I actually hate Christianity!

[Aos Si]

I don't want to spoil the party but, wasn't there a massive race riot that cost millions of dollars that lasted nearly two weeks, that resulted in several deaths in the US? I don't think it was completely peaceful.

[Hermit]

I don't want to spoil the party but, wasn't there a massive race riot that cost millions of dollars that lasted nearly two weeks, that resulted in several deaths in the US? I don't think it was completely peaceful.

You're not spoiling it at all. Seth conceded as much, and I do agree with him when he said

There were very limited riots, and relatively few deaths in a situation that historically results in civil war and genocide, as in Rwanda or any of a hundred other nations in history where oppressed minority populations rose up in anger and armed rebellion.

Compared to racial conflict in Biafra, Sri Lanka, Uganda and many other locations around the world, the US black rights campaign caused relatively minor damage in terms of both lives lost and property damaged.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Where's the shit flinging smiley when you need it?

[Aos Si]

I don't want to spoil the party but, wasn't there a massive race riot that cost millions of dollars that lasted nearly two weeks, that resulted in several deaths in the US? I don't think it was completely peaceful.

You're not spoiling it at all. Seth conceded as much, and I do agree with him when he said

There were very limited riots, and relatively few deaths in a situation that historically results in civil war and genocide, as in Rwanda or any of a hundred other nations in history where oppressed minority populations rose up in anger and armed rebellion.

Compared to racial conflict in Biafra, Sri Lanka, Uganda and many other locations around the world, the US black rights campaign caused relatively minor damage in terms of both lives lost and property damaged.

A riot lasting nearly 2 weeks and costing hundreds of millions of dollars that spread to more than 100 cities is not what I would call a limited riot, as riots go I'd say that was one of the biggest in history. Only beaten by the French riots. Just saying, it wasn't all rosey.

After an outbreak of violence in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, there were major racial incidents in many cities every summer for the rest of the decade. The worst riot of the Sixties took place in Detroit during the "hot summer" of 1967. It took five days to restore order. There were 43 dead, 7,000 arrested, 1,300 buildings destroyed and 2,700 businesses looted.

Another of the bloodiest riots was in Watts, Los Angeles, in 1965 when 35 were killed, 900 injured and the value of property destroyed was assessed at $225 million. Troops were called in to quell the trouble.

Many American blacks remember the violence at Selma, Alabama, in 1965 when civil rights marchers led by Martin Luther King were set upon by police wielding clubs and cattle prods. After King was murdered in 1968, burning, looting and rioting broke out in 125 American cities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... riots.html

And of course it wasn't the only one.

[Hermit]

A riot lasting nearly 2 weeks and costing hundreds of millions of dollars that spread to more than 100 cities is not what I would call a limited riot, as riots go I'd say that was one of the biggest in history. Only beaten by the French riots. Just saying, it wasn't all rosey.

Hundred millions of dollars in property damage and a few dozen deaths is minor in comparison to racial strife in other countries, where the death toll exceeds 10,000 and property damage is in the magnitude found in outright civil wars. For fuck's sake, even the relatively peaceful demolition of the apartheid regime in South Africa makes the cost in lives and property during the US black rights struggle pale in comparison, and most racial strife all over the world has been worse than what happened while Pik Botha was in charge there.

[Aos Si]

A riot lasting nearly 2 weeks and costing hundreds of millions of dollars that spread to more than 100 cities is not what I would call a limited riot, as riots go I'd say that was one of the biggest in history. Only beaten by the French riots. Just saying, it wasn't all rosey.

Hundred millions of dollars in property damage and a few dozen deaths is minor in comparison to racial strife in other countries, where the death toll exceeds 10,000 and property damage is in the magnitude found in outright civil wars. For fuck's sake, even the relatively peaceful demolition of the apartheid regime in South Africa makes the cost in lives and property during the US black rights struggle pale in comparison, and most racial strife all over the world has been worse than what happened while Pik Botha was in charge there.

I'm not sure what you are referring to in Shri lanka, the Tamils aren't really much different from the indigenous populace. And developing countries who are controlled by brutal despots? What you are talking about is tribal conflicts that have existed for centuries mostly anyway. Yeah apt analogy there. I think comparisons with South Africa don't really hold up well either, given the nature of Apartheid and the extreme poverty of the black populace. I just said it wasn't peaceful. There's no need to cause a fuss, he was painting a rosier picture than necessary is all.

[Hermit]

[H]e was painting a rosier picture than necessary is all.

Seth wasn't. He said that the black rights campaign in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world, and he is right about that.

[Aos Si]

[H]e was painting a rosier picture than necessary is all.

Seth wasn't. He said that the black rights campaign in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world, and he is right about that.

Well if that's all he was saying its trite. So what we don't expect the US to brutally massacre its own people its a democratic and developed nation. It seemed to me he was sugar coating it a bit, so I just pointed out that it wasn't all that peaceful, it's not like I'm saying the US is evil.

The civil rights era was one of the finest examples of the democratic processes we use to peacefully resolve such issues in all of human history. There were very limited riots, and relatively few deaths in a situation that historically results in civil war and genocide, as in Rwanda or any of a hundred other nations in history where oppressed minority populations rose up in anger and armed rebellion.

Clearly this is not true the riots were prolonged, cause a great deal of property damage, and were far from limited, unless 125 cities counts as limited, I just pointed that out. I wasn't disagreeing with the situation in Rwanda which isn't a racial dispute anyway its a tribal one, and it has been going on for centuries. About the only thing he does get right is the number of deaths which are indeed relatively few, but then that's a civil war and this is a riot, who's primary purpose is not to kill anyway, although no doubt some of the deaths would of been race related. I suspect most were due to police shooting looters etc. The civil war caused a great deal of deaths over race relations and civil rights too if we want to go into the whole history.

If you are going to portray history then get the facts right at least, some apt analogies would be good too. I'm not attacking anyone here, just pointing out the facts.

[JimC]

[H]e was painting a rosier picture than necessary is all.

Seth wasn't. He said that the black rights campaign in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world, and he is right about that.

Well if that's all he was saying its trite. So what we don't expect the US to brutally massacre its own people its a democratic and developed nation. It seemed to me he was sugar coating it a bit, so I just pointed out that it wasn't all that peaceful, it's not like I'm saying the US is evil.

The civil rights era was one of the finest examples of the democratic processes we use to peacefully resolve such issues in all of human history. There were very limited riots, and relatively few deaths in a situation that historically results in civil war and genocide, as in Rwanda or any of a hundred other nations in history where oppressed minority populations rose up in anger and armed rebellion.

Clearly this is not true the riots were prolonged, cause a great deal of property damage, and were far from limited, unless 125 cities counts as limited, I just pointed that out. I wasn't disagreeing with the situation in Rwanda which isn't a racial dispute anyway its a tribal one, and it has been going on for centuries. About the only thing he does get right is the number of deaths which are indeed relatively few, but then that's a civil war and this is a riot, who's primary purpose is not to kill anyway, although no doubt some of the deaths would of been race related. I suspect most were due to police shooting looters etc. The civil war caused a great deal of deaths over race relations and civil rights too if we want to go into the whole history.

If you are going to portray history then get the facts right at least, some apt analogies would be good too. I'm not attacking anyone here, just pointing out the facts.

The riots were a spontaneous reaction to oppression, quite understandable, even if, as human nature will, the anger turned to random violence and looting. The civil rights campaign, although clearly connected to the conditions which triggered the riots, was a purposeful mass movement of protest and civil disobedience, with basic tenets of non-violence at its core. Its success in pressuring subsequent democratic change was the triumph that Seth alluded to.

[Hermit]

just pointing out the facts.

The black rights campaign in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world. That's a FACT. Thanks for playing.

[Aos Si]

[H]e was painting a rosier picture than necessary is all.

Seth wasn't. He said that the black rights campaign in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world, and he is right about that.

Well if that's all he was saying its trite. So what we don't expect the US to brutally massacre its own people its a democratic and developed nation. It seemed to me he was sugar coating it a bit, so I just pointed out that it wasn't all that peaceful, it's not like I'm saying the US is evil.

The civil rights era was one of the finest examples of the democratic processes we use to peacefully resolve such issues in all of human history. There were very limited riots, and relatively few deaths in a situation that historically results in civil war and genocide, as in Rwanda or any of a hundred other nations in history where oppressed minority populations rose up in anger and armed rebellion.

Clearly this is not true the riots were prolonged, cause a great deal of property damage, and were far from limited, unless 125 cities counts as limited, I just pointed that out. I wasn't disagreeing with the situation in Rwanda which isn't a racial dispute anyway its a tribal one, and it has been going on for centuries. About the only thing he does get right is the number of deaths which are indeed relatively few, but then that's a civil war and this is a riot, who's primary purpose is not to kill anyway, although no doubt some of the deaths would of been race related. I suspect most were due to police shooting looters etc. The civil war caused a great deal of deaths over race relations and civil rights too if we want to go into the whole history.

If you are going to portray history then get the facts right at least, some apt analogies would be good too. I'm not attacking anyone here, just pointing out the facts.

The riots were a spontaneous reaction to oppression, quite understandable, even if, as human nature will, the anger turned to random violence and looting. The civil rights campaign, although clearly connected to the conditions which triggered the riots, was a purposeful mass movement of protest and civil disobedience, with basic tenets of non-violence at its core. Its success in pressuring subsequent democratic change was the triumph that Seth alluded to.

I wasn't attacking his point just his sugar coating of history from freeing the slaves to the civil rights movement. Sure it was pivotal in creating democratic change. Not that it has anything to do with it but I bet the riots didn't hurt that movement for change either.

[Aos Si]

just pointing out the facts.

The black rights campaign in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world. That's a FACT. Thanks for playing.

You mean many conflicts that have nothing to do with race. The guys facts were wrong?! His analogy to Rwanda which is a dispute amongst its own people is inapt? His suggestion that it was peaceful tends to skip the whole history and isn't entirely accurate. What is the matter with you exactly? I'm not debating his points just the accuracy of his history. Do you seriously want to dispute anything I have posted or is this some weird Seth love in? The guy tended to paint an over rosey picture I pointed that out. That's all there is to it.

You're welcome, although I don't see how this is a game.

[Hermit]

just pointing out the facts.

The black rights campaign in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world. That's a FACT. Thanks for playing.

You mean many conflicts that have nothing to do with race. The guys facts were wrong?! His analogy to Rwanda which is a dispute amongst its own people is inapt?

Stop digging.

[Aos Si]

just pointing out the facts.

The black rights campaign in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world. That's a FACT. Thanks for playing.

You mean many conflicts that have nothing to do with race. The guys facts were wrong?! His analogy to Rwanda which is a dispute amongst its own people is inapt?

Stop digging.

Digging what?

The origins of the Tutsi and Hutu peoples is a key issue in the history of Burundi and Rwanda, as well as the Great Lakes region of Africa. While the Hutu are generally recognized as the ethnic majority of Rwanda, in racialist ideology the Tutsi were identified as a foreign race, as opposed to an indigenous minority. The relationship between the two is thus, in many ways, derived from the perceived origins and claim to "Rwandan-ness". The largest conflict related to this question was the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.

You are aware of course your link disagrees with you? These people aren't genetically different enough to for the basis of a race. Sure it might of been used as a rather dubious justification for disputes, but the conflict is far older than that and revolves around tribal enmities. They are separate groups of people who share a common ancestry.

Are you disputing that Rwanda is not a race related dispute and are you also disputing any other facts I have put up?



My points

• Rwanda is not a racial dispute eg black vs white, it is a tribal dispute
• It wasn't as peaceful as was implied

That's it just so you can actually address me.

Rwandans form three separate groups, the Hutus (84% of the population as of 2009), Tutsis (15%) and Twas (1%).[148][65] Unlike the disparate ethnic groups of neighbouring Uganda and Tanzania, these three groups share a common culture and language and are classified as social groups rather than tribes.

Ok its not even a tribal dispute it is dispute between related groups of people with different cultural designations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda

[Hermit]

just pointing out the facts.

The black rights campaign in the US a few decades ago was quite mild in comparison to racial conflicts in many countries elsewhere in the world. That's a FACT. Thanks for playing.

You mean many conflicts that have nothing to do with race. The guys facts were wrong?! His analogy to Rwanda which is a dispute amongst its own people is inapt?

Stop digging.

Digging what?

The origins of the Tutsi and Hutu peoples is a key issue in the history of Burundi and Rwanda, as well as the Great Lakes region of Africa. While the Hutu are generally recognized as the ethnic majority of Rwanda, in racialist ideology the Tutsi were identified as a foreign race, as opposed to an indigenous minority. The relationship between the two is thus, in many ways, derived from the perceived origins and claim to "Rwandan-ness". The largest conflict related to this question was the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.

The bolded and underlined bits would indicate that you are in a hole. Stop digging.