My dad is a cop. He always taught us daughters which neighborhoods to avoid due to their high crime rates. He said some of the people who live there think the world owes them, so they take. He never believed the color of the skin had anything to do with outcome or behavior. He believed the difference was circumstances, education, upbringing, and opportunity.
If you believe skin color does determine outcome, then you seem to agree with the critical race theory. I personally believe in helping to create opportunity for all, but never dictating outcome. Everyone is responsible for their own outcomes. After all, the threat of negative outcomes (like starving, going to prison, not having shelter, etc) is what motivates all people to educate themselves, work hard, and respect others. It is no different for people of color than it is for whites.
I would like to see nonprofits assisting low-income neighborhoods to develop after-school programs (with food, tutoring, sports, and job training). They could make it self-propetuating, where the beneficiaries of the program successfully graduate, get jobs, then volunteer for a couple years...or donate. The job training could include construction skills, too, where the apprentices help repair and upgrade houses in the neighborhood. Liability insurance would need to be donated for the job training part of the program.
Until these type of programs are implemented, though, I still avoid neighborhoods with high crime rates, cuz I know my chances are high of being harmed there...as proven by crime-rate statistics. But, I do not associate skin color with high crime rates.
Our real problem is no-go-zones. Every person within our borders should be required to follow our laws, regardless of their belief systems. We are really at risk around extremists whose ideology allows them to murder, rape, assault, and limit the rights of others.
Dude we dumped money into Baltimore education and they still can't read. I'm not waiting a 100 years for these people to come around. This is about skin color
I am pretty sure the Baltimore donations never made it to the neighborhoods. It was good that Trump helped expose the way the Baltimore leaders laundered the money. He took a hit on the nose for doing it, but like many of his controversial tweets, it drew attention to a corruption.
But, if the money had reached the Baltimore neighborhoods, and still nothing changed, then I would see your point.
You're alright. Nice way of talking
critical race theory is a red herring intentionally crafted for the purpose of making people ignore their instincts.
blacks are not subhumans because their skin is dark, their skin is dark because they are subhumans. they have visibly less brain volume, because evolution rarely favors intelligence in tropical regions where food is easy to obtain year round.
If you believe skin color does determine outcome, then you seem to agree with the critical race theory.
No. Believing that blacks achieve less in a white majority society because there is structural white supremacy is not the same as recognizing that the genetic differences between races result in behavioral differences and not only in differences of physical appearance or disease susceptibility.
He believed the difference was circumstances, education, upbringing, and opportunity.
We have all been trained to believe this religiously, to accept this idea as truth and to ignore the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Different groups of humans have evolved different strategies for survival because they have lived in different environments for hundreds of thousands of years. Cold climate societies have evolved very risk averse strategies to survive long harsh winters with little available food. People who didn’t plan ahead died off in those places.
Heavy agriculture throughout much of eurasia over the last 8000 years brought about a whole new set of selection process for concepts like private property.
Hunter gatherers and people who have lived continuously in hot climates have behavioral traits that made sense for them over the millenia. These traits have a genetic basis. They tend to be higher levels of violence among males, higher levels of promiscuity, lower male parental investment, weaker concept of private property, and in general a more “opportunistic” strategy of survival. These traits made sense in their environments, which weren’t England.
It is hard especially for Christians to accept that some values are not universal. It is hard to accept that blacks do not have the free will to “act better” when they are given the same caring and nurturing as whites. But we as a society have given blacks more than there fair share of opportunities and we end up with the same result. They are still violent and reckless in their behavior compared to whites and the subsidies that whites continually give them is only incentivizing them to become more aggressive beggars. They need to be left alone to work out their own shit. No amount of christian charity or education will fix the difference that is biological in nature. The most violent and impulsive whites were culled from our population over 50, 000 years. That did not happen to them.
Here’s a really good essay by a guy who lived and taught in africa for several decades. It is not a mean-spirited article— it just discusses some cognitive differences that he noted over the years between blacks and whites
Morality and Abstract Thinking:
Thanks for the thoughtful and informative reply.
No problem. I hope you read that article.
100 percent. My best friends growing up were not white. Color of skin doesn't . San Jack shit - but genetics IS the hand that deals your the cards. Sooooooooooo
50/50
Thanks. Yea. I raised adopted kids from 3 different sets of parents. Genetics sure determines a lot. The environment didn't seem to have as much influence as did genetics.
(post is archived)