Bront's Forums

I find it funny you still haven't answered My question as to what you do believe racism to mean.  I think I will start putting that question into every post I make here until you answer it.  However, I will endeaver to respond without it;
Although I agree with the last statement, the other point is very wrong.  Anger does indeed cloud ones judgement, however it does not alter what one believes.  For example; do you stop believing in God when you become angry?  Do you believe the sky to be red instead of blue when you become enraged?  Of course not.  Becoming angry does not in any way make one racist, nor does it lead to racism.  It can only let out what you already believe, it cannot put something there that does not exist.  Do you not see this?
The thing is that justifiable escalation is not a gun law, it is a part of law that falls under self defense, and I was not aware that that could change from state to state.  I thought self defense was uniform.  Even if it is not however, I can only base my reaction to what happened in Jena according to what I know.  Just because I am unaware of a difference that was never stated in the shotgun situation, does not make me racist.  It does not mean I am using what I know as a cover for a racist response as you say.  In fact, If the law is different, and I knew it, I would have thought nothing of it when I heard about the situation with the shotgun.  In fact, I probably would have commented on the stupidity of the person reporting it for not doing their homework and not seeing there was no violation present.  Again you are reading into the situation what you want to believe rather than trying to get out of it what is really happening.  I am not using an ignorance of the law to excuse any racism on my part.  (if anything, I am guilty of lazy investigation. instead of looking into these things myself, I posted here to get the missing puzzle pieces that I thought others here might have, and tried to carry on a conversation without all the facts.  That doesn't make me racist.  It makes me lazy.  But I knew that already)  You need to open your eyes, and look at things in whole, rather than just what you are partitioning off to see.  If I became aware of a difference in the law, than I could understand why nothing was done, and would see my original thought was in error.  However that has not happened, and according to what I DO know of the law, something is not right.  And it was reported on, I remember reading about it and commenting on it in this very thread.  And if you were right, and I was covering up racism on my part, this situation would show I was racist against white people.  You know I am white right?  Do you truly believe this to be true?  And you called this point your most concrete?  Does that mean your other ones are less concrete?  Thats kinda dissapointing.There was a lot there I was not aware of.  Yet, the situation if it were in Michigan instead of Alabama, would still be all wrong.  You said yourself, if your attacker has a knife, and you cannot escape, and you have reason to be afraid for your life, you could indeed bust a coupla caps in his ass.  However, the black guy was unarmed, and the white guy, ran away, he could have escaped, but instead went to retrieve his shotgun.  By what you yourself have told me, according to Michigan state law, the situation would still be the same there as in Jena.  Unless there is something I do not understand about Justifiable escalation in Michigan.

Well, I think you have failed to back up a single point you have made in your last post.  Unless there are further puzzle pieces that you have that I do not that allow you to see racism in me that I do not.  Could you do better?  I mean really try this time?  Maybe put some thought behind it too?  Also, it will help your cognitive abilities if you try to step away from the situation mentally, and instead of trying to read racism into things where there may be none, try to get out the truth of the situation based soley on what is present.  When gaps are present, it is dangerous to start filling the holes with unjustified assumptions of racism just because you believe it to be there anyway,  that is clouding the outcome, its tainting the results, and thus you are jumping to incorrect conclusions.  The heart of exegetic reasoning is to draw conclusions based soley on what is present, without reading into it what you want to read in it.  Its a difficult concept for some to grasp, I believe however that you are more than capable of not only understanding this but can become quite proficient in its use.  You know, now that I have become less angry, I have found it a lot easier to post this time.  I'm actually looking forward to your next response.  Please take my sarcasm with a grain of salt.  It is difficult to turn off.  Even though I am puzzled by it, I appreciate your patience so far, in reading my posts.

Thats pretty much what I said a couple of pages back.  To which you responded, you don't go by the dictionary definition, because by that not even you would be racist.  So, could you elaborate a little, for now I'm very confused.  I asked what definition of racism you go by and you gave me the dictionary definition.   

I don't believe that to be so.  I've never in all my experiences, ever witnessed or experienced an incident where anger prevented one from seeing their own mistakes, or clouded their minds to the point of altering their beliefs.  I don't think anger has ever clouded my judgment, only removed the barriers of niceties with the people around me.  Perhaps If I had at least seen an exaple once, I could lend some creedance to that claim.  But it seems to be 100% opinion and zero fact.  Although I could hardly argue with the last  sentence in that statement, clouded judgment could probably lead to just about anything, I would think.  I don't even think in a fit af rage would my judgment be impared so as to allow what I believe to be altered.  This is shear conjecture on my part though, as I have never experienced one myself to base a sure statement off of.  So I could be wrong there.  On what do you base your opinion here on?

Here is the thing you don't see, When things go wrong, and I'm usually at fault, the idea of shifting the blame onto others is there, however, no matter how hard I try, I always know that I was the one to blame.  Simply shifting the blame to another race wouldn't alter the fact that I know it was me, so as hard as I may try, it never altered what I believed to be true.  Therefore, I can't see the logic in blaming another race for my problems.  Yeah sure I vent on stupid people, they usually deserve it.  That doesn't make me racist.  Nor could it ever.  Every race has its fair share of stupid and smart people, it has nothing to do with race.  I don't have any group to blame for my difficulties in life, its usually my own fault.  I don't think your statement of it being easy to just transfer all that to a group can be justified.  Anger has never lead to racism, only allowed it to come out.  I'm sorry, but if its not there in the first place, its not comming out no matter how angry the person is.I certainly felt that way.  And nobody had any answers.  It could be that the info is just not out there.
I didn't know the law changes depending on which store you are in front of.  I don't think that is in the books in Illinois.  This info would have been handy at the beginning of the thread, it may have helped prevent a lot of jumping to unfouded conclusions on my part. 
There is just too much information missing to speculate here.  Maybe it wasn't loaded when he grabbed it and before he could finnish loading it it got taken away.  I do not onw a gun, yet even I know, that there is a big difference in pulling the trigger while hunting, and pulling the trigger with somone standing on the other end.  Maybe he just didn't have the gonads.  It could have been anything.  We just don't know.
But then there is this:Woah, stop right there.  This is new info for me.  In the version I read there was no contact with the authorities until the guys brought the gun to the police.  This is a significant deviation of fact from what I was operating under.  This would indeed change the whole picture if it were true.  Where did you read this version?  I admit that if the police arived on the scene and nobody mentioned a gun, until a couple days later, than the police would have no reason to look at the white guy for any violation.  (he probobly didn't have the gun legally and therefor said nothing)  Which would have lead to the police having a couple of guys coming in a couple days later with a firearm they "neglected" to mention when questioned on scene.  I would admit that looks very incriminating, and had I had this information at the beginning, I would have come to a completely different conclusion.  Yet, I however do not see how this makes me racist.  If I am operating under a bias (which I don't believe I am) than what bias would that be?  That I am biased toward the white person always is guilty of the crime?  Are you for real?  There is just no connection.  You are going to have to try harder.I have to admit that my opinion now would be very different than before based on what you have told me.  I was never under any false vision of the other guys (or thugs as you say) not being guilty of wrongdoing in this case, however, from what I read, it looked like the white guy had actually broken laws and gotten away scot free, with the polices' full knowledge.  It now looks like the white guy, if guilty of anything, hid it well enough from the authorities and the black guys for some reason didn't call him out on it, wanting to keep quiet about the shotgun, therefore the police would have had nothing (without a gun) more than a case of public disturbance or something, hardly a reason to haul everybody down town.  Again, I don't see where my judgment is or was couded.  Did I operate under false information?  Sure.  Did I jump to a wrong conclusion?  Sure.  Does that me me racist?  How?  I would have assumed the same outcome based on what I knew no matter the races involved.  There is just no justification to say I'm racist here.  Where is there evidence?  Where?
I freely admit to a lot of speculation as well, but I'm not calling you racist because you assumed the white guy was innocent and the thugs were the only guilty party based on what you knew.  I can see the big picture.  Can you?  My judgment has never been clouded, is yours?  How you respond here will prove it.Not necessarily.  Although if your account of what happened with the shotgun is right, this would definately remove this case off of the table as evidence of racism on the part of the authorities, and does take away some of its steam.  However,, need I remind you, just because there is no racism in this one case doesn't mean that there is no racism anywhere else on the part of the authorities.  I believe each individual case should be examined in its own light.  I am well aware there may not be racism on the part of the authorities.  But I would find it hard to believe, from everything I've read so far, that there was no racism whatsoever involved with the Jena six.  Again, I admit there is a slim chance I could be wrong.  But according to what I have read thus far, that would not be the conclusion I arrive at, based on what I know, as of right now, at least.

Opinions? 

I can relate.  Although not so much this week.   

Just a quick aside for a moment, Bryant Purvis one of the jena 6, has a new set of assualt charges pending in Texas.  Seems this was just a school yard fight, but it will be bad for the plea bargain process his lawyer is in the middle of back in Jenna. 

So moving on to the shotgun angle.  When I look at 'news' on the internet, staying with the more credible sources, CNN, FOX, AP, ABC, NPR, etc...
I can still get a wide range of information.  The weapon is anything from a sawed off shotgun to a rifle.  The white boy ambushed the three blacks or the three black chased the white.  The white boy was at the party where Bailey was beaten, and taunted him about it.   The white boy wasn't at the party.   The blacks were arrested on the spot when the police showed up, or they were arrested the next day (sometimes they just say 'later').  Most news doesn't say were the shotgun is when the police show up, which as you know has been a point of confusion for me.  I found one story that said bailey took the gun home with him.  I believe that story, because it was clearly advocating for Bailey, it doesn't help Bailey to say he took the gun home, so I believe the writer more than someone who presents only one side.

Here is my point, why do we know about the shotgun?  Because there is a point of view that is trying to build the case that whites are not charged with crimes and blacks are charged far beyond any crime they commit.  The problem is the evidence for this point of view falls apart under any scrutiny.  Bront has listed some officials that say racism is a problem in Jena, and for him it seems that's good enough.  That's a far cry from the whole picture.  Far more officials and people in position to know say the opposite, that the only problem is the national media.   

The pivotal piece for me is these boys, the jena 6 are not victims, they are the problem.  The leaders all have criminal records.  They have violent histories.  They deserve harsh treatment by our criminal justice system, because probation has not worked, the juvenile court system has not worked, the next step is to put them through the system as adults. 

BUT...

This is my point of view.  One can read, in sources that should be reliable the opposite point of view.

The Jena 6, football stars, have their chance to go to college ruined by Jim Crow justice.  These poor boyes one beaten at a 'white' party with beer bottles, and threatened by a white with a shotgun.  The jena 6 charged with murder for a school yard fight.  Threatened by a DA 'that can ruin their lives with a stroke of his pen.'   Going to school were nooses are hung from trees.  These are the Heroes that inspire rallies of 30,000 people.

So one could claim either story, depending on bias. 

So when I see you write:


I'm not surprised. 

Before I start this point, let me say I'm flawed, I have blind spots, I use discussion as a way to view things I can't see for myself.  I mean no insult when I delve into areas reserved for the 'hot bed' forum.  I assume I am influenced by race, and I have bias.  This makes me think about my reactions and my conclusions.  It makes me more aware of the racial reasoning at play. 

In our text book definitions, unreasonable hate based on race is racism.  One defense against this would be to simply not hate, then one could not have unreasonable hate, and certainly not unreasonable hate based on race.  I'm sure you can already see where I'm going, but hang in there, and let me explain.

You've said that racial taunting is a crime worthy of capital punishment.  I disagree, and think it unreasonable.  If a black calls me 'cracker' it is a capitol offense?  Not even if he taunting me with worse words could it be a capital offense.  If you disagree, you've set an unworkable precedent.  A true racist could provoke a racial taunt and have a person of another race killed under this taunting 'hate crime' world view.  It is not reasonable or workable.  Even though you hate racial taunting it is not reasonable to kill someone for it.

So you have an unreasonable hate based on race.  If it most often will be displayed against your own race, that does not excuse the racism of it. 

If true, then it would also explain the filter where some of what I've said seems like new information, but it is not.  It would explain this. 


I wrote my account from memory, knowing that you would question some aspect of it.  I could then research that aspect and see my blind spot through another point of view.   Both the police arrested them right away and the police arrested them later accounts can be found in media which should be reliable.  I think at this point, there is enough information that you could do your own analysis, are there blind spots and bias?  I don't think it would do any good to try to be more specific.

In the one version I read, it stated that there was a confrontation in front of a convienience store that led to the the one guy being chased and he ran and retrieved his shotgun.  Whether it was a shotgun or any other firearm I don't think the law would differ on the situation, although I could be wrong.  There is a lot about gun law that I don't even know in my own state, let alone Alabama.  At any rate, No matter how the confrontation began, my understanding of the self defense laws would make this an illegal act.  And in the version that I read, had stated that when the other guys disarmed the guy with the shotgun, they fled the scene.  Although it said that both sides were questioned and witnesses testimonies were taken, it did not specify when.  I was under the assumption that the guy would have explained the situation and having illegally threatened with the shotgun, the police were unscrupulous in overlooking such a blatent fact.  Yet, it seems that there are just as many conflicting versions of what happened here that it seems impossible to assertain what happened with even a close probability of accuracy.  If the guy never mentioned the gun, and the guys who took it weren't there to explain what happened, than all of a sudden appeared in the police station the next day with a shotgun (maybe the first guy had a stolen shotgun, and therefor never said anything about it.  Leaving the other guys holding the stolen property, with the first guy denying any involvement with the shotgun.)  which would basically surprise the authorities and I could then reason the charges of theft of a firearm, armed roberry and whatever else to be not too far fetched.  The problem is, whithout seeing the police report, we will probably never know what really happened.  I was expecting there to be more information available when I started this thread.  Oh well.
I don't see where any evidence here falls apart under scrutiny.  I see the truth being so muddled that its rendered impossible to prove either side, which in itself is strange.  Here is an interesting thought.  If there was truly no wrongdoing on the authorities part, why not just come out and set the record straight as to what happened.  Than there would be no basis for the other sides arguement.  If there was wrongdoing on the part of the authorities, why was no action taken by anybody?  Why is everything so muddled up?  It is frustrating.  The truth should not be so difficult to get at, yet it seems that there is no one able to set things straight.  It kind of looks like a dead point to me.

Now, you keep making this same arguement and I would like you to see the flaw in it.  You keep repeating that the Jena 6 are thugs, that they are the problem and that the book should be thrown at them.  Well, I agree that they are thugs, and that thier violence should catch up to them and the book should be thrown at them when they break the law.  However, just because they are thugs, does not mean that they are guilty of everything that they will be accused of.  Just because they are thugs doesn' mean they can't be a victom of a crime as well.  I think the law should be invoked in a fair manner based on each situation on its own merit, and when it comes to sentencing, than you start taking into account past records.  Just because someone has commited a crime in the past, holds no bearing on whether someone commited a crime now.  The evidence right now needs to be examined, you can't say in a court of law,"but Judge, he was guilty before.  Therefore you must find him guilty of this crime now.  Look at the evidence of his past crime.  He is a bad man.  You must sentence him for this one too."  To me this all seems overly obvious, and I am shocked that you see it differently.  Perhaps you have some missing puzzle pieces here, that would shed some light into the inner workings of why you take an opposing view here?This is the point I was trying to make in my previous paragraph.  Because they are thugs, you have automaticaly ruled out the posibility that any wrong doing could have been commited against them.  Or if there was, It is irrelevent because the targets are thugs, and therefore not deserving of the protection of the law like others are.  My viewpoint is that the law does not change based on who is being targeted.  It is applied equally to everyone, or at least it should be.  I can see your racism surface in this here because it is clouding your judgement in looking at each on a case by case basis.  The non-racist way to view this, the way I would look at these, is to examine each of them by themselves, and come to a judgment based on what happened for each one, not letting the outcome of one of them cloud my decision of any of the others.  Now, I admit I know very little about each of these cases, but I will endeavor to shed at least a small spark of thought provoking information that I have come accross, which may be accurate, or it may not be.  Feel free to elaborate on any or all of the following;
Yes their college chances have been ruined (and I didn't even know that they were on a football team) yet they hospitalized a kid in what could only be described as a gang style beating.  Yes, one of these boys was beaten while trying to enter a "white" party, where he was denied entry and beaten for his persisntance, yet, the community vehemently says there is no racial problems in Jena, it is all the media.  Yes, one was theatened with a shotgun, yet the truth of the matter is so muddled its impossible to get to the bottom of it.  The jena six were charged with attemped 2nd degree murder for a schoolyard fight, which was based on the grand jury ruling that the boys' shoes were deadly weapons in order for the charge to even be considered.  If this were an everyday happenstance in court proceedings, no one would have a leg to stand on as anyone with any connection to law would just blow this idiocracy out of the water before it got a chance to go beyond a small blurb in the local newspaper.  But the fact is that this type of thing does not happen all the time in our legal system.  A fact the people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton use to their advantage, if they had no foot to stand on here, they would have fallen on their asses a long time ago.  Yet they have not.  Some kids were threatened by a DA that he could ruin their lives, but in the wake of what happened, there should have been a stronger reaction from the school than a lecture from a DA.  IMO.  Yes nooses were hung at a school from the "white tree", and yet Jena says there is no racial issues there, only problems caused by the media.  And yet, you sarcastically refer to them as heroes.  Signifying that they can only be considered heroes, or thugs guilty of everything ever leveled against them.  You fail to realize that the truth is somewhere in between.  They will likely never live up to my definition of what a hero is, and yet, I am sure they will not be guilty of every single thing that is ever accused of them.  Yep.  They are thugs.  That should not be allowed to cloud your judgment in seeing each individual case that they are involved in to the point that you look past the facts involved just to get the book thrown at them at the earliest possible time.  Should they be convicted of attempted murder now because we know they will commit it eventually any way and we might as well prevent it by getting them with it now?  After all they are thugs right?  That seems to be what you are proposing.  Actually the word hate does not appear in the definition of racism.  You do not have to feel hate in order to be racist.  However, If you believe you do, please elaborate, as it will help me in understanding by what definition of racist you go by.

Ok, let me clarify.  I'm not saying it should be, or will be, a capitol offense.  But neither is it unworkable.  I'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong.  No one could use words alone to get me to make a racial slur that would end up getting me killed by my own "taunting hate crime world view."  Its just never going to happen.  I'll agree, that under torture, in order to stop the pain at any cost, I'd probobly say just about anything.  But saying it doesn't mean I believe it in that instance.  Similarly, If someone threatend the well being of those I loved, I'd similarly say just about anything in order to secure their safety.  But again, in those circumstances, just because I say something, doesn't make it true.  I'm telling them whatever they want to hear in order to stop the pain/save those I love.  Words alone could NEVER get me to participate in racism, and I challenge you to try to prove me wrong.  Yes, making it a capitol offense may be unreasonable, but I can say with all honesty that I would not loose any sleep over it.  None at all.  I prefer to think of it as a harsh response.  And I don't believe harsh is always a bad thing.  Some things need to be met with a harsh response.  And I believe racism is one of those things.  There is no reason behind racism, therefor it stand that not much reason is needed to combat it.  Racists are not known for their reason, and violence is usually among one of their prefered tools.  It stands to reason that force is going to be neccessary in order to combat it.  I have come to grips with this a long time ago.  I'm willing to fight fire with fire.  An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.  Sometimes this is the only way to get to racists.  Hopefully those ones end up dead before they hurt someone else.  I believe we should be held accountable for what we say.  Now, if God holds us accountable for our tongues, and what we say can wind us up in Hell, which is a far worse fate than being convicted and killed for it, it would seem that you don't have much of anything to stand on here, IMO.  Ok, here is where your folly truly comes to light.  You are soo biased in your view of racism that when you see a situation where a white guy pulls out a gun on an unarmed black attacker, and I think there is something wrong with the white guy walking away without any legal consequences, You see it no other way than I must be racist against white people.  That is such a huge load of bologna.  Pahleese!  I really wish you had a chance to know me, to see how ludacris that statement is.  Yes.  I am racist against white people.  We are an inferior breed of human.  All others are superior to us.  We are not fit to lick the boots of the black/asian/hispanic/middle eastern people.  I wish I was born one of them so I could be superior too.  Michael Jackson is my hero.  No wait.  He is trying to become more white.  Never mind.  (*sarcasm* in case you couldn't tell)
I'm not sure how to counter that statement, other than with sarcasm, because it is just so stupid.  I'm sorry to resorting to that word again, But I have no other word to describe it. 
If you truly believe I have an unreasonable hate against white people, please back up your accusation with something concrete, so I can blow it out of the water and we can move on to better topics of discussion.  I would like to waste as little time as possible on this worthless tangent. Actually, after our last part of our discussion, I feel there is not enough information for an analysis to be rendered.  All the information is contradictory and there is no way to tell what really happened.  The exact events are required in order to tell if any particular law was broken or not, and whether or not the police knew something or not or were just in the dark to the whole thing.  At least from what you told me, thats pretty much where I stand right now.  So are there blind spots?  Yeah, the whole thing is a massive blind spot.  Is there bias?  I don't think so.  Is there racism on my part here?  Most definately not.  If you still believe there is, your going to have to do better at explaining your point of view, because I don't see it yet.

Well, its almost 3am and a have to work tomarrow.  A short day thankfully.  However my kinds will be waking up early no matter how long I may wish to ramain dormant.  G'night again. 

Here are some more specific points of divergence.


I think this shows your racism.  I think if they were white boys, you would be able to set aside your blinding hate.  Instead I'll repeat, no one with any knowledge of the law was worried about the 2nd degree attempted murder charge.  Before the national media ever reported on the Jena 6, the first arraignment had already caused the charge to be dropped, and from those proceedings it was clear the charge would be dropped for the others.  That charge never went to a higher court.  The higher court ruled on conspiracy and aggravated assault.  The court vacated the aggravated assault, and ruled without the aggravated assault charge the boy should go to Juvenile Court. 



Again your hate blinds you.  I recall a man named Simpson who was charged with 1st degree murder, he was found innocent in criminal court and later found quilty of wrongful death in civil court.  This idiocy was not blown out of the water in any court and I assert it was well beyond a blurb in the local media. 
For the Jena 6 Money and national attention corrupted the courts far worse than the racism problem. 



I repeated the talking points of a point of view I don't agree with.  I can see where that could be sarcasm, but the reason I did it was not for a sarcastic effect, but to show I am aware of the other point of view.  It was to consider another point of view, not belittle it. 

So again we start from the same point.  We agree they are thugs and they don't fit our personel definition of Hero. 

One quick aside, why say 'my definition' of what a hero is, shouldn't the text book definition work?

Anyway, from that common starting point, we turn in opposite directions.  I say due process, you chant 2nd degree attempted murder charges are unfair.  I ponder the points of law that place them in the Adult court system, you don't seem aware of what the points are.  Truly, which of us looks past the facts?

Sorry.  You double posted before I had a chance to respond.  There was quite a bit for me to respond to.
Both.
My point was that anger does not always lead to the ends which you were stating.  In fact, with the right heart, anger can even be a beneficial thing.  It doesn't always cloud ones judgement.  There is a difference between "anger", and "fits of rage" or "blind rage."  It seems that you now agree.
I can relate.  And I can't exactly explain why.  Its just one of my buttons, it really rubs me the wrong way.  Kinda like making fun of the handicapped.  I can't think of anything else that makes me want to punch someone in the face more than those two things.
This is where I don't think we even start off at the same point before diverging in different directions.  To me, it makes little difference if you say 1 in 10 million or 1 in 10 thousand.  If you were to say something more like 1, 2, or 3 in 10 than I would say that sounds more plausable.  I think racism will quite likely always be the majority, And people who don't see race as an issue will be in the minority.  I don't think non racists will ever be a 1 in 2 ratio.  But when you start getting into more than 1 in 20 I think you have an askew view of what racism is, or just plain crazy.  How can you still claim, after admitting that racism is something that is learned and nothing ingrained in us at birth, that only 1 in 10 thousand would reject it?  Your continued stance still confounds me.
I found that amusing that you say that as I am trying to get your definition of racism in order to get more depth of topic out of the discussion.  If I were avoiding depth, why would I still be here?  Because I like the sound of me repeating myself?  Although I think I do have quite a good voice, I can't hear it when I'm using text as the medium of comminication.  And, yes, I would like to argue your accusation that I am racist.  If I wanted to bash someone, I would use a club.  I would indeed use a sword to cut through ignorance, and if I happen to accidentally lop of a couple of limbs in the process, oops.
This is because of what you continue to state.  You say that everyone must transfer hate, and that this must lead to racism.  and therefore everyone is racist.  Now, I'm sure you passed high school geometry and are familiar with "if than".  You set up an equation that said if transferal of hate = racism, and everyone transfers hate, than everyone is racist.  If that were true, than I would agree with you 100%.  However your equation is flawed, and when I tried to point it out, your response was something about not having made a comprehensive thesis on all the paths to racism.  So when you say people transfer hate and this is a road to racism, you are fundamentaly wrong.  Because not all people transfer hate.  Some people do, but not 9,999 in 10 thousand.  I don't transfer hate.  Do you have an example of me doing so?  If not, what is the next road for us to tackle, because you have already said I'm racist, and if its not from transfering hate, what is the next possible road.  If we have to eliminate every single path like this, this is going to take quite a while.  But I'm willing to put in the time and effort to exonerate my name.  I did not assume the shotgun was illegal.  And I agree there is much misinformation.  What I responded to was the fact that the shotgun was pulled on an umarmed individual.  According to what I know of the law (and I admit, this is Illinois, it may be different in Alabama) that is an illegal threat with a firearm.  I read that he ran and got his shotgun in the version I read.  I did not infer any bias or racism in here.  In fact, If i were to have read the exact same report but without any reference of any individuals race, I would have reacted with the same judgement as I did here.  Rather than proving my racism, I think this actually shows a lack of it.   And I freely admit that this scenario might not have been what really happened, but that is irrelavent.  You are accusing me of racism based on my response to what this version said, not what really happened, which we don't even know anyway.  Now, just because you assume that the shotgun is legal, doesn't infer you are racist as well.  Unless you think it was legal because the guy was white.  In which case, I guess that would make you racist.  Now I have to admit, even though I have herd the term before, I'm unfamiliar to what "Jim Crow" justice means.  If you could explain without to large of a tangent, I'd appreciate it.  I'd have to say, that your posts so far, do not appear to be in line with the above statement.  But because it is easy to misinterpret text, I'll give you that.
I would think that if someone stated something false, and than used it to make a huge scandel out of something, it would be easy to refute, and refuted quickly in order to nip the cause in the bud.  But seeing how hard it was for us to try to get the truth out of it, I'm not so sure anymore.  I think we still don't have the whole story in this, so I'm not sure how to respond.  After talking about it, things just don't add up, and I'm left more comfused than when I started.Reading this gave me a chuckle.  Its been a while since I've laughed while reading this thread.  But anyway, here is where you jumped to a false conclusion; The version I read said the guy was chased by an unarmed individual (or individuals, I can't remember) and he went and got his shotgun, which the "thugs" than disarmed him.  It IS a law.  And I KNOW it.  At least it is in Illinois.  Were the journalists overlooking it, or bringing it up for that very reason?  I didn't jump to any conclusion, the text said this in plain black and white, and in Illinois (and I assume in many other states) this is a violation.  The problem is that there could have been any number of mitigating circumstances that would have kept the police in the dark as to what really happened.  The version I read had the "thugs" flee the scene before any police arrived.  If, and I stess if, the shotgun was illegal, then why would the guy report pulling it out on his attackers?  Just because they took it away from him?  I think in that situation it would have been more harmful to him than stayin silent about the shotgun.  If the "thugs" were first questioned when they brought in an illegal shotgun, a shotgun never mentioned before then, it would appear from their perspective that these "thugs" just wanted to procure an illegal firearm and pin it on the white guy, weaving this sob story that they had to disarm him in order to save their own lives.  Than the police came down on them.  I can understand that if it happened like that.  But the fact is, we don't know how it really happened.  Its not that I'm hiding behind the cover of some silly law on the books.  Its just I don't see how we can proceed on this particular topic without knowing what really happened.  Even though you keep bringing up the sawed-off shotgun point, you are the only one that has read that version, and I never thought it was worth responding to.  Why do you feel this is a worthy point of discussion?  Blinding hate?!  What blinding hate?  I do not blindly hate white people.  Nor do I blindly hate black people.  In fact, I don't think I blindly hate anything.  Ok, maybe liver and onions, but they are nasty.  And asperagus.  And brussel sprouts.  And heights.  And spiders, at least the ones big enough to fight back any way.  And squash, escargot, calamari, sushi, pretty much anything tar tar for that matter, meat that still moo's when you try to eat it, etc etc.  Ok, so I concede those points, But does that make me racist?  I'm still waiting for a solid foundation for that one.  If the colors of the boys were transposed in this situation, it would not alter what I thought one bit.  In fact, I'd probably have responded with "what the Hell does Jena have against white people??"  I mean really, you make it sound like no big deal.  I challenge you to this; is there any precident, anyhwere, that has shoes being ruled deadly weapons in order to charge someone with attempted 2nd degree murder?  If there is, than I'll freely admit.based on my lack of legal knowledge, I jumped to a wrong conclusion in Jena.  If not, and there is no precident anywhere in law, than just maybe you might see that there was more behind this than you have thus far admitted to, and there might be cause for my reaction to the information that was presented to me.  However, in either case, how does this show my racism?  If removing race from the equation doesn't alter any thing for me, or flipping races doesn't alter my view, how can this prove any racism whatsoever, except to prove that I am either not racist at all, or I must be racist against everybody?  Which by the very definition is contradictory.  Racism it the belief of the superiority of at least one race obove others.  You can't be racist against every single race, than it would all be equal, then you are not left with racism at all.  Even if you hold to a different definition, how could you finagle your way out of that one?
My hate blinds me again?  Exactly what are you accusing me of hating?  I never followed much of the O.J. Simpson case.  You might as well be talking to me about the history of Barbie dolls or something.  The extent of my knowledge of this case is that the glove didn't fit.  I never knew he was found guilty of anything in any court of law.  How come he never served a sentence for being found guilty?  Or did I just miss it.  And I assumw you classify that situation as idiocy because you know what really happened there, thus giving you the complete big picture.  Perhaps you could enlighten me, for my knowledge of the case is quite lacking.  On second thought, never mind.  I don't see how this would be relevent to the discussion at hand.  It appeared to be a case of a husband murdering his wife, it was never about a black man killing a white woman.  But than again, Because you have the whole big picture, maybe it does have a lot of relevence to the discussion, in which case, please proceed.Gotcha.  That was not evident in the post, and sometimes your foundations are quite wobbly, so I never know where you are coming from.  Here is the thing, even though we may both consider hero to mean the same thing, by its very nature, it does not define for us who we hold up as heroes.  So even though we believe it to mean the same thing, we both will have different heroes in our lives.  You may say that Abraham Lincoln is your hero, where I mihgt say George Washington is my hero.  So who is right.  By the definition which one of us is going to walk away right?  Do you see the point I'm making?

Isn't it?
*Ahem*  Um.  I think I am quite unaware of much in this world.  And what some of the points here are, are probably one of them.  This may make me appear stupid or something, but rather than play along like I know whats going on, I think it always wiser to ask for clarification on points that I do not understand.  I'd rather learn something than not look stupid.  Which is why I kinda started this thread in the first place.  Because I knew next to nothing about the Jena 6.  I don't think I'm looking past any "facts" here.  I mean really, have either of us presented much in the way of facts?  Most of what I've read in this thread has been supposition.  I wanted facts from the get go, and all I gat was the last 6 pages of headache.  Again, how does this make me racist?
On the contrary.  I find that I must cling to my reason all the more in the face of racism.  If I start to rely on feelings, they may mislead me in my objective.  Once my reason has set an objective, I cling to my reson like a 3 year old child clings to a candy bar.  When some one tries to take it away, when reason fails, anger will see me through to the end.  If not, Hell hath not seen vengeance of the likes of a 3 year old who has had his candy bar taken from him.  There is no conflict.  To me it is very cut and dried.  Black and white.  No pun intended.  Its very easy to see.  And very easy to avoid.  Thats why I know 1 in 10 thousand figure is inaccurate. 
We all jump to conclusions.  Thats why I try to jump to logical conclusions.  And when I do, I don't cling to them very tightly, because they are usually based on incorrect or incomplete information. 
I started the thread because I was looking for more information.  And the people in this forum seemed to be more in touch with the world at large than myself, so it seemed like a good idea at the time. 
There is another chuckle.  Well, you have to admit that there is a surprising vacuum where a different point of view from the media is concerned.  So I may be very guilty of what you are saying.  But in my own defense, there was not much else to go on.  Except what I've read here.  And this has been a very slow process.  I never thought I'd be in the running for an Olympic gold medal for anything.  I hope conclusion jumping makes it into the next Olympics.  I thing I may be comming home with the gold.  (You know, if we can't laugh at ourselves, who can we laugh at?)  So again, this leaves me with the point, where does this make me racist?
I have to say, your reasoning seems very flawed, or non existant when it comes to the main topics we are discussing.  I freely admit that I may be operating under false information.  But the conclusions that I've arrived at are not mistaken.  If the basis of what I based my conclusions on changes, it will change my conclusions very quickly, but that does not mean the conclusions are wrong.  I'm not jumping to wrong conclusions, only conclusions based on wrong information.  To me, at least, there is a difference.  Um.  Ok.  Well, I'm trying not to be to sarcastic or abusive here, but, where in the Hell do you get that from?  Are you serious?  Biased against whites?  Avoiding the middle ground?  I have been trying to open up the middle ground for the last couple of posts and you counter with me trying to avoid it?  I'm all ears.  Lets go.  I'm ready to plunge into the depths of whatever you see as the middle ground.  Lets look at bias against whites first.  Nothing sould be easier to refute, or more difficult to prove.  You have your work cut out for you.  I'm ready, and eager. 
Well, I have to say, that where I grew up, and where I live, and where I work, It is a lot more difficult to find, because of the diversity in these places.  You would need to get too nosey to find it.  I have found that I have liked, respected, and even loved those of different races around me, and that would just not be possible if even a shred of racism remained in me.  I've found racism around here to be very infrequent, or well hidden.  Why?  Most people know it to be wrong.  Yet, when I have found it, I have to admit that fear of the law (or more precisely, fear of the consequences) kept me from doing what I really wanted.  Do you cling to something you know to be wrong?  Do you think many other people do?  I don't think it will ever be a finished work in society, but it can be a finished work individually, and thats where we diverge.  And if its not my problem, isn't it by definition, someone elses problem?  Exactly who elected me the bringer of non-racist conformity? 
So, back to the topic at hand.  Do you have any solid foundation for your accusation?  I'm still awaiting a good discussion on this, and I'm waiting for you to deliver. 

So I hope the no response, is not because of some personal emergency, and merely a reaction to my 'stupidity' or perhaps I did manage to make some progress. 

Let me see if expanding the thesis helps or hurts the conversation.  Mere anger alone isn't enough, we both agree.  We also agree that racism is a learned behavior.  I agree it could be unlearned, but I think we mean different things when we say that. 

So let me expand the thesis beyond anger.  What is another component to the recipe of racism?  I think one of the ways the textbook fails us is that 'race' is not a precise term in practice.

according to www.M-W.com race is defined.

a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics

This, if we play with semantics puts you on slippery ground, in that people with the 'stupid' characteristic could be called a race and the case can easily be made for your intolerance of that class of people.  I think this unfair example is reaching for an extreme and simply using a definition to character bash.  Please forgive my momentary example.   

My point rather is that were I in Rawanda, would I even know a Ihuitu (hoo-too) from a Tootsie?  Could I then claim to not be racist because I'm incapable of making the distiction which caused massive genocide in the mid 90's?   No, one instance of blindness to racism does not clear me on any other account. 

But here is another piece of the recipe to Racism, class.  We humans couldn't be racist if we couldn't distiguish class.  Such a simple thing to say.  Such a simple concept, but can anyone do it?  How funny would it be if someone said a brown-eyed person couldn't drink out of the water fountain for blue-eyed people?  We'd laugh at the suggestion.  But it made sense to a majority of americans not all that long ago to make the same distinction based on skin color rather than eye color.  Another piece is by using class people put down others.  So likewise if we simply couldn't put others down, class wouldn't matter.  This is why I hold Mother Teresa was not racist, I think she was so Christ centered, that she was so Serve Others centered, that she didn't notice class distinctions other than to be respectful, and didn't put herself above anyone else. 

Yet even though I know this, even though I practice it and work at it, I fall short.  My observation is most people don't even try, and the rest seem to fall short just like I do.     

Yeah, I lost about 2 1/2 hours of typing when that last one went.  It kinda took the wind from my sails.  I don't look too kindly on doing it again.  This week wasn't so bad.  Only 53.5 hours.  Next week is going to be a doosy.  I may break the 60 hour barrier.  They sent me home early today, we'll see how next week goes.  I agree.  The largest portion of the pie would be ignorance. 
Sure. 
Again sure.  However, it should go without saying that if the differences don't matter than it becomes a moot point.  For instance, a lot of people can't tell the difference from a Japanese and a Chinese person.  I was getting to the point where I could sometimes tell myself because I hung out with a lot of them.  They could tell quickly though.  However, even being able to tell didn't tell me anything about them as a person, so it didn't mean diddly squat to me.  A moot point.
Sounds logical.  However I don't see pecking orders that don't involve race as a bad of a thing.  If you want to pick on people for being fat, go right on ahead.  You may not be considered a nice guy, but perhaps the fat people should loose some weight.  They have a level of control over their lifestyle which would lead to a thinner person.  Picking on someone because they are black, how is that right?  Do they have a choice?  Can they alter their race?  (Michael Jackson excluded)  So I pick on stupid people, perhaps they should learn more.  They have a choice.  Live in ignorance, or learn something.  I would never pick on someone with a mental handicap, thats right up there with racism for me.  They have no coice, no control over their situation.  If they could just pick up a book and read it to stop being hanicaped than wouldn't they all?  But, no such solution exists.  At least as far as I know. 
It would seem we are at an empasse.  (spelling??)

Hmm.  So let me ask you this.  Why do you choose to be racist?  WHY?

I believe that to be a false statement based on what you believe.  Let me explain...
Here is the pivitol difference in our belief structure.  You believe that if you simply observe that someone is of another race, you are racist and already down the wrong path.  That is not only wrong, but ridiculous.  (I'm trying not to use the word stupid, because I don't want to end this discussion on a bad note.  I'd rather end it on a semi good one)  Observing a color, or race, or anything else for that matter dosn't make one racist or anything else.  Racism is not defined as the observation of race, but the belief that stems from the observation.  You cannot choose not to observe someones race, therefor everyone in your eyes is racist, except for the blind and the mentally retarded.  That system is wrong.  I believe I am right, and no amount of persuading is going to alter my belief that racism is a choice to believe something that makes you racist by its definition.  I'm not going to sit here and argue definition with you anymore, you seem to not care less what the word really means.  The fact is you do choose to be racist or not to be racist.  If you continue to believe that a persons race determines who or what they are, what they can or can't do in life, or base their value on it, the fact is you are choosing to be racist.  You may fall short, but it is still your choice.  And it is not difficult to be successful in that choice.  For some, this may be a bigger stumbling block than for others.  For some this will be very easy, for others, this may require constant vigilance in order to maintain.  Personally, I haven't struggled with a racist thought in at least 13 or so years.  I found it very easy to choose to not be racist.  There is nothing I believe any differently about anyone than I do anyone else.  The way I see it is, when we die, our bodies won't be going with us anyway.  Our souls are not physical and there for have no "color" or "Race" and since our soul is who we are, there is no difference in any of us except for each individual is different from each other, unique.  God sees us all the same, so how could I possibly believe that any particular race is superior to any other.  I know for a fact I am not racist.  I'm sorry you choose differently.  I hope one day you will come to see the error of your ways.  Parhaps someone far wiser than me will help aid in attaining this task, but alas, it will not be me.Aint that the truth, but alas, that is a far bigger struggle for me.
That is very true.  But irrelevent to the topic.  I think that about wraps up our differences of opinion when it comes to racism.  I thank you for all your time and patience in posting in this thread.  I have actually walked away with a little better understanding of the Jena 6 than when I started, which was all I really wanted in the first place.
See you at the next con.
T