Nine Killed in Shooting at historic church in Charleston

[Patticus]

Parts of his statement can be read a little differently, so I suppose that I expected him to be clearer in his condemnation.

 

Given all the recent tensions regarding police brutality and itchy trigger fingers, and Bush's own past actions in 2000, I hoped that he would take a firmer stance, if only to help his own career out. I'm sure that you'll say that he couldn't have been clearer at that point, but I believe that he could easily have.

 

Edit: Should I mention that Bush is also an avowed fan of Charles Murray?

 

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush ® declared himself to be a fan of controversial social scientist Charles Murray’s books at a forum Thursday in Washington.

Bush lauded Murray’s books on two separate occasions during an interview with National Review editor Rich Lowry, at a forum sponsored by the conservative magazine.

Lowry asked Bush, “… is there any policy or anything public officials can do to help turn back what has been a rising tide of family breakdown crossing decades now?”

“Absolutely, there is,” Bush, a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said. “It’s not exactly the core. My views on this were shaped a lot on this by Charles Murray’s book, except I was reading the book and I was waiting for the last chapter with the really cool solutions — didn’t quite get there.”

Later in the interview, Lowry asked Bush what he likes to read. Again, he cited Murray.

“I like Charles Murray books to be honest with you, which means I’m a total nerd I guess,” Bush said.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Patticus

[Dizcrybe]

Rank and file whites won't start one because they are convinced race is not an issue.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

...can I say something here? Cause I've been thinking about it for a while, but it's more related to the race issue in general rather to this specific shooting.

 

I think many whites are convinced that racism is dead and such, but I've been wondering if some know full well it's not, but are just in denial, so as to preserve their self-esteem. Because to admit that racism is still a major problem in the United States would mean admitting their ancestors have done - and their people in the present day are doing - something very wrong. And people generally don't like to admit they're wrong. So I'm wondering if some people are simply pretending race relations in this country are A-OK with complete knowledge that they aren't because they find it easier to think that racism is no longer a problem and feel good about themselves rather than acknowledge these issues, confront them, and make stride to truly eliminates them (well, as much as possible, I guess), because that would mean confronting the fact that their ancestors were responsible for the discrimination that's plagued this country since... what, even before its inception?

 

I articulated all this much better in my head earlier today, so some of this may be kinda off or even questionable. Or maybe I'm just pointing out the obvious. I'm really not trying to offend anyone here; this is just something I've been thinking about. If this isn't the right thread for this in the first place, I apologize.

[shdowhunt60]

So, apparently there's a march going on where people are trying to take down the confederate flag in Charleston.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/20/hundreds-march-in-charleston-columbia-to-take-down-confederate-flag/

 

You know, it's actually nice to see that not only has the shooter not gotten his wish, it exactly backfired.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

It is nice. Looks like people are finally starting to see the ugliness under the surface more and more.

 

It makes me proud...it's just sad that it had to take nine lives (and more, counting the rest of the country) for this pattern to be realized. I guess that's just a twisted way of how people are motivated to take action: it takes a tragedy for people to finally see things clearly.

[Tani Coyote]

...can I say something here? Cause I've been thinking about it for a while, but it's more related to the race issue in general rather to this specific shooting.

 

I think many whites are convinced that racism is dead and such, but I've been wondering if some know full well it's not, but are just in denial, so as to preserve their self-esteem. Because to admit that racism is still a major problem in the United States would mean admitting their ancestors have done - and their people in the present day are doing - something very wrong. And people generally don't like to admit they're wrong. So I'm wondering if some people are simply pretending race relations in this country are A-OK with complete knowledge that they aren't because they find it easier to think that racism is no longer a problem and feel good about themselves rather than acknowledge these issues, confront them, and make stride to truly eliminates them (well, as much as possible, I guess), because that would mean confronting the fact that their ancestors were responsible for the discrimination that's plagued this country since... what, even before its inception?

 

I articulated all this much better in my head earlier today, so some of this may be kinda off or even questionable. Or maybe I'm just pointing out the obvious. I'm really not trying to offend anyone here; this is just something I've been thinking about. If this isn't the right thread for this in the first place, I apologize.

 

That is absolutely a large part of the denial. The problem with how race is often tackled is it puts whites on the defensive. Now myself and a few others have gone in circles about this in prior threads, but the fact of the matter is the subject makes whites uncomfortable because they feel as if they are being targeted rather than being asked to give up undue privilege.

A large part of it is also wordsmithing, however. "Racism" in the eyes of many whites isn't objective. It is purely subjective, and on top of that, only extreme forms of it are seen as racism. It is racist to use the n-word or say interracial marriage is wrong... but not racist to assume that a black worker will be less productive or that a Latino has illegal immigrants in their family.

The problem we run into is that there's usually anecdotes used to support a racist viewpoint. This isn't unique to race; we draw conclusions based on experiences. If I was robbed 4 out of 5 times I was in a neighborhood, I'd conclude it was a bad neighborhood even if statistics said otherwise. That in mind, it's no surprise that if 3 of those 4 robberies were done by black people, there will be a subconscious association of black skin with crime. The key is to battle this subconscious thought with cold, hard statistics: the most likely reason for the larger percentage of black criminals is the simple fact many more blacks grow up in poverty and with fewer opportunities, so crime will be more attractive than it would be to those who do have more avenues of legal income. I issue this challenge to the person who assumes that a minority inherently has a different behavior than someone in the majority: give them all the exact same opportunities as a white person. If by some chance there's a noticeable difference in behavior, maybe then you have a point. Until then, any negative associations can be written off as sociological rather than biological.

As powerful as our emotions and our gut feelings are, we can resist them and subsume them with more logical, just decisions. My gut decision says we as a society should do pretty awful things to the worst criminals. My logic says there's a lot of reasons we should NOT do that, no matter how terrible a person's actions were.

 

It is nice. Looks like people are finally starting to see the ugliness under the surface more and more.

 

It makes me proud...it's just sad that it had to take nine lives (and more, counting the rest of the country) for this pattern to be realized. I guess that's just a twisted way of how people are motivated to take action: it takes a tragedy for people to finally see things clearly.

It took white kids getting beaten up by cops for MLK, Jr. to start making real progress as well.

Humans are very focused on what's behind them. Nobody thought sending a ship with thousands of people into the open ocean with enough life boats for only a portion might be a problem. Nobody thought multiple interlocking secret alliances could be devastating. Nobody thought appeasing power-hungry dictators might lead to global conflict. And so on.

[Nepenthe]

Plenty of contingents blaming this on "race-baiters" and Obama, or not enough guns, or it actually being an attack on Christianity, or of the confederate flag standing for good ol' "heritage." And to top it all off, the shooter was from our generation, proving that the pervasiveness of this debacle doesn't stop at our parents. Nothing is going to significantly change as a result of this tragedy.

 

Will still be nice if that rag comes down though.

[Tani Coyote]

And to top it all off, the shooter was from our generation, proving that the pervasiveness of this debacle doesn't stop at our parents.

Growing up, I was always fed the phrase that hatred is learned, rather than being something you were born with.

That in mind, with 1/3 of voters in some southern states being against interracial marriage, I'm not going to be surprised if a lot of rotten apples don't fall far from the tree.

If nothing else it highlights the importance of access to college education for all. The exposure to all sorts of knowledge and different backgrounds generally breeds a more accepting view of other people.

Some see it as liberal brainwashing. I see it as escaping the knowledge bubble that conservatism depends on for survival.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I issue this challenge to the person who assumes that a minority inherently has a different behavior than someone in the majority: give them all the exact same opportunities as a white person. If by some chance there's a noticeable difference in behavior, maybe then you have a point. Until then, any negative associations can be written off as sociological rather than biological.

I don't know if any noticeable difference in behavior would give anyone a point over the difference in minorities act. It'd still be sociological, and maybe even cultural, rather than biological. Not to mention the reality is FAR more complicated than simply giving out the same opportunities.

 

You say give people the same opportunities as a white person, but there's this saying among many of us african-americans - predominantly the poorer ones, but even some not so poor - about "acting white" which leads a lot of them to shun those opportunities even if you give it to them without any prejudiced strings (or maybe out of fear of them. Again it's complicated). As a result, you have african-american's criticizing other african-american's for things like "talking white" (speaking properly) or "dressing white" (dressing neatly) among other things. Part of it definitely has to do with our african-american ancestors having no culture when brought here to the states against their will, which is understandable and may lead to one trying to create something of their own identity - there's a reason why a lot of african-american youth flock to hip-hop music instead of say Classical.

 

And sometimes it's out of sheer interest and taste. But at a certain point it stops being an excuse when you claim the other opportunities available that can help you risk taking away what makes that culture you developed unique - for example, being anti-intellectual and only interested in things that make you look cool, because learning things like math and science is for white people despite it being an opportunity that can help anyone and everyone. You will not believe how many times other african americans, including myself have been called out for "acting white." I've been told to my face in high-school (ironically by white people most of the time) "You don't count as black" or "you are the whitest black person I've known," among other things just because I've shown less interest in things like mainstream hip-hop, talk properly compared to other african-americans, and take advantage of gaining knowledge to better myself. Even more hilarious is when they say you don't count because your skin tone is much, much lighter than other black people - I fit that bill as well. And in this bizarre breed of logic, that makes someone like me "white," and then they wondered if I'd be someone to shoot up the school when they saw that attitude morph into cold silence every time I glared their way. Funny how stereotyping works, huh? It's absurd really. And it's all the more ironic how MLK (hell, even Malcolm X) would be considered "white" by those very standards, yet he's the champion of the Civil Right's Movement they call out to who fought for us to have these opportunities they would never have had anywhere near the same extent, yet at the same time not taking advantage of.

 

All in all, you can give them the same opportunities, and you can see a difference in behavior in each of them. But they're always sociological and never biological. The only biological difference is the chemical in that person's skin that makes their color different from someone else. And here's another example of equal opportunities not being so equal: you notice that a lot of white people also don't take up these opportunities either (and they never had to fight for them), but they don't get stereotyped or discriminated against to the same extent when they act no different the the black people who don't - yeah, we'll call them "rednecks" and "hicks" among other such insults, but if a "redneck" or a "nigger/nigga" caused a scene, who's going to be put in a worse light here? Because despite the ideal answer clearly being "both of them" that is not how society seems to look at it, unfortunately.

 

And just so you know, Ogilivie, I'm not fussing at you at all over this, but highlighting how an ideal doesn't seem to flow well even when by all intents it should. For better or worse, even with equal opportunities, equal results aren't exactly treated equally anyway, sometimes even less than they should be.

 

Humans are very focused on what's behind them. Nobody thought sending a ship with thousands of people into the open ocean with enough life boats for only a portion might be a problem. Nobody thought multiple interlocking secret alliances could be devastating. Nobody thought appeasing power-hungry dictators might lead to global conflict. And so on.

Humans also like to cover up and forget what happened behind them either. Gotta love denialism.

[Tara]

It's taken me awhile to get to this.  I didn't want to back myself into a corner with the conversation by saying something and then having nothing to back it up.  Anyway, this is a horrible tragedy by a horrible, despicable, and undeniably racist individual.  My heart goes out to the friends and families of all who lost their lives or were otherwise impacted by this act of hatred and bigotry.

 

With that out of the way, I'm going to reply to a few comments here in no given order of importance.  Namely, I just want to get these thoughts out there.  If they're wrong, or dumb, or don't line up with your individual experiences, then feel free to learn from my mistakes.  In any case, know that I'm white and come from a relatively privileged family.  As such, my experiences may differ from your own.

 

Someone asked if white people are in denial about racism earlier, and I wanted to add my two cents on that.  A few months ago, I was in the car with my friend's mom, who said she's lived her whole life believing that black people were just "playing the race card" or "guilt-tripping white people," but she said a realization came to her recently that she was a judgmental person.  So for the past few years, she's been looking back on her actions and trying to see things from multiple perspectives.  What she saw was things that a lot of white people, including myself, see everyday but never once think about.  People she's called her friends for the longest time saying things like "We're not racist," and then immediately turn around and say things like "the <N. word> at the gas station was cleaning the place" or "I got them from some <N. word>."  But the eye-opener was when she was with a group of black friends and they had a bit of an altercation with the police and she saw for the first time that they weren't just screaming out "You're just doing this because I'm black!"  They were scared.  They were literally frightened, because they thought the police were going out to kill them.  It was an eye-opening experience for her, and I've had similar revelations not only as a result of increased sociological understanding thanks to college and more life experience, but simply by looking around me.  It's helped a lot that I've become a more prominent poster on this board, as the perspectives of all different minorities has done a great deal to show me that even the people who possibly live near me have a completely different life experience, and that's where I think the root of the problem a lot of white people have lies.

 

The problem with white people is that we assume the status quo is the same for other people as it is for us.  We assume ourselves to be the default, and it's not hard to see why when the media and the educational system seems to paint that picture for us.  Nepenthe is actually the one who pointed out to me that in the American educational system, we have history classes and then we have "black history" classes, indicating that there is a clear divide between the history of white people and the history of everyone else.  Your college experience may vary, but I was forced to take multiple semesters of history for my current degree, even though it's not really the focus of my career.  Rest assured, I was never forced to take a black history class or an Eastern history class, or any history class other than European and American histories.

 

But the problem extends as far back as grade school.  I learned about the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King like the rest of us.  But only upon further research does it become glaringly obvious that Martin Luther King's words are selectively chosen to benefit white people.  This is how white people get away with misquoting or abridging Dr. King's words to condemn rioters or to add substance to their "race card" arguments.  On the subject of MLK, you know what's particularly funny?  White people think that black people outright worship Dr. King.  They think his words are like a bible to black people, and if a black person disagrees with you, just say "MARTIN LUTHER KING" and suddenly they back off like a vampire in the face of a garlic-coated crucifix.  I am guilty of having done this before, myself.  It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong, if Dr. King said it, it's automatically true apparently.  The obvious problems with this line of reasoning-

• It assumes that MLK was an infallible human being.  MLK was a person like anyone else.  He said wrong things, he's done wrong things before probably.  He's not perfect, and using him as a shield for your argument does nothing to advance any sort of agenda.
• It assumes that all black people agree with Martin Luther King.  Like, can you imagine if a black person came up to a white person and said, "Hey, you can't do that.  George Washington said it was wrong!"  I mean, sure George Washington was a great president probably, but like... what does that mean to us in the current situation?  Also, I had an American politics teacher (who was African American) who told us once that he didn't agree with MLK. He said that he didn't agree with the line that people shouldn't be judged by the color of their skin.  His line of reasoning was that we will always judge one another by their skin color, and that's not important.  What is important is what you do with that judgment.  I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, but it shows that there are different opinions about the famous “I Have a Dream” speech within different parts of the black community.

 

MLK's legacy to white people is leading a peaceful protest, or in more honest terms: Leading a protest that is safe for white people.  They don't want to talk about the time he said that riots were "inevitable" or how, in spite of his peaceful protest, he was still gunned down for promoting racial equality.

 

The reason we don't feel comfortable addressing how those particular facets of Dr. King's life speak volumes about the racial dynamics of the time as well as today is because it outlines a clear difference between legal rights and how the social structure surrounding those rights are supported by the people and the government.  For example, as a woman, the nineteenth amendment (of the United States constitution) guarantees me the right to vote.  I am also allowed to be elected to office.  But do we live in a structure that supports those rights?

 

The US congress is made up of about 84 percent male citizens.  That means the issues that are directly relevant to me specifically as a woman are going to be horribly misrepresented, thereby making my vote effectively null in any situation that involves me specifically.  If someone asks you if you prefer hamburgers or hot dogs, but only give you an option of dog feces or cow feces, then what are you going to vote for?  That's what it's like being a woman in America with issues like abortion, wage gaps, and trans rights being hot-button issues.  Or imagine asking if you want a hamburger or a hot dog, and the people responsible for delivering it don't understand what a hamburger is.  So you're in the hands of other people to relay the message of what your favorite food is, but that person relays it wrong and describes it as a big pile of cow feces, thereby making the option extremely undesirable for everyone.  That is also a quarrel I find myself in a lot lately, which is why I've been having trouble entering the world of politics.  If both sides are bad but for completely different reasons, what am I supposed to do?

 

This highlights what I mean when I say that there is a clear difference between legal rights and societal rights.  Where this pertains to the subject of race is that a lot of white people, and for a long time this included myself, do not differentiate between the two.  It's also the reason why gay marriage is the only LGBT issue currently receiving the dignity of a full-blown discussion, while others are being tucked away like they don't exist.  To many white people, there is no difference between legal rights and social rights.  If the law mandates that I have the right to do it, 8 out of 10 times, I'm going to be able to do it.

 

It's taken me awhile to realize, but not everyone has society backing their rights, because not everyone comes from the same background.  Yes, I am also guilty of the “Well, this guy is black and he blaw blaw blaw” excuse, which white people like to use to casually admit that they believe that black people are essentially all the same, disregarding that their relationships with white people and even with other black people are bound to vary based on their own unique circumstances.

 

To put this all into perspective, I'm saying that denial may be a part of it, and it may be possible that white people simply don't like to be put on the defensive.  But I also believe that a huge deal stems from the fact that we are taught and reinforced to believe that this is a thing of the past, and we refuse to see it because come on, don't those black people know anything?!  Racism is illegal now!  I have people in my family that are quick to shun racial statistics listed in their college sociology books.  Not because they've found more believable statistics or did their own research, but because it goes against preexisting notions, and they're very open about that being the reason.  “Well, I saw on the news that black people can get their way by claiming that a white person is racist, therefore this statistic is bullshit!”  Or even, I kid you not, “That can't be true; that's illegal!”

 

We don't see racism, because we don't experience it.  At least, not in the same way that black people and other minorities do.  We don't see racism because we're taught that it's not a thing that normal, everyday people are guilty of.  We don't see it, because it doesn't belong to our unique experiences.  Furthermore, we refuse to see it, because we've taught ourselves that racism is a boogeyman of sorts.  We've made a habit of criminalizing people who point out racism over people who actually commit racist crimes, and somewhere down the line, we've used this to decide that race is not an important factor.  White people (and plenty of POC as well) use the “we're all part of the human race” excuse to negate any racial issue.  “We're dealing with a murderer, who cares if he's racist?!” or “Stop playing the race card; this is about murder, not race,” as though for this one, particular, singular instance, the motives of a killer suddenly stop being important.

 

And this is where I awkwardly segway into the next thing I wanted to say.  Someone else brought up that white people might actually be forced to open their eyes and see the realities of racism as a result of this incident.  I'm not usually the cynical type, and I'd love it if we could at least have a decent debate about it without it devolving into “race card” or “social justice warrior” arguments, but even in a tragedy such as this, white people are going to quite willfully close their eyes to the nature of the problem.

 

We have conservative medias like Fox News who are going out of their way to ignore the white supremacy and other blatantly racist bollocks posted all over his FaceBook page.  In fact, they're even trying to paint this as an attack against Christianity.  Saying this as someone who comes from a Christian household:  Christians are literally the most easily offended groups of people.  I have nothing against any of the religious people here.  Some of the more religious among you are actually good friends of mine, but those are also people who are willing to admit that their religion is exceptionally quick to condemn black people for playing the “race card,” while using the nearest opportunity to point out their own persecution when someone within their community is punished for doing something obviously wrong.

 

Of course, most people on this board align with the liberal side of politics, and even the more conservative among us tend to have a more level head and are capable of seeing the agenda-pushing and outright dishonest journalism that farces like Fox News and other media outlets put out.  But our userbase isn't a good sample size, as there are people in this world who not only believe, but solely believe, in news agencies like Fox.  I come from a family that does that.  I have a family who all but worships Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, and the like, and I know others do as well, and they're not decreasing in numbers any time soon.  These people are going to hold up progress and prohibit white people from seeing the ugly truth that racism is still a thing.  As such, as much it pains me to say this, I really don't feel like this is going to change anything.  At all.

 

And that's essentially all I wanted to say.  Mostly to vent, but also to offer my own insights into it.  Bear in mind, the majority of everything I've said is anecdotal, and not backed up by anything other than my own experience.  Therefore, your own thoughts and experiences may vary.  Anyway, as I said, this is a tragedy, and not the first of its kind.  I've become increasingly jaded and sick of how people, within my own circle of friends and family even, can look at this, and how the murderer can all but outright say, “Yes, I did it because they were black,” (and in many cases, actually fucking say it) and will still remain firm in their stance that it's not a race issue.

 

Anyway, I hope this guy rots.

[Badnik Zero]

I wanna put this kid squarely into the same category as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the first Boston bomber. Two violent losers who after reading some internet hate material, decided that they didn't have to be losers anymore, if they could only join some whacked out cause. The irony of it is that while Tsarnaev's motive was to tear down American values, the Charleston shooter was out to restore them through racial war. The end result for us bystanders is the same. Both attackers were created by internet radicalism, and both acted alone and violently. Is there a name for this type of psycho yet? The delusions-of-grandeur internet martyr type? Because this type of killer will be increasingly common.

 

To those who said this won't be called terrorism, it's probably not true. Supremacist groups and militant religious groups have been given the terrorist label before. The Oklahoma City bombing particularly was called domestic terrorism. Politically motivated attacks are given the label of terrorism. Random attacks with the purpose of broadcasting an extreme political cause, are usually labeled as such. Be it guns, bombs, or whatever was used.

 

As far as the Confederate flag goes, fuck that flag. At least now be sensitive about it. Maybe I don't understand it because I am a New York ass person, but that is basically an enemy flag, am I wrong? How do you fly it next to the stars and stripes without a contradiction. If you wanna say it's part of your history, maybe it belongs in a museum then, next to the cotton gin, and descriptions of plantations and slave labor economy. Please someone explain to me this flag.

[Mando-Whirl-Wind]

I wanna put this kid squarely into the same category as Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the first Boston bomber. Two violent losers who after reading some internet hate material, decided that they didn't have to be losers anymore, if they could only join some whacked out cause. The irony of it is that while Tsarnaev's motive was to tear down American values, the Charleston shooter was out to restore them through racial war. The end result for us bystanders is the same. Both attackers were created by internet radicalism, and both acted alone and violently. Is there a name for this type of psycho yet? The delusions-of-grandeur internet martyr type? Because this type of killer will be increasingly common.

 

To those who said this won't be called terrorism, it's probably not true. Supremacist groups and militant religious groups have been given the terrorist label before. The Oklahoma City bombing particularly was called domestic terrorism. Politically motivated attacks are given the label of terrorism. Random attacks with the purpose of broadcasting an extreme political cause, are usually labeled as such. Be it guns, bombs, or whatever was used.

 

As far as the Confederate flag goes, fuck that flag. At least now be sensitive about it. Maybe I don't understand it because I am a New York ass person, but that is basically an enemy flag, am I wrong? How do you fly it next to the stars and stripes without a contradiction. If you wanna say it's part of your history, maybe it belongs in a museum then, next to the cotton gin, and descriptions of plantations and slave labor economy. Please someone explain to me this flag.

 

Well, it is also a state flag. Its kinda like how California's state flag is essentially the country flag it had for its very very very short existence as its own country(the Bear Flag republic), just the confederate flag has a more negative connotation

 

Ya, there have been some screwed stuff in relation to racism. I mean you know the real primary reason that the US Military can't be used on US soil except in extreme emergency? So that the government couldn't counteract the Jim Crow laws in the south, and to remove their ability to interfere in the only way they could control. Don't get me wrong there are some upsides, but that was a main reason

[Tornado]

To those who said this won't be called terrorism, it's probably not true. Supremacist groups and militant religious groups have been given the terrorist label before. The Oklahoma City bombing particularly was called domestic terrorism.

 

That's a bit different. While I agree this will ultimately likely be recorded in the history books as domestic terrorism, by very nature of being a shooting rather than a bombing (and thus as a rule significantly less sophisticated) changes things drastically in terms of how it will be investigated; and Oklahoma City was a direct attack against the federal government in response to a specific government action/policy so it was about as clearcut as it could be.

[Tani Coyote]

All in all, you can give them the same opportunities, and you can see a difference in behavior in each of them. But they're always sociological and never biological. The only biological difference is the chemical in that person's skin that makes their color different from someone else. And here's another example of equal opportunities not being so equal: you notice that a lot of white people also don't take up these opportunities either (and they never had to fight for them), but they don't get stereotyped or discriminated against to the same extent when they act no different the the black people who don't - yeah, we'll call them "rednecks" and "hicks" among other such insults, but if a "redneck" or a "nigger/nigga" caused a scene, who's going to be put in a worse light here? Because despite the ideal answer clearly being "both of them" that is not how society seems to look at it, unfortunately.

 

And just so you know, Ogilivie, I'm not fussing at you at all over this, but highlighting how an ideal doesn't seem to flow well even when by all intents it should. For better or worse, even with equal opportunities, equal results aren't exactly treated equally anyway, sometimes even less than they should be.

While I know it's not a perfect solution, the main idea is to illustrate that skin color has nothing to do with a person's achievement, at least subjectively. The fact a "black leadership" exists at all is proof to how they have just as much potential as whites; they're simply denied the opportunity.

Of course, even a black person who breaks every stereotype still has that stigma. I've heard no shortage of people calling Obama a "nigger" despite the fact he embodies pretty much every positive quality associated with whites; he's even half-white on top of it! So even with the idea of racial uplift, there is still a strong association between race and economic value that is hard to fight.

The positive thing is that people are slowly segueing into a less harsh racist idea that even if non-whites are treated with a higher degree of skepticism at first, they can still prove themselves. It's not a perfect fix, but it's certainly an improvement over continued disdain even for a person who does show a work ethic and intelligence simply because of color.

It goes back to the debate between Hume and Beattie, I think it was. David Hume posted an essay stating that the poor technological state of Africa was because blacks were inherently less intelligent and thus deserved to be lorded over by whites. Beattie wrote an angry rebuttal that the only reason Africa was behind was because they hadn't by chance developed a writing system in a lot of languages. To twist the knife, he pointed out the ingenuity of many slaves in escaping their captors or in performing labor, which to him indicated blacks had just as much economic potential as whites; they just needed to be given the chance to realize it.

[Nepenthe]

I tend to shrug at characterizing these guys as lone wolves, because for one it directly says nothing. He physically acted alone; this is a distinction that doesn't really matter to the outcome of the case anymore than his shoe size. Indirectly however, it seems to divorce this dude from the community at large, as if he came to his conclusions in a perfect vacuum, when in reality his manifesto reveals language that is unsurprisingly similar to conservative demagoguery typical of where he's from. "We need to take our country back," "we need to stand up and fight," "There was no big deal in the Trayvon Martin case," "Slavery and segregation weren't as bad as black people say"- the parallels to talk I hear not just from conservative voters but from actual sitting politicians are endless.

He is not alone, and one of the few annoying things about this has been white people trying to completely ostracize him as "not one of us". He is one of you. He is as much a product of this country as anyone else, as American as apple pie and baseball, the only difference being he ran unchecked into a vicious spiral of hate somewhere online (specifically, he names the Council of Conservative Citizens as the thing that sent him over.) This country and its culture are responsible for breeding and raising this fucker into the man he would become, and it would be nice if conventional conservative advice was followed by its adherents and "responsibility was taken."

[Badnik Zero]

I don't think calling him a lone wolf is really an attempt to not take responsibility. While conservatives in general seem largely tuned-out of racial issues, hostile to affirmative action and so on, the majority like any decent people do not associate with white supremacy groups. Do you mean the mindset is basically the same? When I say he acted alone, I mean that it's scary that a person can just be convinced by a bunch of shitty websites and YouTube videos to go on a rampage. You think there was a climate of hate surrounding him in his regular life? I am really asking because I don't think I've ever met a white supremacist, towns where I live are heavily mixed. I certainly have heard frustration from all races regarding others, but most racially frustrated people don't go on a shooting mission. Who then, is responsible?

[Kuzu]

I'm rather ashamed to admit that as these incidents become more and more frequent, I find myself becoming less and less shocked by them. Every time there's a major killing of African Americans, media always go out of their way of telling us "Be peaceful" or "violence isn't the answer" or some other pacifistic crap. As Tara said on the last page, its pretty easy for white people to say that to black people because their rights and views are the ones continuously perpetuated by this country, so why the hell should they see things from our perspective.

 

Its annoying, but at this point I know its just a deeply ingrained part of our country that is 100 years in the making. The best we can hope for is to just to keep trying to get as much word out about how flawed the system is and hope at least 1 person out of 50 actually listens. 

I don't think calling him a lone wolf is really an attempt to not take responsibility. While conservatives in general seem largely tuned-out of racial issues, hostile to affirmative action and so on, the majority like any decent people do not associate with white supremacy groups. Do you mean the mindset is basically the same? When I say he acted alone, I mean that it's scary that a person can just be convinced by a bunch of shitty websites and YouTube videos to go on a rampage. You think there was a climate of hate surrounding him in his regular life? I am really asking because I don't think I've ever met a white supremacist, towns where I live are heavily mixed. I certainly have heard frustration from all races regarding others, but most racially frustrated people don't go on a shooting mission. Who then, is responsible

 

The guy acted on his own thoughts and convictions and his beliefs were likely influenced by his upbringing; so really, its both himself and the sociological influences in his life, which were most likely perpetuated by his family and the like. 

[nintega137]

Some more articcles on the topic 

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/westboro-baptist-church-says-god-sent-charleston-shooter-plans-to-picket-funeral/

 

Usual crap

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/why-it-might-be-time-to-accept-that-white-lives-matter-more-a-black-atheist-reacts-to-dylann-roofs-bond-hearing/

 

sadness

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/dylann-roof-black-people-view-everything-through-a-racial-lens/

 

More info about the shooter

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/dylann-roofs-black-friend-says-the-murderer-isnt-racist-does-that-make-it-true/?ref_widget=trending&ref_blog=lovejoyfeminism&ref_post=if-you-dont-want-a-baby-just-dont-have-sex

 

And this last one reveals he apparently had a black friend who even now still doesn't think he's racist. Not that that really changes anything like the article pointed out. 

[Nepenthe]

I don't think calling him a lone wolf is really an attempt to not take responsibility. While conservatives in general seem largely tuned-out of racial issues, hostile to affirmative action and so on, the majority like any decent people do not associate with white supremacy groups. Do you mean the mindset is basically the same? When I say he acted alone, I mean that it's scary that a person can just be convinced by a bunch of shitty websites and YouTube videos to go on a rampage. You think there was a climate of hate surrounding him in his regular life? I am really asking because I don't think I've ever met a white supremacist, towns where I live are heavily mixed. I certainly have heard frustration from all races regarding others, but most racially frustrated people don't go on a shooting mission. Who then, is responsible?

 

I don't consider white supremacy only just a conscious belief that white people are superior to everyone else. It's easy to call out the KKK, Stormfront, and the like for their delusion and heinousness, and indeed it's undoubtedly that level of heinousness that Roof sunk to when he started bolstering his beliefs through online research. But that's only the tip of the iceberg. White supremacy to me is all of the casual and subconscious sociological components that exist to the benefit of white people and to the detriment of others within America, those things that are not borne out of hate but of ignorance and shortsightedness, those things taken for granted or not assumed to exist because they are not experienced or seen directly by the culture benefiting from them.

 

White supremacy is what allows South Carolina to fly a symbol of slavery, treachery, and racism right on the capital under the belief of "heritage" and "Southern Pride." It is the thing that allows the media to get away with running narratives about the "pathological issues" present in a monolithic strawman "black culture" they've characterized as a scourge for years while at the same time when confronted with the actual word "race" downplaying its relevance or blaming it on Obama and Al Sharpton for stirring up "tensions" that, in their eyes, were never there before until someone uttered them into existence like a wizard. It is the thing that allows the media to so easily get away with entertaining any so-called anti-Christian angle to this tragedy. It is the thing that allows people to entertain the thought of a white woman coming in to appropriate and make a mockery of black culture, and to subsequently insist that black culture doesn't exist anymore or cannot be defined because it's convenient for the arguer. It is the thing that allows people to believe that there are no racial discrepancies within a justice system that does not actually dole out punishments based on equitable application of the law in line with actual crime statistics. It is the thing that allows people to rationalize the harm and deaths of black people because they did something in their lives beforehand that made them imperfect human beings or "thugs." It is the thing that causes confusion on why "thug" is becoming more contentious with the black community, and why white people will sometimes ask "Why can't I say the n-word?" It is the thing that causes people to more strongly support the death penalty when they are told straight to their faces it more adversely effects black people. It is the thing that allows people to worry that the country is being "taken away" and needs to be "taken back." It is the thing that allows white people attempt to derail national conversations with international injustices by reminding us that "white people have it hard in Japan too!" or "Slaves were sold by black people!" It is the thing that allows white people to insert themselves into conversations that don't apply to them because of the discomfort faced with not being included in anything and everything, an example of that being the reactionary hashtag "All Lives Matter." It is the thing that allows black people to be enigmas or sideshows to white people where our hair must be touched or we have to be complimented on our grasp of American English. It is the thing that allowed this very thread to be derailed because of the belief that even talking about the racial component of this case was "race-baiting" and that "reverse racism" was happening, that someone felt personally attacked simply because their culture was being called out despite the fact that they failed to realize that they were not the actual victim that caused this conversation to exist in the first place.

 

White supremacy is not just the KKK. It is the thing that allowed you to even frame the question of white supremacy being a fringe thing in the first place, rather than something that is woven into the very fabric of this nation's history and current culture that is inevitably going to bubble over into attacks like these like it always has. I'm not saying you're a white supremacist who frequents Stormfront however. I'd never just assume that, because again it's not something entirely borne of conscious hatred, radicalism, or mental illness. It is simply the way America works and we're all kind of indoctrinated into it in our own ways. So to answer your question of who is responsible: Modern American culture undoubtedly shares blame in this. Dylan Roof didn't learn this from someone who thought of these brilliant new concepts in the months before he decided on the attack. He is simply the extreme logical end of a country that's long since been set up to benefit white people and to fear and despise people of color.

[Sunwalker]

On a more positive note, this is a piece of news that I found heartwarming:
 

Dylann Roof heard words of forgiveness from families of some of the nine people he's accused of killing.
 
His response: A blank expression.
 
Wearing a striped inmate jumpsuit, the 21-year-old appeared Friday afternoon by video feed at a bond hearing in Charleston, South Carolina. He stood motionless while listening to the anguished words of relatives of victims he gunned down Wednesday night at a Bible study at the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.
 
"I will never be able to hold her again, but I forgive you," a daughter of Ethel Lance said. "And have mercy on your soul. You hurt me. You hurt a lot of people but God forgives you, and I forgive you."
 
Felicia Sanders -- mother of victim Tywanza Sanders and a survivor of the church shooting herself -- said that "every fiber in my body hurts, and I will never be the same."
 
"As we said in the Bible study, we enjoyed you," she said of Roof. "But may God have mercy on you."
 
The families got the attention of President Obama, who tweeted: "In the midst of darkest tragedy, the decency and goodness of the American people shines through in these families."

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/19/us/charleston-church-shooting-main/index.html
 

Forgiving someone who bumped into you in the street is a trivial task, but to forgive someone who did what this criminal did requires a strength of character that I can admire. I don't think I would be capable of doing the same if I were in the place of those families.

[Tara]

Aww, that is really beautiful.  I didn't expect it to have any impact on him, but while it's not unjustified for them to hold grudges or even wish him dead (hell, I wasn't even affected by the issue and I said I hoped the guy rots), it's really heartwarming to see kindness and love overtake them, rather than hate. <3

[Dizcrybe]

They're stronger people than I am, that's for sure.

[Kevin]

The South Carolina House just passed a bill to remove the Confederate flag from the state capitol ground. It will now be sent to the governor which she said she will sign.

[Nepenthe]

This comes on the heels of Memphis voting to get rid of a statue of Nathan Forrest, a confederate general and first Grand Wizard of the KKK, as well as Forrest's remains under it.

Good. I welcome the destruction of confederate romanticism.

[shdowhunt60]

This comes on the heels of Memphis voting to get rid of a statue of Nathan Forrest, a confederate general and first Grand Wizard of the KKK, as well as Forrest's remains under it.

Good. I welcome the destruction of confederate romanticism.