Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

by Guest Thu Sep 10, 2015 8:41 am

First topic message reminder :

lan Pean is a 26-year-old biology student with no criminal record or history of violence. But on August 27th, he was shot in the chest by an off-duty Houston police officer working as a security guard at the St. Joseph Medical Center. The police are claiming that Alan became combative and that they followed standard operating procedure. It’s Alan, they say, who is as fault, and they have charged with two counts of aggravated assault against a public servant. He was arraigned today.
According to the Houston Police Department’s statement,

Officers Ortega and Law were working extra jobs as security at St. Joseph Medical Center at the above address when they were summoned to the eighth floor to help nurses subdue a combative patient. Once the officers arrived, the patient continued to refuse to comply with the nurses and officers’ demands. The patient suddenly physically assaulted Officer Ortega, striking him in the head, causing a laceration. At that time, Officer Law deployed his conducted energy device, which had no apparent effect on the suspect who continued to assault the officers. Officer Ortega, fearing for his and his partner’s safety, then discharged his duty weapon, striking the suspect one time.

But the family and medical professionals are disturbed by the handling of Alan’s case and what looks like a failure on many levels. Alan had driven himself to the hospital the night of August 26, during an acute mental health crisis. When he got there, he crashed his car and was treated for those injuries. But the mental health issues, which were what brought Alan to the hospital in the first place, were ignored, according to the Pean family. Alan’s father, himself a physician, begged the hospital to get his son a psychiatric evaluation given that Alan had suffered a similar episode in 2009. But the hospital decided he was ready to be discharged, clearing him a mere minutes before the shooting. How did he go from being cleared to leave to so combative that only a bullet could protect two officers? Medical neglect followed by the use of excessive force led to what could have very easily been a fatal shooting. Health care professionals have started a petition condemning the presence of guns in hospitals and the criminalization of patients and mental health patients in particular. It reads

Personally, we stand in outrage for every time he is referred to as “combative” without sub-clause or context, we stand in outrage for every time he is called a “suspect” instead of a patient, we stand in outrage for every time he, one empty-handed, help-seeking man, is painted as a threat to two officers, able bodied and armed, in a hospital.
Professionally, we have been trained in truth seeking and healing. As doctors and medical students, as nurses and care partners, we are trained in how to safely restrain and tranquilize patients, no matter how aggressive, or irritable, or anxious, or threatening they may be. Never is it appropriate or warranted for a patient to be tazed, never is it appropriate for a patient to be struck, never, never, never is it appropriate for a patient seeking care, to have their life threatened in our arms.
Personally and professionally, we are shaken by the reality of this epidemic of police brutality, in which no one– no son of a doctor, no college student, no tender-hearted soul of color remains immune. We stand with shaken hearts and rooted conviction, to speak our collective outrage for Alan Christopher Pean, our gentle friend, a 26 year old who was inexcusably shot in the chest by a police officer, while seeking care as a patient.”

Alan’s family is focusing on making sure this never happens again. Alan’s attitude is particularly inspiring and generous. He wrote on his Facebook page,

The anguish caused by trying to understand why (according to the hospital) this had to happen to me has only started. Is it because I look a bit different that I had to be shot without a second thought about my life or my personhood? I try not to think that’s the case, but I seem to find myself at that conclusion as I delve deeper into my case, as well as those similar to mine. I pray with all my heart that people change, and I have faith that we can for the better. I love myself, and I love humanity, but I don’t believe that humanity or American society willfully wants things to be this way…
So I will fight until I know every person seeking medical help will have his or her right to pursue a better life protected. Keep guns out of places of healing. Help stop this madness, and let’s make our society a better place. Where love and understanding falters, confusion and hate breeds.

Alan’s older brother, Christian, a 27-year old in his last year of year medical student at New York’s Mt Sinai School of Medicine, is concerned about Alan’s suffering and at the same time determined to protect others from a similar neglect and abuse. I spoke to him today after his brother was arraigned and he said,

This entire ordeal has been an absolute nightmare for Alan and our family. We’re trying to trust the system and hope that truth prevails, though the reality is that the system has failed us miserably at every conceivable juncture in this matter thus far. Our main focus is just making sure Alan doesn’t go to prison right now. From my perspective and my father’s perspective as healthcare professionals, the entire thing still has us completely beside ourselves.
However, at this time, all we can do is hope that Alan’s supporters continue to send love and compassion his way, and that we have more answers to how this could have happened, and how it can be considered appropriate in anyone’s eyes. We are of the belief that this should never happen to anyone again.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/houston-cops-shoot-unarmed-black-patient-in-hospital-and-then-charge-him-with-assault/

by Original Quill Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:49 am

Didge wrote:Irish and other white groups did suffer white racism, so its a fact that white racism has existed and still exist to this day.

You know better. White on white is not racism. People who have the same skin pigmentation, the same language, and even the same body language might be able to claim a lot of injustices, but racism is not one of them.

What I believe you are reaching for, didge, is Celtic vs. Norse, or as they came over...Normans. In the British Isles setting, I am very sympathetic toward the Celts. The Saxons and the Normans laid waste to their societies, in England and Scotland...later even, in Erie. They were, and still are being victimized by the English. In fact, I believe that the deportations and indentured servitude that went on in the 17th-century, leading to the early Scots-Irish of America. was probably a part of that prejudice...but that's as far as I will go.

Unfortunately, the social phenomenon that resulted from that took a very bad turn. Already bearing the stigma of indentured servitude, those Scots-Irish people used the blacks to say essentially: See, we're not as bad as those people! It wasn't very noble of them, but they were in a difficult situation.

Thus started racism in America. Let's acknowledge one thing: the racism wasn't just skin color. A certain narrative, disparaging to the black race, went along with it. That narrative was the Scots-Irish trying to remove themselves from the ignominy and humiliation of indentured servitude, and in the process, walking all over the blacks.

That's the same narrative that you hear from the KKK today. It's the same narrative that you hear from Republicans in the post-Lee Atwater era. It's the narrative you guys criticize and scream at us for, every time you spout off about gun control, or racial bigotry, or misogyny or white supremacists. Those are the guys we are talking about...ultimately, redneck Scots-Irish.

You don't recognize them because we've never had this discussion before. But any American knows who they are, and where to find them. They are in every motorcycle, or shit-kicking cowboy bar on the outskirts of town in America. If they aren't on Harleys they are driving Ford F-100 pick-ups and they drink Bud, with a shot of brandy on the side. They have a gun rack in the back window, with a .30-.30 hanging in it. They sleep--pass out, really--in a trailer, in a trailer-park just outside the city limits of anytown America. You guys talk about them all the time...now you know 'em. You've been formally introduced. Are you surprised that they are actually a cohesive ethnic group? Don't be. They've all got Scots or Irish surnames.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:14 am

This is why you have little understanding Quill on racism and its meaning. The Irish were not classed as white and rendered inferior on a par with blacks, even though they are Caucasians. That is racism plain and simple. Thus white racism exists, as if a person is denied their identity, denied equality and not deem Caucasian, and deemed inferior to whites, then its white racism. As they are a white group, denied their identity of a white group and being classed as inferior to other white groups. So You are very much in error, white racism exists and it has existed for centuries. Now we know no such races exist biologically in humans, but the world system identifies people by racial groups. To class a group as inferior to all other groups except black, where they are actually white, is some of the worst racism you will see applied, as they are being denied their identity.

Not concerned in regards to the rest of your points, they have no relevance to my proving white racism exist and they are just yet again your opinions, not facts. Now I suggest you research racism further, because this is one field you lack knowledge Quill. Are you seriously trying to tell me that if in America tomorrow the Government deemed Chinese Americans as not Asian. Classing them as inferior to all human groups, denying them their identity. You would deem that not racist? As seen you do not properly understand racism at all, as that would be very much racist .

So if others want to address your points that is up to them, my intent was to prove white racism and slavery existed and, which is a proven fact as seen. What I am now interested in debating which you have failed to address from the word go which is no problem, is the history of white slavery. So there is no point making a post to me again offering me opinions which fails and has no chance of rebuking white racism. Its a proven fact white racism existed, I proved that as for example the Irish who are classed as white/Caucasian were deemed not White/Caucasian rendering them inferior and on a par with Blacks in the US. So on every level you have no case to counter this. Now I am not interested in any other points just debate on white slavery, so do not attempt another rebuttal as I will just ignore it, being as you have nothing to refute my facts

Thanks

So again:

What is questionable is in regards to whites enslaved and how much if any race played a part in them being enslaved hence my original points.

Of course many whites have ended up as slaves.
There is countless evidence of this in history.
The question to ask though is why they were taken as slaves?
Was it because they were white?
Or was it because they were Christians?
Non-Believers?
Enemy combatants?
Non-Arabs?
Or any other reason?

Think about this, because where whites were slaves under a power, there was also Asian and Black slaves also. There have been many reasons for why people why placed into slavery. So why not when I come back give your views as to what reason they were enslaved. I am not discounting white being a reason in some cases either. I would like to see who can show if and where whites have been made slaves because they were white.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:18 am

well its clear that quill is willing to use any excuse no matter how spurious or fabricated to keep the legacy of slavery alive, its ok quill i understand, the addiction you have to white liberal guilt is powerful indeed.

you need something to excuse the collective savagery, criminality and generally unevolved behaviour of the black race.Of course youre missing the fact that this pandering and obsolving of personal responsibiilty is exactly what leads to their behaviour.

Hell its no different to slavery is it?? the steel shackles have been replaced with social ones ,the whip to strike them down has been replaced by the white liberal mollycoddling and the insistance that they cannot and must not rise above their past.

what else would you have to feel guilty about then eh??

quill is of course using a heavily edited version of history to base his views on.

more slaves went to south america than to north

black slaves were sold to white slavers by BLACK slavers, not that that makes it right but it splits reponsibility, and if white europeans are to blame for buying slaves then black africans are equally to blame for selling slaves

happy seller happy buyer.

of course there is also the fact any debt whites owe blacks for slavery has been paid in full with the blood of white americans

it may be news to some, but there was an american civil war in which WHITES waged war on other WHITES, with the abolishment of slavery being a primary objective

So if blacks can be excused their actions because of the legacy of slavery then so can whites since whites have also experienced slavery

The barbary slave trade took place around the same time period as the black slave trade. yet whites arent afforded any such accomadations becasue of their time in captivity.

Quill claims that the only slavery which impacts the Us and western Europe and is relevant to today is that of black slavery.

well i disagree.

If we are talking about relevance, then surely the slave trade that has opened up under ISIS in the ME is surely the most relevant slave trade today??

its is directly and indirectly impacting western europe and the US respectively, surely the laws of bragging rights must be applied??

it would be a huge injustice to ignore the ongoing slave trade in order to focus on the memory of one??

no, we must move past this fake guilt, our debt to the black man has been paid in full, and if people like quill are outraged that racism still exists then, they should really consider the cause of this racism

white liberals are the cause of moderday racism in america.they refuse to let the past rest, they are obsessed with using the legacy of slavery as political point scoring, dragging it up and throwing in the face of whites at every opportunity

so i guess the real question is who exactly are the biggest racists???

by eddie Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:01 am

Didge is right, we even touched upon white Irish racism in school (think it was in RE or History? In any case, our teacher was Irish and he told us loads)

So quill, you are wrong.

There is white racism and at times, you display it yourself.
And don't go giving me all that bollocks about you cant be racist against your own colour.....because you can.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:36 am

eddie wrote:Didge is right, we even touched upon white Irish racism in school (think it was in RE or History? In any case, our teacher was Irish and he told us loads)

So quill, you are wrong.

There is white racism and at times, you display it yourself.
And don't go giving me all that bollocks about you cant be racist against your own colour.....because you can.

Actually I need to thank you Eddie, as by posting your link on the Irish slaves, it made me think of the racism suffered by the Irish in America and in Ireland..
So thank you.
Anyway he does not want to accept white racis exists and has done for centuries. If he had researched and gone back to ancient Greece, this is where we first see the idea of inferior races, which was invented by the Greeks. Which is going to hinder any understanding of racism itself he has. To be fair he did draw on some very good other points

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:00 pm

there are of course inferiors races - the african race is possibly right down at the bottom, certainly if we look at all other races on earth we see that the african is the most socially backward, posess zero technological ingenuity or advacement, economically behind the curve and as a civilization is almost non existant

one needs only to compare africa to europe or china or america to understand the contrast

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:09 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:there are of course inferiors races - the african race is possibly right down at the bottom, certainly if we look at all other races on earth we see that the african is the most socially backward, posess zero technological ingenuity or advacement, economically behind the curve and as a civilization is almost non existant

one needs only to compare africa to europe or china or america to understand the contrast

Well for a start, humans are one biological race, so how can they be an inferior race biologically?
I guess you think the Pyramids was not ingenuity then?

Watch and then you will understand why you are talking gobbledygook.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:17 pm

i have never disputed that the human race is a single SPECIES

they are one biological species devided into sub species or "races"

dogs are one biological species devided into sub species which we refer to as "breeds", unless of course you are denying that poddles are different to labs???

this broken argument of yours falls down time and time again becasue you ignore the fact that africans possess different physical characteristics to europeans and visa versa.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:23 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:i have never disputed that the human race is a single SPECIES

they are one biological species devided into sub species or "races"

dogs are one biological species devided into sub species which we refer to as "breeds", unless of course you are denying that poddles are different to labs???

this broken argument of yours falls down time and time again becasue you ignore the fact that africans possess different physical characteristics to europeans and visa versa.

So how can you base a view that a group of humans is biologically inferior, if they are one race?
There would need to vast difference with the design of the brains of white and blacks which would create an actual distinction of a different race. Remember you are arguing off there being a racial difference biologically between blacks and whites. So they would have to be telling differences in the complexity of the brain. There is one absurd argument here that those with black brains are smaller than white on average, but again the make up of the brains is the same. Where bigger brains does not mean more intelligent, Neanderthals had bigger brains than us.

I have once before shown why you are an idiot, there is breeds in dogs because of controlled breeding.
Do you need me to explain this to show why you are a tad dim?

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:26 pm

For the slow witted Dutchman:

A breed is a group of domestic animals or plants with homogeneous genotype and phenotype, created by humans through controlled breeding, in other words, through artificial selection. A Boston terrier, for example, is a very defined animal: the parents and grandparents can be certified by the AKC or other Kennnel Clubs who make the rules and decides which dog gets to be a Boston terrier, and which dog is not.

Although humans do show some phenotypic and genotypic variation by geographical origin, the concept is more complicated biologically because there is no precise demarcation, as humans have not been bred by anyone to have certain characteristics. Geographic isolation, and natural or sexual selection, have resulted in some alleles being more frequent in some groups that in others, and ancestry determines the distribution of some genes. That is basically it, from a biological point of view.

But because "race" is also a social construct, it's a much more complex issue than distribution of genotypes. The fact that we say that Obama is the first American black President illustrate the point pretty clearly. Genetics and allele frequencies don't matter much. The fact that most people think in terms of only 4 or 5 "races" is indicative of the strong influence of culture in the way some people perceive what is a human race. Humans have been traveling back and forth and mixing with the locals throughout human history (http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele...). We even mixed with archaic humans, like Neanderthals and Denisovans, when we found them in our path (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evide...).

In today's world, with globalization and relatively easy world travel, geographic isolation is a diminishing parameter. We meet and fall in love with people whose recent ancestors came from all the continents in the world. It makes even less sense nowadays to think of human ethnic groups as "pure" in the sense of dog breeds.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:35 pm

and there we go, walter is too stupid to comprehend what im saying and so its back to the strawman argument and walter telling ME what MY arguments are based on,its the classic defense mechanism of an inferior intellect.

you need something to make your arguments look valid so you create an appropriate counter argument assign it to your opponent and then proceed to dismantle it, claim victory and walk away never once address the actual points made by your opponent

if you dont want to argue with ME then simply say so walter, but im not about to comment on your strawman argument,

a sure sign that you are getting flustered Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault - Page 2 2984306523

Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault - Page 2 2984306523

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:44 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:and there we go, walter is too stupid to comprehend what im saying and so its back to the strawman argument and walter telling ME what MY arguments are based on,its the classic defense mechanism of an inferior intellect.
That did not even make any sense. You are now changing your argument to group ethnic intellect of which you would not have the intellect you have today unless you were taught to read, write etc. Without education and help being raised, you would struggle to survive in the world. So where people have learnt is by others helping. It has only been a very few innovative people that have helped advance societies in technology and understanding, the majority of us just have the ability to learn this.

you need something to make your arguments look valid so you create an appropriate counter argument assign it to your opponent and then proceed to dismantle it, claim victory and walk away never once address the actual points made by your opponent
Poor deflection yet again not making any point where I showed you were an utter idiot when you brought up breeds in regards to the Human race. Look if you struggle with humility, then clearly its you who has the issue

if you dont want to argue with ME then simply say so walter, but im not about to comment on your strawman argument,

a sure sign that you are getting flustered

I relish any debate Dutchman, the fact is today black people are increasing in IQ rates far faster than white people. The gap is closing. Now if as you claim that black people are inferior, it would be physically impossible for a single black person to have an IQ higher than any white person, let alone we know some blacks to be a geniuses. So for a group of people to be inferior, not a single black person could have a higher IQ than the lowest score for a white person. If as seen black people can equal whites on the highest levels of intelligence then there clearly is no case for blacks being inferior as an ethnic group.

Other non-biological factors clearly play a part in how we progress.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:01 pm

Who exactly are you debating with??

Not me that's for sure,these points you're making are news to me, which is weird since you seem to think they are mine

When you want to debate with ME and not your smelly-bandit straw man let ME know

I'm done indulging you

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:06 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:Who exactly are you debating with??
Debate? All it seems to be is me correcting your huge errors

Not me that's for sure,these points you're making are news to me, which is weird since you seem to think they are mine
Yet more deflection

When you want to debate with ME and not your smelly-bandit straw man let ME know
Now you are running away because I just rubbished your claim to blacks being inferior to whites, and it only took common sense. You knew it also when the penny dropped, where you now offer poor excuses and deflections. You knew your claim was screwed the moment I explained that it would be physically impossible for blacks as a group to be inferior, if some are equal or are superior to some white people. If you claim white people are superior, not one white person would be inferior to blacks, based on your illogical views. Yet we have black geniuses which blew apart your absurd claim

I'm done indulging you

You were done when I posted my last post and proved your views were absurd, lacking any common sense or reason.

Enjoy sulking again

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:16 pm

And there is the typical pathetic self declared victory

Well done Walter , turned up did nothing said nothing,and then walked off patting yourself on the back for a victory well earned

Black's are collectively inferior compare Africa to Europe

That's all you need to do, no other proof is necessary

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 1:29 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:And there is the typical pathetic self declared victory
More whinging, unable to admit you got it wrong

Well done Walter , turned up did nothing said nothing,and then walked off patting yourself on the back for a victory well earned
Further whinging and clearly a sore loser

Black's are collectively inferior compare Africa to Europe
Europe has far more infrastructure, which again goes back to the time of slavery which allowed nations to become very rich in Europe. In the UK, this wealth kicked started the industrial revolution, which without Britain would have then never had its vast Navy and as a consequence a far smaller Empire. Again we are born having to learn many things of which it has been a few innovate people that has advanced societies and this is made possible when nations have vast wealth, which allows people to specialize in scientific fields. At this time of the Industrial Revolution the vast majority of the Uk was in poverty. Wealth though allowed this country to progress far quicker. The Europeans screwed up Africa in the main and taught them an elite system that favored and advanced a small minority in society. This led to why we have seen many conflicts within Africa since the European powers left. The Europeans taught the elite within African nations to become takers. Why it will be some years until Africa catches up with Europe. The fact is Africa does not have the educational infrastructure that Europe has, thus we have more access to a better education. This is not the only factor that effects IQ levels, but again if a people were inferior, not one would be able to equal or be superior to any white people. You really have a limited ability to understand and rationalize many things

That's all you need to do, no other proof is necessary

The only proof we are seeing is how poorly you can reason your views.

by Original Quill Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:50 pm

Didge wrote:This is why you have little understanding Quill on racism and its meaning. The Irish were not classed as white and rendered inferior on a par with blacks, even though they are Caucasians. That is racism plain and simple. Thus white racism exists, as if a person is denied their identity, denied equality and not deem Caucasian, and deemed inferior to whites, then its white racism

Right, we’ll call it racism in your opinion.

Do you believe in objective reality? It’s really linguistic or analytical philosophy: of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition. An ‘object’ is a noun that denotes a thing or object in the world outside of your subjective mind. For example, if you wear a green shirt, it must objectively be a shirt, and objectively green. Objectivity is a prerequisite to a concept of truth. If there is no objectivity, there can be no verification. A fact has its origin in objectivity

Racism has its root in the idea of race: a group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. If we don’t share a common definition of race, the result is not right or wrong; the result is we can’t communicate.

Now, assumptions are not fact. You can’t assume your way into a discussion by adopting your own definitions and using your own language without telling the others. If you do, you will ultimately end up talking only to yourself.

The early Irish are mainly Picts, with some influence of Celts. Little is known about Picts except that they came from the Iberian peninsula over to both Ireland and Scotland:

Marie McKeown wrote:The latest research into Irish DNA has confirmed that the early inhabitants of Ireland were not directly descended from the Keltoi of central Europe. In fact the closest genetic relatives of the Irish in Europe are to be found in the north of Spain in the region known as the Basque Country. These same ancestors are shared to an extent with the people of Britain - especially the Scottish.

These were not people of a different race. Granted, they had their differences with the Normans, or Norse men, as well as the Saxons before the Normans, but those differences were not racial in nature. Therefore, the strife you are talking about was not racial strife.

If we proceeded on your assumptions, then the logical entailment is that Normans and Saxons were racists, and ‘the troubles’ were English racism running rampant.

There are other classifications of peoples than race. There are also other kinds of conflict and strife than racism. That is to say, not every kind of controversy or disagreement is racial. The conflict between the Norse-based people of England, and the Irish, was not racial by any commonly accepted definition.

by Original Quill Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:14 pm

eddie wrote:Didge is right, we even touched upon white Irish racism in school (think it was in RE or History? In any case, our teacher was Irish and he told us loads)

So quill, you are wrong.

There is white racism and at times, you display it yourself.
And don't go giving me all that bollocks about you cant be racist against your own colour.....because you can.

Your teacher?? Your teacher?? I probably taught his teacher, and perhaps gave him a 'C'. Lol.

This raises one point that deserves consideration. That is, that metaphor is a part of an evolving and living language. Whereas 'war' once meant a bloody battle of men and weapons, now it comes to mean work in a laboratory, as in war on cancer, or welfare programs, as in war on poverty. We use extreme metaphors to convey the uniqueness and intensity of our feelings.

I submit that your "Irish" teacher was using a metaphor when he spoke of "white Irish racism". Metaphor likens one thing to another thing, and does it creatively and with (hopefully) new feeling. I would rather believe that your teacher was speaking passionately, than reveal that he was an idiot with a teaching certificate. In short, he was taking what is called poetic license.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:This is why you have little understanding Quill on racism and its meaning. The Irish were not classed as white and rendered inferior on a par with blacks, even though they are Caucasians. That is racism plain and simple. Thus white racism exists, as if a person is denied their identity, denied equality and not deem Caucasian, and deemed inferior to whites, then its white racism

Right, we’ll call it racism in your opinion.

Do you believe in objective reality? It’s really linguistic or analytical philosophy: of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used as the object of a transitive verb or a preposition. An ‘object’ is a noun that denotes a thing or object in the world outside of your subjective mind. For example, if you wear a green shirt, it must objectively be a shirt, and objectively green. Objectivity is a prerequisite to a concept of truth. If there is no objectivity, there can be no verification. A fact has its origin in objectivity

Racism has its root in the idea of race: a group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. If we don’t share a common definition of race, the result is not right or wrong; the result is we can’t communicate.

Now, assumptions are not fact. You can’t assume your way into a discussion by adopting your own definitions and using your own language without telling the others. If you do, you will ultimately end up talking only to yourself.

The early Irish are mainly Picts, with some influence of Celts:

Marie McKeown wrote:The latest research into Irish DNA has confirmed that the early inhabitants of Ireland were not directly descended from the Keltoi of central Europe. In fact the closest genetic relatives of the Irish in Europe are to be found in the north of Spain in the region known as the Basque Country. These same ancestors are shared to an extent with the people of Britain - especially the Scottish.

These were not people of a different race. Granted, they had their differences with the Normans, or Norse men, as well as the Saxons before the Normans, but those differences were not racial in nature. Therefore, the strife you are talking about was not racial strife.

If we proceeded on your assumptions, then the logical entailment is that Normans and Saxons were racists, and ‘the troubles’ were English racism running rampant.

There are other classifications of peoples than race. There are also other kinds of conflict and strife than racism. That is to say, not every kind of controversy or disagreement is racial. The conflict between the Norse-based people of England, and the Irish, was not racial by any commonly accepted definition.

I told you that you have no argument that rebukes the Irish suffering white racism
If you cannot see how this is racist then you do not understand racism.
You cannot move the goalposts to define racism when your views fall apart

Here:

Irish racism in Victorian Britain and 19th century United States included the stereotyping of the Irish as alcoholics, and implications that they monopolised certain (usually low-paying) job markets.[citation needed] They were often called "white Negroes." Throughout Britain and the US, newspaper illustrations and hand drawings depicted a prehistoric "ape-like image" of Irish faces to bolster evolutionary racist claims that the Irish people were an "inferior race" as compared to Anglo-Saxons.

1892 cartoon titled "Trying to Raise McGinty from the Bottom of the Sea" depicts President Grover Cleveland as "McGinty" after his electoral loss in 1888. ("Down Went McGinty" was an 1889 comic song about the misadventures of a foolish Irishman who ends up at the bottom of the sea.)
Similar to other immigrant populations, they were sometimes accused of cronyism and subjected to misrepresentations of their religious and cultural beliefs. The Irish were labelled as practising Pagans and in that time (19th century), anyone not being a "Christian" in a traditional British sense was deemed "immoral" and "demonic". Irish Catholics were particularly singled out, and Irish mythology, folklore, and customs were ridiculed.

In Liverpool where many Irish immigrants settled following the Great Famine, anti-Irish prejudice was widespread. The sheer numbers of people coming across the Irish sea and settling in the poorer districts of the city led to physical attacks and it became common practice for those with Irish accents or even Irish names to be barred from jobs, public houses and employment opportunities.

British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli stated publicly, "The Irish hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood."

Nineteenth-century Protestant American "Nativist" discrimination against Irish Catholics reached a peak in the mid-1850s when the Know Nothing Movement tried to oust Catholics from public office. Much of the opposition came from Irish Protestants, as in the 1831 riots in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

During the 1830s, riots broke out in rural areas among rival labour teams from different parts of Ireland, and between Irish and "native" American work teams competing for construction jobs.

Irish Catholics were isolated and marginalised by society. Both ministers and priests discouraged intermarriage between Catholics and Protestants. In addition, the creation of a parochial school system and numerous colleges affiliated with the Church tended to compound rather than alleviate anti-Catholic discrimination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment

The Irish tick all the boxes that define them being victims of racism.
They suffer something extra wrong that blacks did not suffer with and that was having their identity stripped from then classing them as an inferior race when they are part of the white race. That is thus white racism, it is white groups denying them white classification.
End of story

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:23 pm

Oh an just to further back up my facts:

Anti-Irish sentiment or Hibernophobia may refer to or include racism, oppression, persecution, discrimination, hatred or fear of Irish people as an ethnic group or nation, whether directed against Ireland in general or against Irish emigrants and their descendants in the Irish diaspora.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:30 pm

Anyway I am not going to go around in circles Quill, if you fail to understand the facts here and that it is white racism, then that is your problem. I have easily proven your claims are in error.
All can see this, except you.
Also the fact that I am half Irish and have had such racism directed at me growing up, might have given you a clue why I understand far more on racism than you do.
You have never experienced racism, I have.

Have a good evening

by Original Quill Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:33 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Oh an just to further back up my facts:

Anti-Irish sentiment or Hibernophobia may refer to or include racism, oppression, persecution, discrimination, hatred or fear of Irish people as an ethnic group or nation, whether directed against Ireland in general or against Irish emigrants and their descendants in the Irish diaspora.

Very interesting, but still only someone's new definition. It proves the language is alive and living. Notice the indecision in the author's language: "may refer to or include racism, oppression, persecution, discrimination, hatred or fear of Irish people". In other words, he or she is not being specific, but rather suggesting a variety of conflicts as the basis of an evolving concept. Note Wiki's thoughts on the etymology:

Wiki wrote:A Hibernophile is a person who is fond of Irish culture, Irish language and Ireland in general. Its antonym is Hibernophobe. The word originates from "Hibernia", the word used by the ancient Romans to refer to Ireland.

Where does your passage come from? Do you have a link?

by Original Quill Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:36 pm

Didge wrote:Anyway I am not going to go around in circles Quill, if you fail to understand the facts here and that it is white racism, then that is your problem.

It's not my problem. Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault - Page 2 2190311264

It simply doesn't exist.

Cheers and have a great day...or evening, I guess. It's 9:30 am here.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:42 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Oh an just to further back up my facts:

Anti-Irish sentiment or Hibernophobia may refer to or include racism, oppression, persecution, discrimination, hatred or fear of Irish people as an ethnic group or nation, whether directed against Ireland in general or against Irish emigrants and their descendants in the Irish diaspora.

Very interesting, but still only someone's new definition. It proves the language is alive and living. Notice the indecision in the author's language: "may refer to or include racism, oppression, persecution, discrimination, hatred or fear of Irish people". In other words, he or she is not being specific, but rather suggesting a variety of conflicts as the basis of an evolving concept. Note Wiki's thoughts on the etymology:

Wiki wrote:A Hibernophile is a person who is fond of Irish culture, Irish language and Ireland in general. Its antonym is Hibernophobe. The word originates from "Hibernia", the word used by the ancient Romans to refer to Ireland.

Where does your passage come from? Do you have a link?

The only problem here Quill is your inability to understand racism
Please do not even attempt to lecture me on the Irish, blimey
As stated again, where you made a big point over racism requiring race classification.
As seen they were classed as an inferior race.
So Irish immigrants suffered all the factors associated with racism
This is my last post on the matter.
You wrongly think racism only occurs to those defined black, well you could not be further wrong if you tries. Where one of the most persecuted groups in history who are classified as Caucasians, have been the Jews.
That was also white racism, as they were also deemed an inferior race and denied Caucasian status.
Are you going to claim the Jews did not suffer racism?
Being as they are also from the white group, its evident Nazism endorsed white racism.

Your next reply will not be answered as it gets boring when you fail to understand you got this very wrong Quill.

But have a good evening, catch you later

by Original Quill Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:12 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Very interesting, but still only someone's new definition. It proves the language is alive and living. Notice the indecision in the author's language: "may refer to or include racism, oppression, persecution, discrimination, hatred or fear of Irish people". In other words, he or she is not being specific, but rather suggesting a variety of conflicts as the basis of an evolving concept. Note Wiki's thoughts on the etymology:

Where does your passage come from? Do you have a link?

The only problem here Quill is your inability to understand racism
Please do not even attempt to lecture me on the Irish, blimey
As stated again, where you made a big point over racism requiring race classification.
As seen they were classed as an inferior race.
So Irish immigrants suffered all the factors associated with racism
This is my last post on the matter.
You wrongly think racism only occurs to those defined black, well you could not be further wrong if you tries. Where one of the most persecuted groups in history who are classified as Caucasians, have been the Jews.
That was also white racism, as they were also deemed an inferior race and denied Caucasian status.
Are you going to claim the Jews did not suffer racism?
Being as they are also from the white group, its evident Nazism endorsed white racism.

Your next reply will not be answered as it gets boring when you fail to understand you got this very wrong Quill.

But have a good evening, catch you later

So…haha…your inability to communicate your ideas is my fault? You forgot one thing: you forgot to explain your contention that hibernophobia is racism.

A couple of questions: is all conflict racism? Is bank robbery racism? Is an argument with the wife racism? Is a bad day at the office racism? How about acid indigestion?

If everything is racism, then the Irish don’t have it so bad. I think you just defined the concept out of existence.

by Ben Reilly Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:36 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

really unhealthy,but surely there is some segregation that is worse than others

for example race segregation is far far worse than sex segregation, no???

Well, those are so different in the typical application that I don't think you can really compare them. But I don't like segregation of any type -- race, gender, income, nationality, etc. Of course, immigrant communities do form their own "Little Armenias" and whatnot but I think that's more like a crutch that helps them cope with being in a different country.

wow

ever the apologist eh?? oh yeah and hypocrite

hates segregation when its from the top down but is willing to tolerate when its bottom up and self imposed (but not if youre white)

Excuse me, fuck you. You jump to too many conclusions.

I do support freedom of association, which does tend to result in some kinds of voluntary segregation. But in the U.S. it's been done by plenty of lighter-skinned people -- Irish, Italian, Russian, German, etc.

British people form expat groups here in Texas -- is that wrong? It's not hypocritical at all to oppose top-down, government-enforced segregation, while supporting freedom of association.

by Guest Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:34 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

wow

ever the apologist eh?? oh yeah and hypocrite

hates segregation when its from the top down but is willing to tolerate when its bottom up and self imposed (but not if youre white)

Excuse me, fuck you. You jump to too many conclusions.

I do support freedom of association, which does tend to result in some kinds of voluntary segregation. But in the U.S. it's been done by plenty of lighter-skinned people -- Irish, Italian, Russian, German, etc.

British people form expat groups here in Texas -- is that wrong? It's not hypocritical at all to oppose top-down, government-enforced segregation, while supporting freedom of association.

oh fucking really??

you support freedom of association do you?? so you are saying that you support the current ongoing freedom of association situation in leith??

REALLY?????

by Sponsored content

Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault

Re: Houston cops shoot unarmed black patient in hospital — and then charge him with assault