Crash, a movie about Racism.

[Redleg]

Here is an examble of modern Racism - and it is not exactly what you think it is .

And some black leaders – outraged that the seven city officials named in the subpoena are black – went on the offensive Tuesday, calling the investigation a conspiracy on the part of Mayor Laura Miller and Dallas' white business elite.

"They're going to make the Los Angeles riots look like a picnic," Mr. Fantroy said. "Why is this all just black folks? Why is it when it comes to us, we're guilty the minute there are accusations?"

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....7c8f132f.html

It is really interesting to read - lots of undercurrents about the Dallas Politicial sceen

[Goofball]

----------

I could go off on a giant rant on this, and I may well, if this turns out to be more than two paragraphs, but may I point out,there havn't been any cases of racily motivated murders, otherwise it would be plastered all over the news, and sence I'm a pretty avid watcher of news, I don't think anything like that has happened in the near past, or will happen in the near future.

Rea-eee-eee-eee-eee-lll-lll-y?

This one was in 1999. Does that qualify as "near past?"

http://www.texasnaacp.org/jasper.htm

This one focuses on all manner of race-based violence, but I've quoted some of the relevant parts below the link:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/DiRaB_41/2766_41.asp

...Neo-Nazi skinheads have been held responsible for five murders in Texas since 1990...
...In 1991 and 1992, skinheads were responsible for two separate killings of homeless Black men in Birmingham...
...Aaron Moser, a racist skinhead and leader of the National Socialist Front, is serving a life sentence for the 1993 murder of a white youth who was walking with two Black friends...

And I didn't even begin posting all the links to race-based murder in other countries like England and Canada.

You know, for such an "avid watcher of news," you really don't seem to know what's going on.

But to say that one murder out of the hundreds that take place, to take that one murder that was made against a person because of his race, and say "well that means that racism is a huge problem" is really a very ignorant remark.

A little pointer for you: when you put quotation marks around something (as you did above), in generally means that you are quoting what somebody else has already said. If you take a moment to go back and read, you'll see that I never said that racism was a "huge problem." So you saying that I had made an ignorant remark when I never even made the remark in question is simply laughable.

I came into this thread to refute the statement "racism is a thing of the past." So far, I and others have completely disproved that statement, and no valid arguments to the contrary have been provided. Unless of course, you count telling those who disagree with you to "shut up" as a valid argument.

But to insult someone like you did over his opinion is really not necesary and shows quite a bit of rudeness on your part. The fact that he didn't respond in a flame is amazing to me.

Let me get this straight: I get told to STFU and stop my whining, but I'm the one doing the insulting. Nice.

Another little pointer: When somebody completely destorys another person's argument (much like I am doing to yours right now), it's not called insulting, it's called debating.

And might I ask what stories of ethnic clensing are there in america? Or our canadian neighbors?

Although some would argue that ethnic cleansing is indeed taking place in the inner cities of the U.S., I do not personally subscribe to that view, which is why I never claimed that ethnic cleansing was taking place in the U.S.

The rest of the world is irrelivant, because the idea that we in america need films like this to effect people in India simply isn't true, and I can't think of one arguement that would make me think otherwise.

I don't even know what that statement means.

One more addition to what has become my rant, just because a white guy kills a black guy, doesn't mean that it was because of his skin color, there are many reasons to kill other than race, and the fact that he was black and the killer was white, or vice-versa, may have no relevance to the case.

You are absolutely right. However, in many cases, the fact that the victim was black and the killer was white (or vice versa), has everything to do with the motive for the murder.

Think on that for a while, it would be interesting to hear some rebuttles.

How'd I do?

[The Stranger]

as said some people really dont see the whole picture. really dont get me started about rasicm, all i can say that it still out there, still big and to both sides. most people are just predudiced but a lot are also racists not only to black or muslim but to anyone that dont fit in their perfect society (whatever that might be) some can adopt better some cant.

a friend of my (gothic) got beaten up by nazis and the police walked past it like it didnt even happened. i got chased for a mile by nazi's just for being there. this might seem extreme cuz nazi's aint we, but alot of people feel the same but arent (wo)man enough to come out for it. that is what i despise even more, those nasty backstabbers

[|OCS|Virus]

Very intelligent and thought out, kudos for taking some time out and writing a post. Although I don't agree with everything you said it is nice that you have some arguements to back what you say. Although I still believe that films like this arn't needed because america is now a free country. I just wanted to make the case that racial killings were not something that happened 3 or 4 times a year. But it did bother me a bit that the links you posted from 1999 and 1996 are now 6 and 9 years old.

But I would like to point out no one ever told you to STFU and it wasn't something to take offence over. If they had said "goofball STFU" then yes an STFU twords them would be appropriate.

As for using the quotes like I did, I never said you used the words though looking on it now I see how you could get that impression and for that I apologize, but that was not what I ment.

And when you said:

When there are no stories of ethnic cleansing going on anywhere in the world

Sence when is america not part of the world? which when I said:

The rest of the world is irrelivant, because the idea that we in america need films like this to effect people in India simply isn't true, and I can't think of one arguement that would make me think otherwise.

when you talked about the world, I wanted to make the point that it really wasn't our bussiness what goes on in other countries. basicly that was derived from this quote:

when a period of ten years goes by without race-based murder going on anywhere on the continent

If someone in mexico gets killed because he is white, why should it reflect badly on americans?

That about wraps it up I think.

-Virus

P.S. I'm really trying not to be a jerk about this subject, so if I come off like that, sorry, I'm not a great debater...yet. <_<

[Goofball]

P.S. I'm really trying not to be a jerk about this subject, so if I come off like that, sorry, I'm not a great debater...yet.

Aw shucks. Why'd you have to go and say something like that? Now I feel kinda bad about being such a smart-arse earlier.

[The Stranger]

if the rest of the world is irrelevant how do you explain, VIETNAM, KOREA, DESERT STORM I & II. etc

[Red Harvest]

This is really just conjecture. I find it almost silly to say that there is no way they could have gotten rid of slavery. It almost seems like just a convenient way for you to promote your argument. Like all social epidemics throughout history, Slavery would have ended on it's own eventually. Social pressure from the north, along with industrialization in the south, would have slowly done the trick. At worst, we'd see blacks being used as slaves in factories; but the conditions there are far more gruesome than in the fields. Public pressure would have mounted quicker than you can imagine. And who knows? Maybe that would have resulted in emancipation as well, and all we've done is delay the problem? But, there's no way to know. What we do know for sure is that emancipation created a backlash, and that there were alternatives.

Ironic, what you have written is pure conjecture. Slavery was far more than a short term "social epidemic." It was a systemic problem that developed over many generations. The whole argument used for the "South would have transitioned smoothly on its own" argument is conjecture not backed by its own history. When I've looked at it I've examined it with this test: is it that plausible based on the attitutudes and history of the region, or is it an overly convenient contrived defense?

The slaves in factories thing was a non-starter. The factory workers in the North showed that. Southern whites would not have wanted the labor competition either. The whole argument fails on shear weight of numbers. The South could not deal with such a large liberated population on its own. It needed the help of the North. Ironically, it was pushing itself away from the North and resisting all attempts to limit the growth of slavery or phase it out.

Convenient way todiscredit the quoted text without properly responding to it. I don't think the way you debate is passing my "smell test".

There was nothing worth debating there, it was your speculation at best. It was more convenient than plausible based on what I've read. When an argument is a bit too convenient and does not fit well with the other facts, it fails the smell test. You are free to have your opinion, but I have yet to read anything convincing backing those arguments.

There's a few problems with that. Namely that no such treaty could be drawn up, so long as the subject of secession was treated the way it was.

I disagree. The problem was the way secession was being used. It was used as a set of individual state temper tantrums, rather than as an organized negotiating tool *before* seceeding. South Carolina left in the most childish way possible. There was no good faith effort to negotiate a way out of the Union. It had the flavor of moral/cultural arrogance, and was a direct reflection of a misplaced sense of Southern superiority. A negotiated withdrawal was about the best that could have been achieved had the desire been to separate while avoiding war. The fire-eaters pushing secession were all too eager for war, and they were most certainly deluded. This was not a war of the North's making, it was a war of the South's making. Had the South confronted their own slavery problem, there would have been no war.

The south was not delusional, they simply didn't see a better way in the foreseeable future.

And that was the North's fault? The North had compromised time and again. The South could not see a way clear of their own problem, nor would they allow their own or others to address it. Every attempt to address it or begin to deal with it received a more severe reaction. The denial and warped justifications for continuing to support slavery were evidence of the depths of the delusion.

The South had deluded itself into believing it could maintain slavery, not that it would deal with the issue. The delusion is maintained to this day, despite a disastrous war, and the necessity of the civil rights movement. The truth was that the South was sinking at the time as the result of slavery. It did what nationalist movements are most famous for, it externalized its problems by blaming them on the north and on the very slaves it depended on. It is funny how folks will accept at face value the arguments of a system that had such fundamentally wrong precepts about race. Religion was warped to justify it. Those whites (the Northerners) that did not adopt their views were regarded as inferior--between "Southern's" and blacks. The sense of Southern superiority was certainly delusional, and pervasive culturally.

1. Yes, but Fort Sumter is generally regarded as the beginning of the war.

Yes, but there were many other acts apart from it. This is part of digging deeper. Sumter made it obvious who the aggressor was, but there were many other places where the Federals had carefully withdrawn to avoid confrontation, and narrowly avoided it.

2. Northern Failure in the north was due as much to hesitence as it was to bad generals. One could argue that McClellen, aside from being too cautious, was actually a competent general.

McClellan was a self serving politician posing as a general (yes, I know his military pedigree, but that was not his personality, he was a political animal.) He could organize an army and inspire it, but he could not effectively lead it in the field. I've read through enough of his dispatches in the Official records to get a feel for his "character." His dispatches are vacillatory when he must make a decision, but direct when he is making "suggestions" for others outside his own control. His indirect effect on the West was negative as well, because of his political maneuvering with Halleck and the others of similar nature to his own. Old army politicians at work was the Union's strategic weakness.

McClellan with Lee's plans in his pocket could not manage to whip him convincingly at Antietam. He wouldn't throw in his reserves and he wouldn't follow up the next day against an exhausted enemy. McClellan lacked the aggressiveness needed of a good general. He lacked good judgement, was indecisive, and overly cautious on the field.

McClellan's legacy was to prompt Lincoln to force an overly aggressive plan onto Burnside. It might have succeeded, had weather and the Army of the Potomac's own lack of agility (see McClellan legacy...) not undermined it early on. Lincoln pushed too hard, rather than realizing that the plan had effectively been ruined. The result was Fredericksburg. The AOP was an army in search of a commander.

3. The artillery is mostly what I was speaking of. In the battlefields of the Civil War, Artillery mattered. Alot.

Not so much as you think. It's impact was greatly reduced by rugged terrain, trees and earthworks. Much of the war took place in this terrain or in siege operations. Simply getting pieces into position on such terrain was challenging. Lee, Bragg, and others limited the artillery advantage by attacking in such terrain. Major battles on open ground where artillery was decisive were the exception rather than the rule. Artillery could not even stop Union ships passing river batteries.

4. Indeed, weapons. The north was able to get weapons that the south could not. Breach-Loading Rifles, and Rifled Artillery for example. Although in relatively small quantities.

Not early in the war. Early in the war many Union regiments were poorly equipped. Imports were common for both sides, many Enfields, Austrian Lorenz, and unfortunately lousy Belgian smoothbores (this latter for Union regiments primarily.) Armoury seizures gave the south both equipment and production capacity. Most guns used early on were from the stockpiles of old 1816 flintlocks, Conversions to percussion cap, and the 1842 smoothbore muskets, as well as conversion of it to rifled muskets. The new 1855 muskets weren't in the hands of many, and the machinery for it in Harper's Ferry was taken by the CSA. The 1861 Springfield's took time reaching the front in numbers. Breech loaders were not a factor early on, and both sides had them as cavalry weapons: Sharps, Burnsides, Halls, Maynards, etc. Spencers did not arrive until 1863.

Rifled artillery were just being introduced. Most cannons at the start of the war were 6 lb smoothbores that were obsolete. These would be converted to "James Rifles" by grooving the bore in the North, or melted down to make 12 lb Napoleon's in the South. Rifled arty had key advantages on *open* ground. Their counter battery fire was their main superiority due to accuracy and range. On rugged terrain 3" rifles had better mobility due to a 700 lb tube & carriage weight advantage. But they only had a fraction of the punch at close range fighting that such terrain often produced. A 12 lb Napoleon was deadly in this sort of fighting since it's 4.62" smoothbore was much more effective with canister (rifled guns threw a wild distribution, and of fewer projectiles.)

A big problem for the Confederacy was not the weapons themselves (until about 1863) but instead their inability to produce quality ammunition. This was particularly a problem with *newer* breechloaders and repeaters, the CSA simply could not make Spencer ammo. The CSA had similar trouble with arty ammo and this also became a larger factor as the war carried on: their fuses were horrible, while union fuses had a very standardized production and were reliable. Their projectiles and powder were subpar. I've read an O.R. reports of the CSA commander's wanting to get rid of rifled cannon for these reasons, and forbidding them to fire over their own lines, because of premature fuses.

6. Not true. The South estimated quite accurately the strength of the north, and went to great pains to make themselves look more formidable. Indeed, the north overstimated the south on more than one occasion.

It's clear that you are again thinking in terms of the East rather than the war as a whole. Don't confuse McClellan for the war as a whole. (Even in the East the earliest war reports of strength are greatly exaggerated on BOTH sides.) In the West it was a different story, and both overestimated one another with regularity. In places like Missouri/Arkansas the Union forces were initially outnumbered by over 2:1. Nathaniel Lyon had little choice but to attack 12,000+ with his 5,000 man force (many due to muster out in a few days.)

In many of the major battles of the West prior to 1864, the Union forces in the area were near equivalent or outnumbered. Grant managed to force a siege of Vicksburg despite being outnumbered 50,000 to 40,000 when he was in the midst of the overland campaign. Pemberton and Johnston never consolidated what they had to face him on equal or superior terms.

Had the north seen the confederate strength for what it was, the war would have been over in '61.

You've fallen into the same trap as those of 1861 who dismissed the war as a short effort. Winning a key battle or two was not going to make the CSA collapse, anymore than losing one made the Union stop. Logistically and manpower wise there was not sufficient force on hand to force deeply into the south and occupy it. The South had superiority in some regions, and interior lines meant they could concentrate and beat one force at a time, with superior numbers in other areas where they were outnumbered. More importantly, the South had more/better cavalry, and the Union had little of it. Intelligence wise the CSA had better info as a result, and it made a difference on the field. Long supply lines would have been impossible to protect from CSA cav in 1861, indeed they were still a major problem in 1863 and 1864 when CSA cav was far weaker.

Reading a book doesn't make you an expert. I'd wager i've read more than my fair share of books as well, but unless you happen to be a Doctor in Civil War History, your opinion is no less Conjecture than mine. The biggest difference I see is that you have already formed a (IMO) bias opinion, and don't want to change it.

Didn't say I'm an expert (but then again, neither are some authors.) As I said, I started with a view closer to your own, but I used critical thinking to come to a different conclusion. I don't agree with every author I read (or at least find that a number of their conclusions don't match their evidence that well) and I change my views when better info comes along. Anyone who has worked with me in Research and Development will attest that I will scrap a theory quickly when it fails to hold up to scrutiny. I don't let myself get boxed in by convenient reasoning and as a result I tend to get to the root cause and solution. It was nagging concerns that led me to review the causes of the war (just like with projects at work where I had conflicting info I couldn't resolve.) Call it biased if you like, but my method works for getting to the bottom of things, and I'll stick to it. I spent many of my formative years in a border state, with all the conflicting allegiances apparent.

[Red Harvest]

erhm, question; has anyone who post here actually seen the Movie!?

If you have, you would know that it isnt a typical; "oh poor black man, being supressed by the evil white people".
In this movie their are; A latino locksmith and his doughter, a persian storeowner and his family, a white couple, a black and a latino police couple, 2 white cops and so on.

It doesnt in base its story on "racism in the system" but racism in ever individual, that isnt necesseraly trying to be a racist but has allready made up its mind about others by just looking at them.
Its also about the problem of people in two groups not understanding each other due to the language and the way of talking.

See the movie, then post your oppinions about it.

Lazul, sorry. Not trying to ignore you. I'm interested in the movie. Don't know when I'll get a chance to watch it.

[Redleg]

Crash, one of the best movies ive ever watched. And all those Ive spoken and heard of that live in the LA area agrees with the picture the movie shows.

Has anyone ells seen it?
If not, do it!

I posted here in the backroom since its about Racism.

I assume you are discussing this movie - and from the trailer I might watch it if I can find it in DVD form.

http://www.crashfilm.com/

[Tribesman]

Show me an instance of racial murder in the last few months, if you could do that then maybe you would gain more credibility with me. Prove me wrong instead of stating I am wrong,
Are you serious Virus? what planet do you live on ?
An 18 year old was killed in Liverpool two weeks ago , because a bunch of idiots felt offended that a "bloody nigger" was afronting their dignity and racial superiority by waiting for a bus with his white girlfriend , they killed him with an axe .
How about someone getting on a bus and shooting a bunch of people because they are damn Arabs , does that count as racist murder ?

"In the last few months" how about in the past few days FFS ? would you like some more examples ? I saw two more on the local news tonight

[The Stranger]

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
This is really just conjecture. I find it almost silly to say that there is no way they could have gotten rid of slavery. It almost seems like just a convenient way for you to promote your argument. Like all social epidemics throughout history, Slavery would have ended on it's own eventually. Social pressure from the north, along with industrialization in the south, would have slowly done the trick. At worst, we'd see blacks being used as slaves in factories; but the conditions there are far more gruesome than in the fields. Public pressure would have mounted quicker than you can imagine. And who knows? Maybe that would have resulted in emancipation as well, and all we've done is delay the problem? But, there's no way to know. What we do know for sure is that emancipation created a backlash, and that there were alternatives.

wait at worst, used, in factories oooooh you mean like those kids had to work for 12 hour and get a pennie in europe now that makes sense. how can you possibly say AT WORST. you say like it isnt anything and that their situation would make a tremendous improvement from coton to silk. it's simply another job on another place. there is no at worst only FREEDOM.

[The Stranger]

no english is not my main language and can you tell me what i missed.

actually my question is simple, HOW CAN YOU USE AT WORST IN SUCH WAY.

[The Stranger]

that's what i mean. the worst, 1. nothing changed 2. it is pretty bad isnt it. if the civil war never had happened we now still could have had slaves or racism would now be like in the 20's. like in that other thread you stated that it would have been a very slow progress for the african tribes to get rid of their slave system, what makes you think the confederation would do it in 1 day.

[The Stranger]

it seems to come to: i prefered 100 years of xtra slavery (the amount it would have taken) over a 5 year civil war.

my question what did you preffered

i dont label you, outside any racism threads (we never seem to agree on it) i'm youre mate oke

[The Stranger]

i'm not a really skilled written debater more an oral one. but you're always an worthy opponent

[|OCS|Virus]

Are you serious Virus? what planet do you live on ?
An 18 year old was killed in Liverpool two weeks ago , because a bunch of idiots felt offended that a "bloody nigger" was afronting their dignity and racial superiority by waiting for a bus with his white girlfriend , they killed him with an axe .
How about someone getting on a bus and shooting a bunch of people because they are damn Arabs , does that count as racist murder ?

"In the last few months" how about in the past few days FFS ? would you like some more examples ? I saw two more on the local news tonight

Well that is indeed a valid answere, but in my own defence, I don't get british local news, care to post a link? I didn't hear about the second one either, or was that just an example? Besides, the point I was trying to make was racism in america isn't that bad, maybe 4 killings a year are racial, as compaired to the thousands that arn't racial at all. As I said in previous posts, what happens outside of our general area {to define it, that would be america, canada, and mexico} Not that I don't care about England don't get me wrong there, you gave us Bond! But we don't have any real control over what happens in England, and that is why I say it doesn't really matter, not out of harshness, but logistics. And what is this about FFS? and yes, more examples would be nice, it would give me a better idea as where racism is in England. And the two that you saw on the news, were they by racists as well? and can you post a link?

[The Stranger]

didnt your heared about the second one, what kind of news do you get man. man do you really think that 4 killings a year are racial, maybe four get the news cuz they are even more bloody. i would estimate murders with total or partial racial motives to about 500 a year.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

For me if a black lad gets killed by a white guy its race related but if a black guy does it to a white lad its brushed under the carpet and it is just a another murder especially in Britain. In Birmingham not long back a group of Asian lads beat a young white lad to death for having England footie top on and nothing was said about about racism, just an un-motivated attack which is quite frankly a load of bollocks.

I don't what an arguement about it but racism is a two sided coin especially where i am from.

[The Stranger]

duh that's why 4 killings with racial motives in AMERICA is not true, it cant be that little. i dont believe it and definitly not if it comes from a guy that didnt even heared of the jewish guy that shot four arabs, next thing he's going to say is that the holocaust is made up by a jewish writer.

[|OCS|Virus]

okay emperor ...whatever, the point I am trying to make is that racism isn't a huge thing, and quite frankly I don't care anymore, I could repeat my views over and over again, but some of you people don't want to believe me, and that's fine, all I wanted was a link, not more crap, K? k. Anyways, I think i'm going to sit the rest of this one out, I've really run out of things to say. Anyways... still interesting to read.

[Azi Tohak]

For me if a black lad gets killed by a white guy its race related but if a black guy does it to a white lad its brushed under the carpet and it is just a another murder especially in Britain. In Birmingham not long back a group of Asian lads beat a young white lad to death for having England footie top on and nothing was said about about racism, just an un-motivated attack which is quite frankly a load of bollocks.

I don't what an arguement about it but racism is a two sided coin especially where i am from.

Yup! I love my example from my own university newspaper. They did not cover the Black Student Union Big XII Conference meeting. So the BSU (and most of the professors on campus) came out with their torches and pitchforks and made the Collegian hire a 'diversity' coordinator. Nevermind the meetings held with mainly whites that are ignored.

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/article.php?a=1426

Make no mistake, the Collegian is a great newspaper (lots of awards etc) but they have finite resources. And some people just don't care about the BSU (yes yes, bad racist Azi). I just thought the uproar was pathetic.

Azi

[Strike For The South]

Who the hell cares what's going in during the Black Student Union anyway? The people who went, that's who. If you didn't go, you obviously don't care. So why does it matter if the paper reports on it?

Seriously.. this is what the Civil Rights movement has come to? Anal bull like this?

Yes im sad to say it has

[Red Harvest]

Anybody here know what term the "Virginia Circle" fraternities use to refer to their pledges in private as a form of hazing...or at least used to when I was in school? I do and I'm not saying...but it comes down from their immediate post Civil War founding. Wasn't anything official or secret ritual.

[The Stranger]

okay emperor ...whatever, the point I am trying to make is that racism isn't a huge thing, and quite frankly I don't care anymore, I could repeat my views over and over again, but some of you people don't want to believe me, and that's fine, all I wanted was a link, not more crap, K? k. Anyways, I think i'm going to sit the rest of this one out, I've really run out of things to say. Anyways... still interesting to read.

i'm not going to post links about things that have been on the world news for 2 weeks. people posted links came with arguments and you say its not in my backyard so i dont care. well i dont know what's going on in your backyard so i cant post a link. i however can say racism is still a big thing and i and other people pointed out some racistic acts.

i dont know what you see in racism but it isnt only black vs white. its man vs woman, christian vs muslim, the world against the jew.

racism has always been there and always have been a big problem, that doesnt say that there is always as much attention for it. that you only see four racistic acts on your television does not mean that there were only four.

[King Ragnar]

Man vs Women is Sexism not Racism, Racism is everywhere you cant get rid of it, its just like war it will be with man until the end of time, you cant stop it no matter what you do.

[The Stranger]

about the man/woman thing racism is also involved, just look at jobs, i admit it isnt around as much as it used to and it isnt the biggest problem, but it is still racism.