nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

U.N. says ‘racial terrorism’ against Black people in the U.S. endures

JL2106

United Nations working group of experts has said recent killings of Black people by police officers are reminiscent of 19th and 20th century lynchings, months after a visit to the United States, in which they called for the distribution of reparations.
“Contemporary police killings and the trauma that they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching,” said the report by the U.N. Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent.

Police killings of Black people has become a major talking point in American society over the last couple years, after coverage of multiple high profile cases. This year alone, 195 Black people were killed by police at a rate of 4.88 kills per million people. That makes a Black person more than twice as likely to be killed by police than a white or Hispanic/Latino person and only just behind a Native American.

But with a history so steeped in racial violence, the group said it would take much more than recognizing the effect of state violence. The group railed against the country’s treatment of people of African descent, said that white supremacy is still present in the American population, and called for reparations to be issued to members of the Black community.

“Despite substantial changes since the end of the enforcement of Jim Crow and the fight for civil rights, ideology ensuring the domination of one group over another, continues to negatively impact the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of African Americans today.”

This is a very welcome development in righting the wrongs of the past in the US.

Repatriations can be:

- land
- no taxes
- free college tuition
- business loans specifically available for Black people

All of these things contribute to Black people being able to economically empower themselves, and not rely on system that is traditionally hostile towards non- whites. Hopefully it will be introduced throughout the old colonial European powers too.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

R P McMurphy

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Whenever I hear about the latest black 'victim of police brutality' it's always some drug dealer or crook. I don't get this sudden craze the world has for feeling sorry for scumbags just because they're black.

I have a Facebook friend who is always posting about the American police gunning down poor black men. This is the same person who complains about criminals around here getting away with murder.

Well if you are fine with extra judicial killing then you wouldn't have a problem with it. If you prefer to live in a society where there is due process and people have a right to a fair trial and judicial procedure then you would. Wild west or something bordering on a developed society

Widdershins

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Well if you are fine with extra judicial killing then you wouldn't have a problem with it. If you prefer to live in a society where there is due process and people have a right to a fair trial and judicial procedure then you would. Wild west or something bordering on a developed society

Often is these cases they don't want a fair trial, they want to shoot the police and get away. They're not exactly coming quietly.

orubiru

wes wrote: »

I reckon they should start with not shooting unarmed black men and boys again and again.

Wes, you are making some mistakes with your argument here.

The police in the USA kill men and boys from all different backgrounds. They are killing loads of people.

So, your argument is that they are killing black people at disproportionate rates. This ignores the argument that they should not be killing civilians at all.

Your argument comes down to an acceptance that it's perfectly fine for the police to shoot and kill civilians. So long as the demographics of dead civilians matches the demographics of the nation.

From this point you can only argue that the police should be shooting LESS unarmed black men and boys but you can't argue that they should not be shooting them AT ALL because you are actually demanding proportionate rates of killing. So, it's OK for the cops to kill civilians as long as not more than 13% of the victims are black.

What happens if the cops go through and entire year where they kill 63 white people, 13 black people but they don't kill ANY Asian people? By your logic we should be outraged at these disproportionate levels of killing. Yet, somehow I don't think you'd be making that argument.

So what's your point really? You are apparently arguing that the rates of police killings are disproportionate. I don't see how you can make this argument without saying to the police that it's perfectly fine to kill black people but it's an outrage to kill too many of them.

Using your logic, as long as the cops are killing 63 whites, 17 Hispanic and 6 Asians for every 13 blacks then we are all good here? Why shouldn't the argument be simply that the cops should not be killing anyone at all?

The other massive hole in your argument is that the point about police killing people from certain backgrounds at disproportionate rates is undone if it can be shown that people from those backgrounds may commit crimes at disproportionate rates.

So if we take an example Group A, and say that Group A is 5% of the population, then we can ask some interesting questions.

Q1 - Is Group A being killed by police at disproportionate rates?
Q2 - Does Group A attack or kill police officers at disproportionate rates?
Q3 - Does Group A commit serious crimes such as murder at disproportionate rates?
Q4 - Does Group A commit firearm related offences such as possession of an illegal firearm at disproportionate rates?
Q5 - Do members of Group A commit crimes against other members of Group A at disproportionate rates?
Q6 - Are members of Group A living in impoverished circumstances at disproportionate rates.

Now if the answer to Q1 is a strong and obvious Yes then how does a Yes answer to Q2 to Q6 impact that? No impact at all? Some impact? Significant impact?

I would say that if the answer to Q6 is Yes then the overall question could change and we could be asking ourselves if the police are actually victimising poor people in general.

I may or may not have done the research on this but I would suggest that you do some research of your own to answer the questions. If you are answering "Yes" to Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5 and Q6 then doesn't it seem obvious that the answer to Q1 would be a "Yes" and that this answer could be explained in a way other than "the police are racist"?

You create an impression that the cops start their day thinking "I am gonna go out here and kill me some black people" and when they show up to a crime scene to discover that the shooter is white they are saying "let's take this nice white boy to Burger King". This does not reflect reality.

I'd ask you to have a look at your opinions and your conclusions. Are they logical? Do they make sense? Or are you allowing a sense of outrage to cloud your judgement?

wes

silverharp wrote: »

. At the end of the day most black people are killed by black people who arent cops.

So you comparing the police to criminals...... Big difference between the state and a criminal murdering unarmed people.

wes

ScumLord wrote: »

Is that the case though? I haven't seen statistics, all I hear about is when an unarmed black man is shot. I don't hear how many unarmed white, mexican, chinese people get shot, or how many armed black, white, mexican, etc. get shot.

I am going to go out on a limb here, and say the reason is that it simply doesn't happen as often.

ScumLord wrote: »

Maybe the neighbourhoods where these unprovoked shootings are happening are preceded by a lot of verbal provocation?

If all it takes to set off a cop if verbal provocation, then they shouldn't be cops, and in fact there recruitment system should weed out nut cases like that.

ScumLord wrote: »

Maybe the crimes rates are really high and the police know their entering a neighbourhood where a lot of people are armed and they're just scared.

There country has enough guns for every man, woman and child. Its there culture and should be trained with that in mind.

ScumLord wrote: »

I'll say it again, not for love nor money would I be an American police officer. It's a dangerous country to be a law enforcement officer. If I was dumped into the role right now I'd probably have shot someone by bedtime out of fear.

If there recruitment system is so broken, that they allow people who are unable to do the job, without shooting unarmed people, then it is fundamentally broken. The fact that it seems to be largely unarmed black men and boys being murdered in that manner, just make thing worse.

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not right that ordinary black men instil that much fear in white people. I honestly don't know how America is going to fix it's race issues, it should be long past these kinds of problems, before these shootings I thought America was fairly integrated. Part of me wonders if this is mostly a media storm, with vested interest groups whipping the crowd into a frenzy rather than settling things down.

I think the murder time and again of unarmed men and boys is all that is needed to piss people off, and the attitude of the police about these crimes only exacerbates things. The media isn't to blame for this one, but the guys doing the shooting imho.

wes

orubiru wrote: »

Your argument comes down to an acceptance that it's perfectly fine for the police to shoot and kill civilians. So long as the demographics of dead civilians matches the demographics of the nation.

What an absurd conclusion to come to. FFS, ignoring the racial dimension of the cases we are seeing would simply be silly. Its wrong for the police to murder anyone in cold blood, but they seem to be targeting black men and boys at a far higher rate than anyone else, hence the attention it is getting. To make the assumption that somehow complaining about this disparity is the same as supporting murder by the police as long as they kill all races equally, is a complete and utter absurdity and I have no idea how any reasonable person could possibly come to such a conclusion.

goose2005

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Might have had more to do with his arrest involving him calmly pulling the car over to the side of the road, handing over his ID and admitting who he was rather than a systemic attempt by police to treat white supremacists nicely.

and exactly the same treatment as Lee Boyd Malvo, an African-American mass shooter, because both he and Roof surrendered peacefully.

BrokenArrows

While i dont disagree that racism in the US is a problem and police are a bit trigger happy, most of these unarmed black men getting shot dont help themselves.

A lot (not all!!) of the videos online showing these shootings show that the men are not following the orders of police, are making quick movements, hiding their hands, turning their back.

While he may be unarmed, its impossible for police to know. And in the US the police WILL assume you have a gun unless they can clearly see you dont. So if you reach into your car or your jacket after being told to put your hands up then police will shoot you.

I cant find exact statistics on shootings at all. Seems pretty bad for the US that everything isnt available online.
But if 99% of police black shootings were of armed men and they accidentally shoot 1% then isnt the problem that too many people have guns.

In some states in the US over 60% of people own one or more guns.

Tabnabs

From the original report

That makes a Black person more than twice as likely to be killed by police than a white or Hispanic/Latino person and only just behind a Native American.

So it turns out that more Native American's are being shot by the police than Black people, but what, **** them cause they're only Injuns?

Where are the protest groups, the social media hashtags, the UN studies for the worst affected group? It seems more about politics and flavour of the month than actually helping the worst sections of society.

orubiru

wes wrote: »

What an absurd conclusion to come to. FFS, ignoring the racial dimension of the cases we are seeing would simply be silly. Its wrong for the police to murder anyone in cold blood, but they seem to be targeting black men and boys at a far higher rate than anyone else, hence the attention it is getting. To make the assumption that somehow complaining about this disparity is the same as supporting murder by the police as long as they kill all races equally, is a complete and utter absurdity and I have no idea how any reasonable person could possibly come to such a conclusion.

If they were killing all races proportionately then you wouldn't have any points to make. Your points are all specifically focused on race.

When the racial aspect is removed you have no points.

In my opinion you are taking the stance that the police are killing some civilians at disproportionate rates when you could be taking the stance that the police shouldn't be killing civilians at all.

So I guess my question is if we are saying that we need to get the cops to stop killing people at disproportionate rates BEFORE we can have a discussion about stopping the cops from killing any civilians at all then what's the point?

If we jump straight into stopping police from killing folks from all different backgrounds and solve the issue then we don't have to worry about disproportionate rates of killing as there would be no killing.

Keith Scott, for example, was shot and killed by police on 20th September 2016. There were many protests etc a lot of outrage was expressed.

Were there other people killed by police on that same day? In that same week? In the past month? Do we know their names? Do YOU know their names?

How much of your focus is on race and how much of your focus is on the fact that cops kill too many people?

wes

Tabnabs wrote: »

Where are the protest groups, the social media hashtags, the UN studies for the worst affected group? It seems more about politics and flavour of the month than actually helping the worst sections of society.

U.N. Wraps Up Contentious Study of Native American Communities

There was one done in 2012.

As for social media, people have been supporting Native American activism in regards to protesting the oil pipeline in North Dakota.

wes

orubiru wrote: »

If they were killing all races proportionately then you wouldn't have any points to make. Your points are all specifically focused on race.

That is due to them killing people of one race more than the other.

orubiru wrote: »

When the racial aspect is removed you have no points.

I would have a point, as I would still be talking about the US shooting unarmed civilians. The fact remains that there is a racial aspect to this murders that can't be ignored, as much as you may like it to be.

orubiru wrote: »

In my opinion you are taking the stance that the police are killing some civilians at disproportionate rates when you could be taking the stance that the police shouldn't be killing civilians at all.

I refuse to ignore the racial aspect of this. It would be dishonest to ignore the racial aspect of the murders. The cases we hear about are largely about unarmed black men and boys being killed. This doesn't equal a green light to killing unarmed people of other races.

orubiru wrote: »

So I guess my question is if we are saying that we need to get the cops to stop killing people at disproportionate rates BEFORE we can have a discussion about stopping the cops from killing any civilians at all then what's the point?

If the cops are killing one groups at a far higher rate than another, it speaks to a institutional racism. Ignoring this fact is problematic.

orubiru wrote: »

If we jump straight into stopping police from killing folks from all different backgrounds and solve the issue then we don't have to worry about disproportionate rates of killing as there would be no killing.

Keith Scott, for example, was shot and killed by police on 20th September 2016. There were many protests etc a lot of outrage was expressed.

Were there other people killed by police on that same day? In that same week? In the past month? Do we know their names? Do YOU know their names?

How much of your focus is on race and how much of your focus is on the fact that cops kill too many people?

Kind of hard to not focus on the race of the victims, when it is largely one group at the receiving end of murderous violence at the hands of the police. Basically, you want to pretend there is no racism inherent in what is going on, and sweep it under the carpet. Of course all killing of unarmed people should be stopped, but to ignore that one group is on the receiving end of this violence far more than other would be stupid.

Then, the 2nd fact is that BLM are the one most vocal about this, as there communities are the ones on the receiving end. Asking the to ignore the fact that there being targeted more than anyone else would be absurd.

JL2106

There are only around 5 million Native Americans and those who claim to be Native American left. They made up about 2 percent of the total population in 2014. Very difficult for a small group so widely dispersed to campaign and protest their mistreatment.

Tabnabs

wes wrote: »

U.N. Wraps Up Contentious Study of Native American Communities

There was one done in 2012.

As for social media, people have been supporting Native American activism in regards to protesting the oil pipeline in North Dakota.

So the report has been done (was record number of shootings by LLE referenced at all, not in that link?) and can sit on a shelf somewhere and time to move on? Either they are sincere in wanting to help the community worst affected by gun violence or they want to get aboard the #BLM political campaign. It smacks of political manoeuvring that the Native American killings gets such a cursory mention. After all, they are the highest impacted group.

The social media campaigns for Native American (and Canadian First Nation ) rights go way beyond the Dakota oil pipeline issues BTW.

wes

Tabnabs wrote: »

So the report has been done (was record number of shootings by LLE referenced at all, not in that link?) and can sit on a shelf somewhere and time to move on? Either they are sincere in wanting to help the community worst affected by gun violence or they want to get aboard the #BLM political campaign. It smacks of political manoeuvring that the Native American killings gets such a cursory mention. After all, they are the highest impacted group.

The UN can't do anything for either group. A report is about all you will get from the UN. The US has a UNSC veto, so they are toothless in regards to them.

Tabnabs wrote: »

The social media campaigns for Native American (and Canadian First Nation ) rights go way beyond the Dakota oil pipeline issues BTW.

Yes, I am well aware of that. I just gave the first example that came to mind.

slimpickens

GeneralVanilla wrote: »

I agree with this reparations idea. Everyone should be paid according to the race of their great grandfather.

Thus white people will not only pay the credit due to black people - they'll also inherit all of their forebearers inventions.

Non whites will thereafter either be banned from using whiteys inventions, or will pay a tax to the white man when using technologies made by grand pappie Tiberius in the year 18-diggity and five, since those technologies were caused by white people.

Suffering accounted for, luxury accounted for. Everyone's happy.

Get off the internet whitey.

slimpickens

wes wrote: »

I am going to go out on a limb here, and say the reason is that it simply doesn't happen as often.

Well you are about to fall of that limb you have gone out on, because you are wrong.
It does happen, and more often. It is not a hot topic and not covered to the same extent.

wes

slimpickens wrote: »

Well you are about to fall of that limb you have gone out on, because you are wrong.
It does happen, and more often. It is not a hot topic and not covered to the same extent.

Proportionally speaking there are fewer African Americans than there are white Americans. So in total number you are right, but I am not talking about absolute numbers but in proportion.

orubiru

wes wrote: »

Proportionally speaking there are fewer African Americans than there are white Americans. So in total number you are right, but I am not talking about absolute numbers but in proportion.

From what I have gathered from the thread so far.

Native Americans are most likely to be victims.
Followed by African Americans.
Followed by White Americans.
Asian Americans are least likely to be victims.

There are other demographics not represented here but they would fit into the list somewhere.

I am assuming males are more likely to be victims than females. I am also assuming that poor people are more likely to be victims than people who are richer. Not hearing or seeing a lot of conversation about that.

Some questions for you specifically Wes.

Q1: Are the police are killing more African Americans because of institutional racism?

Q2: Why are the police killing White Americans?

Q3: Why are the police more likely to kill Native Americans than White Americans?

Q4: Why are the police less likely to kill Asian Americans than White Americans?

If you have answered "yes" to Q1 then does the reason given in Q2 apply to some % of the African Americans killed (so some % of African Americans are killed due to the reason given in Q2 but the remaining % is due to institutional racism) and if so how would you determine if the police have killed someone due to racial prejudice as opposed to having a non race related reason for the killing?

wes

orubiru wrote: »

I am assuming males are more likely to be victims than females. I am also assuming that poor people are more likely to be victims than people who are richer. Not hearing or seeing a lot of conversation about that.

So whataboutery is the order of the day for you. Anything to distract from unarmed black men and boys being killed.

orubiru wrote: »

Some questions for you specifically Wes.

Q1: Are the police are killing more African Americans because of institutional racism?

Q2: Why are the police killing White Americans?

Q3: Why are the police more likely to kill Native Americans than White Americans?

Q4: Why are the police less likely to kill Asian Americans than White Americans?

If you have answered "yes" to Q1 then does the reason given in Q2 apply to some % of the African Americans killed (so some % of African Americans are killed due to the reason given in Q2 but the remaining % is due to institutional racism) and if so how would you determine if the police have killed someone due to racial prejudice as opposed to having a non race related reason for the killing?

So you expect me to answer questions that you have already have conclusions for, based on answers that haven't been offered :rolleyes:. Is there any reason for me to answer, as you already have your conclusions?

BTW, some of your questions have already been addressed, by what I have already said btw.

orubiru

wes wrote: »

So whataboutery is the order of the day for you. Anything to distract from unarmed black men and boys being killed.

That's an odd thing to say.

So we can focus on race when talking about police killings but we can't focus on gender?

Why not?

Personally, I do not think we should focus on gender or race but why is it seen as normal, or even right, to focus on one and not the other?

It's your logic we are using here, not mine.

You believe that the cops kill African Americans at disproportionate rates due to institutional prejudice. Is that correct?

Does it follow then that the cops have some institutionalised prejudice against males as demonstrated by the disproportionate levels of killing?

orubiru

wes wrote: »

So you expect me to answer questions that you have already have conclusions for, based on answers that haven't been offered :rolleyes:. Is there any reason for me to answer, as you already have your conclusions?

BTW, some of your questions have already been addressed, by what I have already said btw.

It's just a harmless conversation online. Maybe my conclusions are wrong and I'll learn something.

I would have been in your position once with almost the exact same set of views.

I'm genuinely interested to hear your answers to these questions.

Q1: Are the police are killing more African Americans because of institutional racism?

Q2: Why are the police killing White Americans?

Q3: Why are the police more likely to kill Native Americans than White Americans?

Q4: Why are the police less likely to kill Asian Americans than White Americans?

If you have answered "yes" to Q1 then does the reason given in Q2 apply to some % of the African Americans killed (so some % of African Americans are killed due to the reason given in Q2 but the remaining % is due to institutional racism) and if so how would you determine if the police have killed someone due to racial prejudice as opposed to having a non race related reason for the killing?

slimpickens

wes wrote: »

Proportionally speaking there are fewer African Americans than there are white Americans. So in total number you are right, but I am not talking about absolute numbers but in proportion.

Police arrest a disproportionate (relative to their percentage of population) number of black people. So the number of arrests that go wrong is going to be disproportionate.

wes

orubiru wrote: »

That's an odd thing to say.

Hardly. It perfectly reasonable to point out that a tactic often used by people in debates is to try and change the subject, hence what you are trying to do.

orubiru wrote: »

So we can focus on race when talking about police killings but we can't focus on gender?

Why not?

I am talking about police killing of unarmed black men and boys, specifically, and btw before you try to make assumptions, this doesn't mean I support killing of unarmed people in general.

You can talk about whatever you like, I don't have to talk about you chosen topic. The topic of the thread s about a UN report on the treatment of African Americans. There is a context that I am discussing. Your desire to go off topic is yours and not mine. If you wish to talk about male violence have at it.

orubiru wrote: »

Personally, I do not think we should focus on gender or race but why is it seen as normal, or even right, to focus on one and not the other?

If that was true you would start a thread on it, as opposed to trying to bring this one off topic.....

orubiru wrote: »

It's your logic we are using here, not mine.

You mean the logic of me, talking about the topic of the thread.......

orubiru wrote: »

You believe that the cops kill African Americans at disproportionate rates due to institutional prejudice. Is that correct?

The Nation's Largest Police Union Endorses Donald Trump

When, you have the largest police union supporting a racist presidential candidate who is being supported by the KKK, then I think it a perfectly rational conclusion to come that institutional racism exists.

orubiru wrote: »

Does it follow then that the cops have some institutionalized prejudice against males as demonstrated by the disproportionate levels of killing?

Again whataboutery. If you can show me, where a police union has supported an openly misandrist candidate, I will be happy to concede the point. I won't hold my breath, as about the only people who believe such things are nutty MRA types........

wes

slimpickens wrote: »

Police arrest a disproportionate (relative to their percentage of population) number of black people. So the number of arrests that go wrong is going to be disproportionate.

Yes, they do arrest black people in higher proportion to white people for the exact same crime. More examples of an institutional problem:

Black Crime Rates: What Happens When Numbers Aren’t Neutral

wes

orubiru wrote: »

It's just a harmless conversation online. Maybe my conclusions are wrong and I'll learn something.

I am not going to answer a question, when you already have conclusions made. That is not a conversation, and is utterly pointless. Still, the fact remains I have already addressed most of what you want to know.

slimpickens

wes wrote: »

Yes, they do arrest black people in higher proportion to white people for the exact same crime. More examples of an institutional problem:

Black Crime Rates: What Happens When Numbers Aren’t Neutral

That is not accurate. have a read of this:

http://www.amren.com/archives/videos/race-and-drug-arrests-another-big-lie/

ScumLord

Overheal wrote: »

Except a lot of cops are ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment and hate the notion of gun free zones. It's bemusing to think that they support making their life more difficult.

It's madness.

It's been said for years and its essentially the truth of the matter: guns in themselves aren't the issue, it's the crazy mother****ers that use them. But the two go hand in hand, and for whatever possessed reason there hasn't been much of an effort either to expand national mental health care or to control access to firearms to the competent.

Police forces deal with crazy mother****ers all the time, all over the world. It's a completely different mess once you throw in guns. The first video you post the guy in the car says the officers hands are shaking, he's terrified and trying to act though. Training only goes so far, it's not going to make you able to avoid fear in real dangerous situations. ALthough there probably isn't enough training in the US considered they have the right to shot someone dead.

orubiru

wes wrote: »

Hardly. It perfectly reasonable to point out that a tactic often used by people in debates is to try and change the subject, hence what you are trying to do.

No. I am trying to understand your opinions on the topic and in doing so I have considered some tangential topics in order to fully understand what you are on about.

Specifically why you assign such value to the proportional rates of killing in relation to demographics.

Staying on or going off topic is largely irrelevant as I am hardly attempting to change the subject to a discussion about last nights football match or something totally unrelated.

The points I was raising are absolutely relevant to the topic at hand. You are claiming they are not simply because that would allow you to weasel out of answering difficult questions. By asking these questions I am actually trying to get a handle on your opinions and trying to figure if the topic is maybe more nuanced than it appears on the surface.

If cops are killing people of a certain race disproportionately you are outraged. OK. Are you similarly outraged by the disproportionate killing of certain genders?

You say that the question is out of bounds but actually the question is necessary to understand if your views are consistent or if your views can change depending on what is likely to be popular or unpopular. A not very subtle dig at "nutty MRA types" actually betrays you in this instance. Are you just "virtue signalling" or do you REALLY believe that a disproportionate level of killing implies an institutional bias?

There are holes in your argument and when these holes are pointed out to you you simply say "this discussion isn't about holes in arguments" and ignore the fact that you are not making logical arguments regarding the killing of civilians by police officers.

Like I said, it's odd.

orubiru

wes wrote: »

I am not going to answer a question, when you already have conclusions made. That is not a conversation, and is utterly pointless. Still, the fact remains I have already addressed most of what you want to know.

Surely it would have just been easier for you to answer the questions directly?

For now, it just looks like you are trying to squirm out of answering difficult questions.

That's what I'm taking away from this anyway. You have a decent point, maybe, about police violence and racism but you are absolutely unwilling to explore that because it's not virtuous to say that maybe this isn't such a clear cut issue. Maybe it isn't even solely a race issue.

You aren't trying to have a discussion at all. You just want to tell people what's right and what's wrong.