Ahh, yes. Diversity sells, but not it doesn't mean it is necessarily profitable than people who see the market majority to either be whites (through sheer number) or Hispanics/Latinos (through number of tickets sold).
Except, it does. When given proper promotion and with the right talent behind him, a movie with diverse casts can sell just as well – or even better, considering a greater number of demographics hit – than a movie sold to one kind of audience. We've had two black-centered films just last year that saw a tremendous amount of critical and commercial success with all kinds of audiences. This isn't rocket science:
if you want more money then you try to reach as much an audience as possible. The only reason not to do so is racism.
Thus, you will more likely see what is being sold due to market demographics (and potentially setting; i.e you're probably not going to find a black cast member in a movie placed in Medieval Europe [possibly an Asian cast member], ETC). However, that doesn't mean that the movies you have mention aren't exceptions (and it's probably due to good actors, ETC).
And yet there's no problem with movies set in ancient Egypt featuring all-white casts, so that excuse really doesn't make much sense. Also, black people existed in Medieval Europe…
Do you really not see the double standard here?
Now, again, I won't argue on the Oscars because I already know that most of the cast members have their own opinions and thus I don't know which one is racist, etc. Besides, half of them don't even watch the movies as pointed out earlier.
You realize this doesn't help your argument at all, right?
You also seem to not know either.
I'm the one drawing my argument from the things the leaders of the Confederacy (you know, the ones who
started the war) actually said, and the reasons they gave. The primary sources that historians are supposed to go by. The Confederate Vice President literally said that slavery was the immediate cause of the war. Every other issue you're pointing to results from one central issue – slavery.
Slavery is the reason for the cultural divide between the North and South,
slavery was the reason that the Northern and Southern economies developed differently,
slavery was the reason for the war, his views on
slavery (not to expand it) is the reason Lincoln got elected. This is not arguable.
SC seceded due to Lincoln's election (mind you, he wasn't pro-abolition but on a Free-Soil platform) because they feared the worst because A). He is a Northerner (obviously), B). He's in the Republican Party (the adversary of the southern Democrats who were pro-Slavery and later pro-Jim Crow). C). Fear-mongering about the curb-stomping of Slavery (even though the Western expansion of it would be stopped). The latter later joined SC due to similar issues, the priority for the secession was to keep Slavery alive with the other side issues of the tariffs, cultural divides, the issue of State Rights (North imposing taxes on the Sotuh), ETC.
You also seem to forget that some of those quotes were actually complaining about the Federal government as well as slavery; while it may not necessarily say tariffs, it was still a part of the governmental complain. Virginia made mention of that with the "oppression of Slave-Holding States" and perversion of Federal power. Another quote, regarding this is this:
If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate—all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country.
Basically, in the mind of the Southern nationalist back theb, the abolition of Slavery would ruin the Southerner's way of life. This is an example of the cultural divide.
And here is Alabama.
Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.
Complaints of new principles (conflicting with the values of Southerners) and theory of Government seem like another cultural divide reason. There's also mention of the hostility to the South. They are worried about the Government.
Source for both quotes.
More to the point, they were worried that the federal government was going to act to limit the expansion of
slavery – which Southern leaders viewed as vital to the practice's survival. You know that the quotes you provided actually say this, correct?
The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate—all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country.
Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery.
The antebellum Southern way of life, as the plantation owners say it, depended on a caste system that saw black slaves at the bottom. To end slavery was to destroy that, and this is why they were willing to go to war to protect that interest.
I mean, you really can't
not see how much you're proving my point here. This is why black history is needed, because way too many people like yourself are trying to downplay the history of racism in the U.S. Slavery isn't
a cause of the Civil War, it is
the cause. Every single issue that you point to existed because of slavery in the first place.
I also don't see why you still want to defend the BPG. They've literally threatened to shoot up a school that I used to go to (and specific target whites.). Take this while you may (even it anecdotes are somewhat meaningless), but if I've already dealt with that, do you really think I'm going to change my mind? They are a violent mob resorting that should be jailed.
Meanwhile, white people actually do shoot up schools (and movie theaters, and churches). And white terrorist organizations (e.g. the Ku Klux Klan) have done far more damage to the U.S., and killed far more people, than the Black Panthers have ever done.
They misinterpreted Malcom's ideals ideals (from what I've seen; he was pro-self defense more than pro-Violence) and do not stand for true equality but for Orwellian equality (I.E "All people are equal, some are more "equal" than others.).
I don't know if you've actually… I don't know… read anything on the Black Panthers, but they were formed on the ideals of self-defense and protecting black communities.
You also seem to forget who was protesting during Baltimore. A lot of them where from BLM, and reasonably there were in the party who burned down Baltimore, which did not help at all.
This is why I said Black Lives Matter… "as an organization". BLM didn't call for the riots, they happened spontaneously and from within the communities where Michael Brown and Freddie Gray were killed.
Violence =/= the way to go. People like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. had managed their advances in Civil Rights through non-violent tactics such as sit-ins and marches. BLM, on the other hand gets angry because of something and decides to go on an irrational, ludicrous spree of robberies and arson with some other protest groups. They haven't done much if not at all.
Don't appeal to Martin Luther King Jr. to make your point. Martin Luther King Jr. didn't agree with you:
I contend that the cry of "Black Power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1966)
But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?...It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1968) (emphasis mine)
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1963)
King wasn't about peace, he was about non-violence. There is a difference between the two. Civil disobedience, protests, rallies, sit-ins, etc.
The exact same tactics Black Lives Matter uses today are the exact same tactics King was using back in the 1960s. They were about being
seen and heard, because that was the only way white America was going to pay attention. Peace never gets anything, and MLK was contemptuous and white people who promoted it as a means of silencing black people so they could continue to uphold the status quo.
When faced with riots in his day, King's sympathy was with the rioters. But you don't know that, because you don't know the real Martin Luther King Jr. The radical who was feared and
hated by white people all over the political spectrum back in his day. The one they called a communist, an agitator, a race-baiter, and every single thing FOX News called Al Sharpton today. The one who was monitored, and eventually killed, by the federal government. You don't know
this King, because white America has promoted a sanitized version of him ever his assassination that erased his radicalism. And you want to sit here and tell me white people haven't downplayed and sanitized black history? You, who doesn't know why the Black Panthers were formed, why the Civil War began, or what Martin Luther King Jr. even believed? Come on, man, just stop.
Now, for the comparison. The guy was a Veteran and was being recording by a on-vest police camera. I do not believe Tamir Rice's shooter had that, so that may have been a factor. However, the the murderer didn't pull a gun while charging, unlike Tamir who tried to pull a gun right in front of a cop who had a weapon out.
The murderer was an active threat to the cop's life, charging with clear intent to cause harm. Not only does the officer – who's
standing right in front of the charging man (and not in a car) – not shoot him, he gives him several opportunities to stand down. Tamir didn't get opportunities to stand down (not that he was even doing anything), because he's shot within seconds of the officer arriving on the scene. You're so desperate to justify the shooting of a 12-year old black boy, you're ignoring the clear and obvious double standard in both cases.
It doesn't matter if he was "unarmed" (because it was a toy replica that looked like the real thing); the officer thought it was a real gun and he was shot due to what is most likely an instinct of self-defense. However, I am surprised that the officer didn't shoot when he charged towards when he stumbled. However, he still is a Veteran Marine so that may or may not be a factor. The guy say it right to shoot Tamir because he saw the gun and thought he was in imminent danger.
Meanwhile, the officer who used restraint actually
was in imminent danger. He didn't
think, he
knew he was, and was still able to use restraint to de-escalate the situation. Tamir didn't even get the chance to cooperate. He's been shot far too quickly. And for what? Because a black boy playing in a park with a toy gun – like millions of children do every day – was deemed too dangerous for the cops to even try an alternative solution to settling the situation.
So logically, asserting that police killed more blacks and blacks to police, wouldn't that mean those blacks that were killed might have done something to make the officer think he was in imminent danger (such as pull out a pistol)? It is not a racial problem in that instance, whether it is or is not in other instances is another story. For example, maybe the reason the armed whites weren't shot as much as the blacks was because they cooperated with police? Perhaps it could be a psychological reason as well (tribalism, ETC).
Armed white people are given the opportunity to cooperate with police, as we see in the video posted earlier. They're given chances to stop and are even safely restrained when they ignore every one of those chances, because, in the eyes of police, they're white and are seen as deserving of the right to life. Almost every black person harassed, beaten, or killed by the police, that we've seen in the media over the past year or so, has been unarmed. Michael Brown was unarmed, Walter Scott was unarmed, Freddie Gray was unarmed, Tamir Rice was unarmed, Eric Garner was unarmed, Sandra Bland was unarmed. It doesn't matter if black people give police a reason to be afraid or not, it doesn't matter if that black person was armed or not, it doesn't even matter if the black person was an angel in the situation or not. All that matters is that they're black and, to the police, they're a clear and present threat at all times.
You want a reason? I'll give you a reason. It's centuries of ingrained American racism, that's your reason.
Right, but sometimes it's more than just "this black man scared me", for instance, when the officer sees the suspect motioning at their waist. In many of these scenarios, the victim wasn't actually not doing anything, rather, there's some act or another which leads the officer to suspect that the victim might have had a weapon. Obviously if the victim literally wasn't doing anything it would be unreasonable for the officer to respond with any kind of force, really. But the police officer can't confirm that whoever he is apprehending is not armed. And this is the United States we're talking about, where even people who aren't shady have handguns. In a place where such deadly weapons are so readily available, I don't think it's unreasonable for police to be so, well, paranoid.
But most of the time, police aren't paranoid when it comes to white people. Blacks are
disproportionately killed by cops. There are some cities in America right now that every single person killed by the police has been black, because police are paranoid when it comes to black people – and only black people.
The fact that American society is so heavily armed at this point that people assume 12-year olds playing with guns in the park actually have real guns is an issue, but not one necessarily connected to the thread.
Be that as it may, I think the principle that "the police ought to respond with deadly force if they perceive their life to be in danger" to still hold. I'm not trying to marginalize the racial issue, but saying that there's no easy way to accommodate both ideals - allowing the officer to respond to perceived threats to his life as well as reducing the suffering that blacks disproportionately face through the justice system.
I don't know, I think there is a solution here. Well, several solutions, but the ones that pertains to the topic is this:
treat black people as you would everyone else. Let go of the notion that black people are inherently dangerous and always a threat to the life of an officer. Hold cops accountable for murder. If all of the black people who were killed by the cops in 2015 happened to be white, at least half of them would still be alive today.
This is going to sound stupid, but there's probably more a lot more black people than there are police. Where I live, there's about 7000-8000 officers, which are not all on duty at a given time, for a population of over two million, of whom over a third of a million are black. I mean, if black people killed a number officers comparable to the amount of blacks killed by officers, then they'd have to be trying to kill officers, wouldn't they? I don't think that means anything.
That's exactly the point – we aren't. Yet officers act as if we are, which is why black people are disproportionately killed by the police. If you actually look at how many police officers died on-duty in the year 2015, you'd see that the vast majority of little to fear. I don't really care about how paranoid police officers feel, because they're not the ones who are getting killed the streets out here.
