15
   

Kyle Rittenhouse question

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 10:12 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
He did write it. And rightly so.
England, formed in 927, gained the first U.K. state other than itself through invasion - because of their "White Supremacy"?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 10:21 am
@Walter Hinteler,
It depends on what you count as their first invasion of another state.

Max was referring to the British Empire, which dominated a lot of brown people and treated them as third-class citizens (or even worse).
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 10:26 am
@hightor,
theatlantic wrote:
According to Wisconsin law, Rittenhouse need not have proved that he acted in self-defense--rather, the state had to prove that he did not.

This is proper. Innocent until proven guilty.


theatlantic wrote:
It is one thing to argue that the jury reached a reasonable verdict based on this law, and another entirely to celebrate Rittenhouse's actions.

I choose to celebrate his actions.


theatlantic wrote:
Much of the conservative media and the Republican Party, however, don't see the killings as "wrongful" in any sense,

Rightfully so. There is nothing wrong with defending yourself when you are violently attacked.


theatlantic wrote:
instead elevating Rittenhouse as the manifestation of retributive violence against their political enemies.

Nonsense. Self defense is not retribution.


theatlantic wrote:
Rittenhouse's critics contend that his intentions were racist, because he showed up armed in anticipation of protests on behalf of Black rights,

Progressives falsely accuse people of racism whenever they are unable to defend their demented ideology with facts or logic (which means 100% of the time).


theatlantic wrote:
The ideological battle lines recall the 2013 George Zimmerman trial. In Zimmerman's case, prosecutors said he assaulted 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

The physical evidence proves that Trayvon attacked Mr. Zimmerman and tried to murder him.


theatlantic wrote:
Zimmerman's defense claimed the then-29-year-old had been attacked by Martin, whom Zimmerman had been following. Even though Martin would have had reason to be concerned about a grown man following him,

Being followed does not entitle Trayvon to try to murder Mr. Zimmerman.

And Mr. Zimmerman had only followed at a distance, and had stopped following him altogether when Trayvon then came up to him and tried to murder him.


theatlantic wrote:
Zimmerman wasn't simply acquitted; some on the right embraced his actions as the fulfillment of a violent fantasy.

The author is an idiot. He or she should not presume to know what rightwingers think.


theatlantic wrote:
Few people ever use a firearm in self-defense--doing so is rare even for police officers--so the extreme elements of right-wing gun culture have to conjure the specter of impending catastrophe in order to maintain their political salience.

The author is lying. Self defense is quite common.


theatlantic wrote:
Sometimes this manifests in deranged reveries of armed revolution, sometimes in overt fantasies of murdering urban minorities, and sometimes in the make-believe of resisting a supposedly tyrannical government.

Like I said, the author is an idiot. Purchasing a gun for a specific purpose hardly means that the purchaser fantasizes about it.

And while the author may want black people to be able to rape and murder white people with impunity, in the real world self defense is in no way murder.


theatlantic wrote:
Not content to maintain that Zimmerman was innocent of murder, some of his supporters lived vicariously through his gunning down a Black teenager. People bought Trayvon Martin shooting targets.

Like I said, the author is an idiot. Shooting at a Trayvon target hardly means you are trying to live vicariously through Mr. Zimmerman.


theatlantic wrote:
Right-wing pundits marked his birthday with jokes, and spread falsehoods about his background in an attempt to retroactively justify Zimmerman's killing him.

What alleged falsehoods? It is hard to comment without knowing the specific accusation.

But based on the author's performance so far I'm going to guess that the supposed falsehoods are actually true.


theatlantic wrote:
Some people turned Zimmerman into a hero, because he killed the kind of person they liked to imagine themselves killing.

No. Mr. Zimmerman is a hero because he stopped Trayvon before he took PCP and broke into someone's house later that night.


theatlantic wrote:
The fact that then-President Barack Obama empathized with the fear of many Black parents, that their children will be seen not as children but as dangerous threats, by saying that if he had a son "he'd look like Trayvon," only added to the fantasy's appeal.

The author is an idiot. There was no fantasy.


theatlantic wrote:
Zimmerman had a right to defend himself; his supporters could see Martin only as the sort of person the right of self-defense was meant to be invoked against.

His supporters see a little something that people refer to as "reality".


theatlantic wrote:
The fact that Rittenhouse has become a folk hero among Republicans points to darker currents within the GOP, where justifications for political violence against the opposition are becoming more common.

Nonsense. Now the author is trying to make the GOP appear as if they were a bunch of progressives or something.


theatlantic wrote:
The party finds the apocalyptic fear of impending leftist tyranny useful not only for turning out its supporters, but also for rationalizing legislative attempts to disenfranchise, gerrymander, and otherwise nullify the votes of Democratic constituencies.

Leftist tyranny is indeed a problem.

The author is lying when he or she accuses the Republicans of trying to disenfranchise. It is the Democrats who use such tactics against the American people. Remember what the Democrats and Barack Obama did to Michigan in the 2008 presidential primary.

Gerrymandering wasn't a problem when it was the Democrats who were doing it. Why should it be a problem now?


theatlantic wrote:
Whether it's Donald Trump justifying his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, Republican members of Congress threatening their colleagues, or Fox News hosts praising Rittenhouse for "doing what the government should have done," the desire to kill your political opponents is a sentiment no longer confined to the dark corners of the internet.

Oh nonsense. Photoshopping someone's face onto the bad guy in a popular cartoon is not a death threat. I can't wait to see the Republicans retaliate when they take power.

And Fox News was praising Mr. Rittenhouse for protecting businesses from looters and rioters, not for justifiably defending himself. The government should indeed have stepped in and confronted those rioters.

Mr. Trump was actually trying to send in federal forces to put a stop to the riots, but he was stymied by leftist traitors in the government who ensured that his orders were not followed. Those traitors should be identified and prosecuted.


theatlantic wrote:
The principle that canonizes Rittenhouse as a saint for defending his city from rioters, and the mob that stormed the Capitol as martyrs, is the principle that the slaughter of the right's enemies is no crime.

Correct. Self defense is not a crime.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 10:55 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
He did write it. And rightly so.
England, formed in 927, gained the first U.K. state other than itself through invasion - because of their "White Supremacy"?


The White people who wiped out indigenous populations and set up the Slave economy in the US ... where do you think they came from?


(Hint: We speak English in the US now).

Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 11:11 am
@maxdancona,
The British colonisation of the Americas only worked because many citizens of the Kingdom of Great Britain from Wales, Scotland and England emigrated to the new colonies. (Yes, the spoke mainly English.)
maxdancona
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 11:14 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

The British colonisation of the Americas only worked because many citizens of the Kingdom of Great Britain from Wales, Scotland and England emigrated to the new colonies. (Yes, the spoke mainly English.)


Yes, and said people are responsible for establishing White Supremacy in what would become the US. These are the people primarily responsible for the genocide of native Americans and institutional slavery (i.e. the plantation system).
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 11:16 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
The White people who wiped out and set up the Slave economy in the US ... where do you think they came from?
Quite a few - and earlier than the British, Spaniards wiped out the indigenous population. (Although the Spanish law didn't allow slavery, encomienda was very similar.)
maxdancona
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 11:26 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

maxdancona wrote:
The White people who wiped out and set up the Slave economy in the US ... where do you think they came from?
Quite a few - and earlier than the British, Spaniards wiped out the indigenous population. (Although the Spanish law didn't allow slavery, encomienda was very similar.)


There are several differences between the Spanish and the British.

1) The Spanish did not have a doctrine of racial superiority. The British did.

2) If you look at countries colonized by Spain, you will see a mix of skin colors from light skin to dark. That is because Spain didn't systematically kill indigenous people. In Spain they wanted to convert and assimilate indigenous people.

I will not defend Spain. Some of their actions (particularly in the inquisition) were brutal.

England systematically killed indigenous people with the intent of a society based on Anglo-Saxon supremacy. The results speak for themselves.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 11:49 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
1) The Spanish did not have a doctrine of racial superiority. The British did.

2) If you look at countries colonized by Spain, you will see a mix of skin colors from light skin to dark. That is because Spain didn't systematically kill indigenous people. In Spain they wanted to convert and assimilate indigenous people.
ad 1) Ever heard of limpieza de sangre?
ad 2) The Leyes Nuevas were intended to prevent and stop the exploitation and mistreatment of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
And then there's e.g. Don Juan de Oñate.
maxdancona
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 11:58 am
@Walter Hinteler,
You are throwing out random facts. I am not sure how they relate to the point. I have never argued that Spain didn't commit crimes.

The British Colonial empire came to what is now the United States and started a systematic program for eliminating the indigenous population from territories it wanted.

And the result speaks for itself. In places that were colonized by Spain, people of indigenous and mixed ancestry are common.

hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 12:07 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
In places that were colonized by Spain, people of indigenous and mixed ancestry are common.


As they are in parts of the Caribbean colonized by the British.
maxdancona
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 12:13 pm
@hightor,
You mean the Slave Colonies? Tell me which countries in particular you are talking about.

The British activities in the Caribbean were all directly related to the Slave Trade (as far as I am aware). Any mixing of race that happened there was rape (if a slave owner has sex with a slave, it is always rape).
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 12:13 pm
@maxdancona,
Well, you certainly might view my response as throwing out random facts. I didn't want to write a long essay.

[What you called above "British Colonial empire" is called actually 'British Empire' (= all dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories). Virginia was a Crown (royal) colony within the British Empire.]
maxdancona
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 12:18 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Your response missed the point. No one is arguing that Spain was free from historical crimes.

The British Empire (or whatever you want to call it) was based on White Supremacy and was particularly brutal (compared to other colonial powers) towards indigenous peoples.

Are you making a "both sides" argument? (Because that would make me chuckle).
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 12:37 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The British activities in the Caribbean were all directly related to the Slave Trade (as far as I am aware).

You said:
Quote:
In places that were colonized by Spain, people of indigenous and mixed ancestry are common.


I merely pointed out that you commonly find people of indigenous and mixed ancestry throughout the Caribbean.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  2  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 01:18 pm
Slavery was relatively rare in pre-civilisation hunter-gatherer populations[2], as it develops under conditions of social stratification.[3] Slavery operated in the first civilizations (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia,[4] which dates back as far as 3500 BC). Slavery features in the Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (c. 1860 BCE), which refers to it as an established institution.[5] Slavery was widespread in the ancient world. It was found in almost every ancient civilization, including the Roman Empire. It became less common throughout Europe during the Early Middle Ages, although it continued to be practiced in some areas. Both Christians and Muslims captured each other as slaves during centuries of warfare in the Mediterranean.[6] Islamic slavery encompassed mainly Western and Central Asia, Northern and Eastern Africa, India, and Europe from the 7th to the 20th century. The Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, British and a number of West African kingdoms played a prominent role in the Atlantic slave trade, especially after 1600.

Although slavery is no longer legal anywhere in the world, human trafficking remains an international problem. An estimated 25-40 million people were enslaved as of 2013, the majority of these in Asia.[7] During the 1983–2005 Second Sudanese Civil War people were taken into slavery.[8] Evidence emerged in the late 1990s of systematic child-slavery and trafficking on cacao plantations in West Africa.[9]

Slavery in the 21st century continues and generates $150 billion in annual profits.[10] Populations in regions with armed conflict are especially vulnerable, and modern transportation has made human trafficking easier.[11] In 2019 there were an estimated 40 million people worldwide subject to some form of slavery, 25% of them children.[10] 61%[nb 1] are used for forced labor, mostly in the private sector. 38%[nb 2] live in forced marriages.[10] Other types of modern slavery are child soldiers, sex trafficking, and sexual slavery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

~~~~

Slavery was certainly not just an English thing! They appear to have been a relatively minor player, considering the history of slavery.
maxdancona
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 04:14 pm
@Mame,
Mame, I want to get this straight.

You seem to be arguing that Slavery in the US, where White people (mostly descended from Great Britain) bought and sold Africans wasn't so bad because there was slavery in Africa.

If you aren't making this argument, then please tell me what the hell you are saying.
maxdancona
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 04:17 pm
@maxdancona,
I started another thread on this topic. The opinions from White liberals on this thread are a little surprising
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 04:55 pm
@maxdancona,
I'm saying there was a history going way back and it's still going on. I'm certainly not justifying slavery in any way whatsoever, but your narrative only ever concerns what the British did. Look at the big picture. That's what I was addressing. Stop with your narrow views.
maxdancona
 
  -4  
Reply Sat 20 Nov, 2021 05:01 pm
@Mame,
Thanks for clarifying.

We are talking specifically about slavery and White Supremacy in the US. That was instituted by the British.

Slavery in the US was particularly brutal White people (almost all of British descent) imported people of African descent in a deadly and profitable trade. I don't believe that comparing this to the "big picture" is at all helpful. What happened in ancient Samaria doesn't mean anything.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Martin/Zimmerman Case: Jury Selection - Discussion by gungasnake
The Slender Man Murder Case - Discussion by tsarstepan
Three cheers for the FBI. - Discussion by izzythepush
Chicago now a war zone - Discussion by gungasnake
Solving bank robberies the hard way... - Discussion by gungasnake
Flouri-DUH vs Shellie Zimmerman - Discussion by gungasnake
Stealing pop and skittles - Discussion by gungasnake
DB Cooper may be in FBI's sights - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 10:54:37