Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/13/09 11:03 PM, Weenog wrote: I live in europa and there's plenty o' gangs here man.... although most of them are turkish or moroccan..
O_o don't get me wrong i live in one of their neighborhoods and there are alot of good people to, but the worst of them just tend to be realy bad.

I wonder how obvious this is a Benelux thing.
But this is kind of diversity deal that we still can't really manage. That's why we kind of suffer from a rightish shift that my seriously damage our credibility in being tolerant.
All my life I have been stimulated to be tolerant (through schools and interaction and also some government initiatives), but still, Benelux countries tend to be called racist which in my opinion is more due to the fact that people have so many ways to report racism, such that it becomes more apparent.
We actually kicked a fairly legit political party out of the government because they were kind of racist. Unfortunately this party is being a top scorer each time a bit more. So there are seeds of intolerance over here.

At 5/13/09 11:42 PM, Tancrisism wrote: That is not just racist, but completely ignorant. Your statement assumes that blackness leads to gangs, which is so far from the truth. The reason that the black community in the United States have a gang problem is because of their historical socio-economic position in American society, NOT because they are black. The only relevance that being black has to the topic is that the slaves that were imported into the United States were strictly black, so the idea formed that black = slaves and slaves = black, and that thus blacks are inferior.

So, apologize all you want for not being racist while making absolutely racist comments. It's almost humourous.

True, that is the history of black slavery, and it is reasonable to assume that stance based on where you grow up. Now I'm sure you don't live in the type of area I do, because if you did your view would be much different. Here, I would say 70% of people are black and EVERY ONE I personally know doesn't try in school and there only excuse is that they say it's okay since their "black".

That is the situation, that blacks were brought in here as slaves. But now, everyone in America is given equal opportunity to achieve success and they throw it away. Is it because of there socio-economic problems? I doubt it, because many live in my district. I get straight A's, and they drop out of school. We both have the same chance for success, they just chose not to grab it.

If you want to disagree with me, fine. But I'm only stating what I GREW UP knowing. Maybe I grew up in a bad area and all these incidents are isolated to that. But don't try and make me seem like an idiot because of my life experience.

At 5/14/09 07:17 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote: True, that is the history of black slavery, and it is reasonable to assume that stance based on where you grow up. Now I'm sure you don't live in the type of area I do, because if you did your view would be much different. Here, I would say 70% of people are black and EVERY ONE I personally know doesn't try in school and there only excuse is that they say it's okay since their "black".

They obviously share the same problem, they see their color as something that keeps them back. It doesn't, but it has become common in society for it to seem to.

That is the situation, that blacks were brought in here as slaves. But now, everyone in America is given equal opportunity to achieve success and they throw it away. Is it because of there socio-economic problems? I doubt it, because many live in my district. I get straight A's, and they drop out of school. We both have the same chance for success, they just chose not to grab it.

Sociological problems go much deeper than district. Look to the history, the way they have been treated for the past 400 years. Then look to the way they have been treated in the past 100 years. And then look deeper, and see how they have been treated in the past 50 years, and then in the past 20. Racism hasn't disappeared, they are not suddenly viewed without stereotype, and many do not view themselves without stereotype.

The color has nothing innately to do with it, it's the section of society that their color has caused them to be placed in.

If you want to disagree with me, fine. But I'm only stating what I GREW UP knowing. Maybe I grew up in a bad area and all these incidents are isolated to that. But don't try and make me seem like an idiot because of my life experience.

Or lack thereof. Travel, see the world, meet people. The more people you meet, the more you realize that race says absolutely nothing about people except it may point to the culture that they were raised in.

Or, and this may sound bizarre, try to meet some of these people you are talking about. You will find that while perhaps a large amount of them in your district may behave the way you say, this large amount is not necessarily a majority. And if you begin to learn about them, their personal pasts, and their family lives, you may begin to understand their positions.

At 5/14/09 07:53 PM, Tancrisism wrote: They obviously share the same problem, they see their color as something that keeps them back. It doesn't, but it has become common in society for it to seem to.

True.

The color has nothing innately to do with it, it's the section of society that their color has caused them to be placed in.

True.

Or lack thereof. Travel, see the world, meet people. The more people you meet, the more you realize that race says absolutely nothing about people except it may point to the culture that they were raised in.

I'm poor. I know that race has nothing to do with gangs, or anything for that matter. It's just that they think it does and they have to be "black" to fit in, or so they believe. It's a cycle that I don't see ending soon.

Or, and this may sound bizarre, try to meet some of these people you are talking about. You will find that while perhaps a large amount of them in your district may behave the way you say, this large amount is not necessarily a majority. And if you begin to learn about them, their personal pasts, and their family lives, you may begin to understand their positions.

I'm friends with a lot of them, and have nothing wrong with them as individuals. It's just their values that I disagree with. One of my friends has openly said that he doesn't expect to live past the age of 20. Which makes me really upset, because he's smart and if he puts his mind to it he can excel. But he fell victim to the culture that surrounds him, as you have said.

So your right, but it's disappointing that it has to be that way.

At 5/14/09 10:19 PM, CatRobot wrote: Maybe when the country was started, there was an implicit idea of taking over the ENTIRE continent, thus the "United States of America". What if tomorrow some Latin America nations join in a league and call it the "Republic of America" or the "Confederation of America". Will they still not be American?

I think the continent's name was hijacked.

I don't understand why Latin Americans are so upset over a name. Honestly, who cares? If Brazil or Canada had their revolution first, they could have taken the name "United States of America", and we probably would have chosen a different name. It's silly to get upset over a simple name.

At 5/14/09 10:36 PM, CatRobot wrote: Because the whole continent was originally called America, not just the USA. So either this is regarded, or maybe the name of the continent itself should be renamed to something else.

It still is called America. The United States is just the United States OF America. It's not saying that it is the only America, but the United States consisting that of the USA are OF (from/in) America.

Since everyone relates the word America to only the USA and not the whole continent, when I talk about the continent, I have ended up calling it "The new continent".

People say "The Americas" if they are talking about the entire (two) continent(s).

The world has 5 continents.

-Europe
-Asia
-Oceania
-Africa
-The New Continent

Actually, that depends on where in the world the people you are asking come from. If you ask us (Americans), there are 7 - Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, North America, South America, and Antarctica.

When you say England, it's obvious you talk only about London.

And now let's see if anyone has detailed geographical knowledge of London.

When you say London, You mean somewhere else right?

At 5/14/09 11:45 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 5/14/09 10:36 PM, CatRobot wrote: Because the whole continent was originally called America, not just the USA. So either this is regarded, or maybe the name of the continent itself should be renamed to something else.

It still is called America. The United States is just the United States OF America. It's not saying that it is the only America, but the United States consisting that of the USA are OF (from/in) America.

I agree. The problem though lies in when people use the words as synonyms. Saying, for example, that they are "americans", when they do mean a citizen of the US, and absolutely not of Mexio or Canada.

At 5/15/09 03:31 AM, Drakim wrote: I agree. The problem though lies in when people use the words as synonyms. Saying, for example, that they are "americans", when they do mean a citizen of the US, and absolutely not of Mexio or Canada.

That's simply what the name for citizens of the USA have come to be known as. Perhaps it's because of the proliferation of English during the era of the British Empire, perhaps it's because of the growing power and dominance of the United States during and after the Monroe era. Perhaps it's because the United States of America was the first country in the Americas to declare its independence from its colonial power.

Regardless of the reason, it's for simplicity's sake. I have heard suggestions that we should be called "United Statesians", but that is frankly impractical and would never stick. People from Mexico have the fitting name "Mexican", and people from Canada have the fitting name "Canadian".

I honestly have no idea when it would ever be useful to categorize everyone from the Americas into one group name, just like I don't see the word "Asian" as useful, given that people from Indochina are completely different from China (who, themselves, have many different people) who are completely different from Japan, who are completely different from Siberia, who are completely different from India, who are completely different from Afghanistan.... And so on.

Grouping everyone from the Americas into the title "American" would be like grouping everyone from "Eurasia" into "Eurasian". Sure, you are all connected to the same landmass, but it wouldn't explain anything except that. And what does that have to do with anything?

At 5/13/09 10:37 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote:

At 5/12/09 03:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

There isn't as many gangs because, let's face it, there isn't as many black people. Don't label me as racist because of that, it's the gods-honest truth.
True or not, it's definately a racist comment.
And no, it's not because of less black people. Sweden, while not having much BLACK people, has some 13% of it's population being first or second generation immigrants. Still we're not close to your amount of gangs.
You know what COULD POSSIBLY be a reason?
Less social gaps. Less poor people. Better infrastructure for the weak.

Of course being black means nothing about crime. Heck, in the past five years, we've had spree killers in this country who were every ethnic group exceptblack. There was white (many obviously), Native American (Jeff Weise) and Asian (Seung-Hui Cho), but no blacks!

Just to clear something up "Thank God America Isn't Like Europe" is not my opinion, its just the name of the article.

I can identify people who didn't read the article by their posts.

I kinda disagree.
Didn't Bush screwed up America?

At 5/15/09 04:42 PM, Farafor wrote: I kinda disagree.
Didn't Bush screwed up America?

Because it only takes one man to fuck up two centuries of progress and growth, right?

At 5/15/09 07:08 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/13/09 10:37 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote:

At 5/12/09 03:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

There isn't as many gangs because, let's face it, there isn't as many black people. Don't label me as racist because of that, it's the gods-honest truth.
True or not, it's definately a racist comment.

Could I offer a possible, rational explanation why black people may be more likely to be in gangs? It has already been said that racism still exists in the form of lower wages, and we know that poorer people are more likely to result to crime. Possibly it is this social injustice that means you will find more black people in gangs, because they come from poorer families and are less able to feed themselves otherwise?

People grew up with different values and belief structures in the separate areas, hence they developed differently.

As for the gun part... citizens should be fully able to buy high grade rifles, beyond standard pistols. The reason for this, is that were the government to force us to have only weak pea shooters, even worse no guns at all, the government could simply say "ok, marshal law, police state, curfews nationwide, if you don't like it lets see how far you can get with a few pistols when faced with our assault rifles." If citizens only have weak guns, or worse, no guns, they have lost their ability to forcefully step in when the government goes out of line. The Founding Fathers set up the Constitution in a way that assures the government they'll get forcefully removed if they screw up the country too bad. Our ability for a forceful revolt should never be taken away.

At 5/15/09 05:52 PM, DiscipleofCthulhu wrote:

At 5/15/09 07:08 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 5/13/09 10:37 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote:

At 5/12/09 03:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

There isn't as many gangs because, let's face it, there isn't as many black people. Don't label me as racist because of that, it's the gods-honest truth.
True or not, it's definately a racist comment.

Could I offer a possible, rational explanation why black people may be more likely to be in gangs? It has already been said that racism still exists in the form of lower wages, and we know that poorer people are more likely to result to crime. Possibly it is this social injustice that means you will find more black people in gangs, because they come from poorer families and are less able to feed themselves otherwise?

Yes. Every sane person understands excactly that, at least when it comes to economical crimes like theft and robbery. Then there's the argument that this wouldn't explain for example rape or murder, but there are many more factors and it's easy to see that the lower class has far more psychological problems (and especially, less treatment) as well as being as being around much criminality.