

We should've left 'em in Africa or offered 'em land or something in exchange for brief, voluntary servitude. Regardless, we now owe them nothing more than equal treatment. They're already getting "restoration" thanks to something called affirmative action. If I were black, I wouldn't have to pay a single out-of-pocket dime for college. That would be awesome, but regrettably I'm just a po' pale skinned boy who can't jump or dance (as society dictates). Also, I'm only good at anal lytical things (again, as society dictates). I can't dance, I can't talk, and the only thing about me is the way that I walk. Uhhu uhuhuh, hell yeah! lol


Would you trade places if you could ? I mean jeez, free hand-outs and a free college degree. Too easy. THEY must be STOOPID for CHOOSING to remain in the 'hood and not accepting a preferential, taxpayer funded education.

Your answer is yes I presume ?



Originally posted by sj_hurst

In theory, profiling is used as a tool to limit mistakes, limit risk and help identify suspects.

In theory, pure communism is utopian. In practice we have Stalinism.

[msan_msw]

Originally posted by sj_hurst


IMO, what was done to blacks in the past (slavery) was immoral, and evil to boot. We should've left 'em in Africa or offered 'em land or something in exchange for brief, voluntary servitude.

BTW Msan, great job stereotyping of Malachi/Texans/Southerners (whatever) with the "hell yeah." Subtle, but effective. ;)

We did offer land. In fact, we offered a whole country. Didn't you have American history is school? Indentured servants? My bad if you were home schooled. Mom miss that lesson? Maybe she was too busy washing the hoods and sheets that day.....

Only you would be able to prescribe an insult that didn't belong. Don't flatter yourself thinking that you "caught" something. When I insult, I insult directly.

[Blindf8th]

msan,
After reading a few of your posts, I thought you were a little tough for me... But then it hit me.... YOU AINT :owned:

kidding bro... You truly are ruthless though...


Droop <daddy's home>

[dookiebot]

This thread could use some wub:
think of your fellow man
give him a helping hand
put a little love in your heart..

and the world will be a better place..
and the world will be a better place..

/me runs.....

[opus512]

30 years to make up for 200 years of forced slavery, heh.

[sj_hurst]

Originally posted by msan_msw


We did offer land. In fact, we offered a whole country. Didn't you have American history is school? Indentured servants? My bad if you were home schooled. Mom miss that lesson? Maybe she was too busy washing the hoods and sheets that day.....

Only you would be able to prescribe an insult that didn't belong. Don't flatter yourself thinking that you "caught" something. When I insult, I insult directly.

Well, that was a way to get to them to volunteer to come to America. OK, but how many African-Americans were actually indentured servants? Not many, if any. Other races were allowed to own land, even the Indians (reservations), but not people of African decent. Also, only land owners were allowed to vote in many southern states (during the time of slavery). Wanna guess why? Because African-Americans weren't allowed to own land in the south. Maybe things were different in Yankee land? No, because they didn't condone slavery. IMO, "Indentured servant" was just a PC term used to make slavery sound more acceptable. AFAIK, most "indentured servants" were worked so hard that they died too young, before their allotted time of servitude was up. And the ones that did survive, were forced to extend their period of "service" (and then they usually died). Slaves, on the other hand, were treated a little better (weren't worked quite as hard in most cases) because the "slave-owners" didn't want to waste their so-called "property." Don't believe me? Then perhaps you are the one who needs to study up on history. ;)

BTW, IMO your sarcasm/stereotyping was evident. lol Msan loves to play innocent. :P

[opus512]

A reservation is owning land?

Dude, your seriously sliding down my scale here :(

[sj_hurst]

It's not fair compensation of course, but it is their land nonetheless.

[opus512]

Originally posted by sj_hurst
It's not fair compensation of course, but it is their land nonetheless.

I guess I can let that slide on technical reasons.

But, have you ever been to a reservation? 'Not fair compensation' is putting it very politley.

[PaleDuke]

The irony of Indian reservations was they never believed in land ownership to begin with. Our English common law is based on ownership.

[sj_hurst]

Originally posted by PaleDuke
The irony of Indian reservations was they never believed in land ownership to begin with. Our English common law is based on ownership.

Certainly, that's true for most tribes. However, there were a number of tribes (I have no idea how many) that were extremely territorial. In fact, the war-like tribes routinely fought with other tribes, even peace-loving ones (regardless of plentiful land and resources). It was their division, along with the arrival of the white devils, that spelled their doom.

This is a very sensitive topic. I don't know how to talk about it without offending the likes of Opus. lol Regardless, I referred to the European settlers as "white devils" to appease him. Of course I believe that what our ancestors did to the Indians was immoral (evil if you prefer), but I'm not like those ancestors. I don't believe in slavery and I don't believe in mass genocide. I believe in freedom for all Americans, regardless of race.

IMO, profiling doesn't compromise Constitutional rights, unless it's used&abused by a racist person out of his/her bigoted reasoning. Again, profiling is a way to help identify suspects in certain situations/cases. Sure, sometimes it's abused by bigoted people, but IMO most Americans (even police) are not bigoted. Regardless, in the cases where prejudice occurs, the instant the law/police infinges someone's rights, a lawyer is at beckon call to set them straight (and make boatloads of cash for himself/herself).

[opus512]

Originally posted by sj_hurst


Certainly, that's true for most tribes. However, there were a number of tribes (I have no idea how many) that were extremely territorial. In fact, the war-like tribes routinely fought with other tribes, even peace-loving ones (regardless of plentiful land and resources). It was their division, along with the arrival of the white devils, that spelled their doom.

This is a very sensitive topic. I don't know how to talk about it without offending the likes of Opus. lol Regardless, I referred to the European settlers as "white devils" to appease him. Of course I believe that what our ancestors did to the Indians was immoral (evil if you prefer), but I'm not like those ancestors. I don't believe in slavery and I don't believe in mass genocide. I believe in freedom for all Americans, regardless of race.

IMO, profiling doesn't compromise Constitutional rights, unless it's used&abused by a racist person out of his/her bigoted reasoning. Again, profiling is a way to help identify suspects in certain situations/cases. Sure, sometimes it's abused by bigoted people, but IMO most Americans (even police) are not bigoted. Regardless, in the cases where prejudice occurs, the instant the law/police infinges someone's rights, a lawyer is at beckon call to set them straight (and make boatloads of cash for himself/herself).

Don't ever worry about offending me dude. lol. I deal with poeple like Plaster and Eghad all the time, your Coke Lite compared to them :D

I love a good conversation, and if that turns into a knock down for a wee bit, I can handle that, but a minute later, I could hang out and talk about the ball game, so to speak. I rarely hold a grudge of any kind.

I wear my opinions on my sleeve, I go off on people easily, I'm never wrong, only misinformed.

Other then that, I enjoy our back and forths. You have an intelect at least, I don't agree with a lot of your opinions, but your not an idiot, so don't worry about offending me, I just hope I don't offend you.

Native Americans are a sore spot with me, as a large chunk on my Moms side is Cheroke, and I heard a lot of stories from my Moms Dad about growing up a half breed with an Indian Mom and a white Dad. Couple generations before that I had relatives run out of the state for living with an Indian woman as his wife. Had some relatives lynched for living with a black woman. Literaly had relatives on both sides of the Civil War.

Also grew up around a large Indian population in the Northern Michigan area, saw a lot of descrimination, a lot from friends of mine, who were raised that way. Still see it.

But I'm not prefect either, I know too many racist jokes, and I've said and laghed at too many of them. I just do the best I can.

But as far as Native American are concerned, they are, by all definitions, a conquered people living in an occupied land. Every single major treaty ever made with the American government has been broken or changed to their detrement.

I agree that there is a point that we need to let go of the past and get on with the future, but pretending certain things didn't happen isn't necesarily the best way to do it. There has to be some reconciliation.

It's easy for the white in me to say hey, that was long ago, let it go already, move on. But then, I'm not the one letting it go, my people won. It's a little different, I imagine, when your the one being asked to move on.

There are more then a few people still alive now that grew up hearing first hand from the parents how it used to be. In fact, there's still more then enough of it going on now, all over the place. And please, the argument of that's the way people are don't cut it for me, that's not an excuse, that's rationalization.

The Jews have a saying "never forget". There's some wisdom in that. We forget the past, how it was, we hazard going back to it.

Hm, havn't ranted for a while, heh :D

[sj_hurst]

I understand your perspective very well. My mother and most of her family are from Ohio, so I'm not a redneck pure breed. lol
And I've no doubt that many of my relatives fought on both sides in the Civil War. Of course, tracing my lineage further back, those ancestors fought each other as well. I have Irish, English, German, Polish, a little Spanish, and maybe some Jew (maybe a blend, German/Jew from Germany) in my heritage that I know of. Just about all of those races have had major conflicts with one another at various times in history. Granted, my ancestors from Germany migrated out of Germany long before WWII so even if they had some Jew in them, none of them were persecuted by the Nazis. Regardless, I still hate what the Nazis did to people, and most of all I hate what they did to Jews. I have no doubt that they were cruel to my Polish ancestors. Know any good Polish jokes? hehe BTW, one of my best friends while I was growing up is 1/4 Cherokee. This is cliche, but it's a small world. All the more reason we should get along and be quick to forgive each other. Right? Yeah, I also agree that the past should be remembered, but I don't believe in holding grudges either, like you. Well ok, I don't believe in holding grudges against entire races just because they have a dirty history either. IMO, all peoples have ancestors who've done rotten things. Even the African peoples dealt in the slave trade. In fact, they were doing it before the white men adopted it. If you study history, you'll see that slavery was very common among races (in biblical times). That's not justification for American history in the slightest, but it shows us that just about every race has "cobwebs in its closet" (meaning past/history). Albeit, most of what happened in the past is unknown, hence history only shows us a few pieces of our past (if we consider the grand scheme of the past, and prehistory). Fact is, white men developed writing late in the game. I'm pretty sure that the Jews and Arabs knew how to write long before European races discovered (or copied) it. Of course, even the Asians (Chinese at least) had it before Europeans did. Don't worry, just about every race was the "first" at something.

OT, but I shall divulge a little more info on this subject. Based on the evidence found by Anthropologists and Archeologists, the Europeans invented the wheel. Also, Native Americans (Mayans and Aztecs) invented some math before the Europeans (such as the concept of 0 and negative numbers). But the Europeans later discovered/invented this math, and did so independently long before they made contact with Indians/Native Americans. It's just that some of the Indians made certain discoveries centuries before. Why did their more advanced civilizations collapse, one might ask? No one knows for sure, but the latest theory suggests that there was an extreme long-lasting drought and subsequent starvation. Can't blame global warming on that one, heh? ;)

[Blindf8th]

Hurst,
/agree

Its amazing how knowone seems to point out the facts in your short Novel. I haven't dived head first in a lot of it, but referencing to slavery ect its so true. Those times were easy... You either slaughtered an entire clan after winning a battle, let them go knowing you would fight them again, or sell them off for the cash knowing that they will never be able to fight back again. History, what a beautiful thing or bad, whatever your stance might be...

Droop <word>

[opus512]

I don't see where I said I was for holding a grudge. I just don't see where it's productive to disregard entire chunks of history because they are inconvenient. Just because you remember the past doesn't mean you hold a grudge.

I also know that other tribes dealt in slavery, but that doesn't excuse it.

Anyway, it is interesting looking at South American cultures that were so far ahead of Europe. The Mayans were especialy cool, and also pretty nasty.

Eurpoe did, of course, have that little pause known as the dark ages, heh, so that slowed them down a wee bit. But then look at the Egyptians, they were way ahead of the Europeans as well.

History should be remembered and learned from, used as an example. Unfortunatly, too often, like most all the time heh, we forget it and ignore it.

[Blindf8th]

I AGREE WITH YOU OPUS :yb:

Droop <I hungry>

[opus512]

Originally posted by Malachi
I AGREE WITH YOU OPUS :yb:

Droop <I hungry>

About remembering history or what? I want to be clear on what so I can write it down :P :D ;)