Just Plain Racist


Every fifty years or so we seem to go through
a racial upheaval in this country. Fifty years after the founding was the Missouri
Compromise, which just sort of kicked the slavery can down the road a bit until the
ultimate clash in the 1860s, the Civil War. But it obviously didn’t end there. Fifty years later, in the 1910’s and 20’s
was the golden age of the KKK. This is when most of the Confederate statues
were put up. Another fifty years went by and we had the
Civil Rights movement, with Martin Luther King, the Black Panthers, and the Confederate
Flag. Before the 50s and 60s, the Confederate Flag
wasn’t really a thing. And here we are again fifty years later, with
Black Lives Matter and Neo-Nazis. So how the heck did we get here? Before we get into current events, it’s
important to take a step back and look at the overall picture. Neo-Nazis and the KKK have existed for decades
but they’re much more prominent and have much more support now, and something must
have caused that… and it wasn’t just Trump. So first, let’s define some terms. The big picture is xenophobia, which is the
fear or dislike of anyone different from you. Under xenophobia is racism, sexism, and islamophobia. These are all different, but they sometimes
overlap in the case of Islam, because it’s often coupled with racism against Arabs. Even though, as I’ve covered before, there
are Arab Christians, Arab Jews, and Arab everything else. But unlike disliking a religion or ideology,
racism is a dislike of a biological group of people. Yes you heard that correctly. Race is absolutely biological. It’s as much of a social construct as planets
are. We use certain physical characteristics to
group together and define them. So let’s define race. When talking about human beings, it is a group
of people with a shared set of common physical characteristics. Physical characteristics. That is darker skin, different shaped eyes,
you know what they are, okay? Let me be clear, there is no data to suggest
that race is connected to intelligence, criminality, or any other behavior… it’s entirely physical. Though different races do have different likelihoods
of different diseases (Such as Cystic Fibrosis, more common in white people, and sickle-cell
anemia, more common in black people). This doesn’t mean that any race is better
or worse than any other. It just means that we are different, and these
differences are biological and genetic in origin. There is no white gene or black gene or Asian
gene, it’s a set of common characteristics – not universal. There are black people with blue eyes, there
are white people dark skin. It’s as biological as your hair color…
your natural hair color. We’re all human, but we’re all different,
nobody is better or worse, but we’re different, okay? So can we… look there are many ways to fight
racism, but claiming that race is not biological or that it’s just a social construct is
not one of them. But, calling things that aren’t really racism
“racism” also doesn’t help. Like stereotypes. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and that reason
is Cognitive Ease. We all do it, every single one of you, including
me, no matter how hard you try not to. When you first meet someone, you try to figure
out what they are, whether it’s their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or whatever. And then your brain brings up a set of characteristics
about that group. For example, you find out that they’re Jewish
or Muslim and your brain brings up the fact that you probably shouldn’t offer them bacon. There are Jews and Muslims who do eat bacon
– but most of the time, they don’t, and that’s why your brain brings up that fact. Most stereotypes are harmless and just help
you interact with that person. Some of them are harmful, especially when
they incite you to violence or bigotry. But most of them are just kind of funny. That’s why they’re usually the topic of
jokes. Having stereotypes is not racist. Think about this, when you are correcting
or calling out someone for having a stereotype… do you call out the person who says that all
black people are drug dealing criminals… or do you verbally berate the person who makes
a watermelon joke. Odds are, most of the time, you’re talking
to the watermelon guy. You’re making them feel horrible, and possibly
defensive, for something that literally everyone does – when they’re not really the racist
you should be calling out. Maybe you think the jokes are harmful, and
okay. But thinking that all stereotypes are harmful
simply isn’t… because we all have them, because it is socially and evolutionarily
advantageous to have them. Speaking of which, racism isn’t learned. What did he just say? Racism isn’t learned. Hatred is learned. Racism is… innate. A common saying is that no baby is born racist…
well… that isn’t true. Babies understand morality as young as three
months old. At six months old, they show a bias and preference
for people with similar tastes and views as them – regardless of their morality. It’s as simple as liking a stuffed animal
that prefers the same food as them, even if that animal is a jerk to other stuffed animals. I always link my sources down below, but I’m
also going to link to a few videos which talk about these experiments, including this stuffed
animal one. And I know that sounds ridiculous to equate
this racism, but it shows that we have an innate, unlearned, base programming bias and
preference towards those who are similar to us – and this bias only grows as we grow. By the time we are able to recognize ourselves
in the mirror, we will start to show preference and bias towards those who look like us. Babies as young as 15 months old show racial
bias, or more specifically in-group racial bias. They will self-segregate and choose playmates
of the same race as them. And since babies understand morality and fairness,
they will also completely throw that out the window and prefer adults who unfairly distribute
toys in a way that favors their own race. And this is across races, by the way. Since three-month, six-month, and even fifteen-month
olds don’t yet have the language capacity to learn hatred, this shows that babies have
an innate racial bias and racial preference. And there is an evolutionary reason for that. Back in the day, other groups and races, people
who don’t look like or act like you, probably had a different immune system and different
pathogens than you. So it was advantageous to stay away from them. Now that obviously that isn’t true anymore
– but for tens or hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, it was true. And patches to our innate, base programming
takes longer than fifty or a hundred years. Now these are babies, so we wouldn’t really
call bias or preference “racism”, it’s just weird, funny quirk. But we would definitely call it racism if
they were an adult. And the thing is, these weird quirky preferences
extend into adulthood. You may not think you’re racist, you may
even be violently opposed to racism. But here’s an example. You are told to take a seat – there are
four chairs. In the far right seat is someone of your race,
and in the far left seat is someone of another race. Almost always, without thinking about it,
you will sit next to the person of the same race as you. Is that racism? Or is that just a vestige of the same racial
preference that we might laugh about in babies? There are many legitimate ways to fight racism,
but saying that racism is learned, isn’t one of them. Hatred is learned. Having those thoughts, and preferences, and
biases, is natural. It doesn’t make you a bigot or a racist
– unless you act on them. It’s the same with sex. When you see someone attractive, you might
initially have thoughts that are… best left as thoughts. They are natural to have. But if you act on them… that’s when we as a society have to step
in. The thoughts themselves are not wrong, and
telling someone that they are a terrible person for having them doesn’t help. That makes them defensive, rather than open
minded. We need to teach that it’s okay to have
these natural thoughts, and here’s how to overcome them. Not that you are a terrible person for having
them in the first place. Likewise, coming up with new terms like Microagression,
in order to say – “You’re not really racist, you’re only a little racist” – doesn’t
help either. This only muddies the water and makes people
who aren’t racist defensive. Or “cultural appropriation.” Many of us were brought up and taught to learn
about and appreciate other cultures. We would have days in school where we would
dress up and celebrate some other culture’s holiday. And that’s great! But now, we’re being told that we can’t
eat certain foods or dress in a certain way because it’s not part of our heritage, and
that’s cultural appropriation. You can’t celebrate diversity and multiculturalism
and be against cultural appropriation at the same time, these things are at odds with each
other. And when you do that, it makes people just
throw up their hands, say forget it, and retreat into their in-group, where they won’t be
told what to do or how to think. And things like Black Lives Matter don’t
help either. The movement itself is fine, but let’s admit
that’s a terrible name choice. Because while not it’s intention, it implies
that black lives matter more than any other race. Which is why some white people get defensive
have a problem with it. It means that black lives matter just as much
as every other race’s life… but that’s not really a catchy hashtag. Which brings us to White Privilege. White Privilege is obviously a thing, however
it’s likewise a terrible term, so white people have a hard time seeing it. When you tell someone that they need to “check
their privilege”, their first reaction will be defensive – what white privilege? It kind of implies that they get something
extra, like a monthly check or a discount at Walmart. When they don’t feel like that – they likely
fall into one of two categories. They either just went through several bouts
of unemployment and financial uncertainty during the recession, so when you say they
have a privilege, they think they must be exception to that privilege – they obviously
haven’t had it easy. Or, they’re well off and feel that they
worked hard during college to get to where they are, so clearly, they don’t have privilege
either. A good example of what is meant by White Privilege
is that cops are far less likely to shoot you. You may think that that’s the norm. And it should be. You might think that white people don’t
get anything extra, they get “base level” – the problem is that minorities get treated
like… less than that. So if you understand that, you can understand
what White Privilege is supposed to mean. As I’ve said, the problem is that that’s
not how it comes off, it comes off as white people being the problem, because they’re
getting something extra that they shouldn’t. So to people who have already retreated into
their in-group and every time they look outwards, they’re being told they’re part of the
problem… well… Look, I don’t need a psych study to prove
this, we have a larger sample study than we could ever hope for here, and guess what – Trump
won. And while not everyone who voted for Trump
is a racist, not everyone who voted for him is a white supremacist, many of them roll
their eyes at social justice. Many of them are tired of being told what
to say and that they are the problem. Of course, political correctness and social
justice are not solely to blame, but, if they were working, he wouldn’t have been elected. So we ignore them as a contributing factor
at our own peril. And obviously, the KKK and the Neo-Nazis have
existed long before Trump, but they are oddly more popular than you would expect if social
justice was working. So you end up with things like the UnitetheRight
rally this last weekend. What did you think I wasn’t going to talk
about this? Let’s make one thing clear, this was not
a spontaneous grassroots demonstration. This was a planned rally by white supremacists
and Nazis. Yeah, technically they’re not Nazis – they’re
not members of the German National Socialist Party. So fine they’re wannabe Nazis or Neo-Nazis. It doesn’t matter, this isn’t some leftist
name-callling. When you do things like this, or carry flags
like this, you’re a Nazi. And these weren’t just some fringe group
who showed up un-invited. These were the guys who got the permits to
hold this rally. So if you were just there to defend our history
or whatever, as soon as you saw those flags you should have just walked away. But I digress, if you want to know more about
the rally itself, I’ll put a link to the Vice News segment down below. Consider it required viewing. They wanted to show that they aren’t just
some internet meme, and that they have real numbers and a clear message. They even say that they want to use ethnic
cleansing in order to create an ethno-state. It will make you angry, and it should make
you angry. This wasn’t a rally to defend a statue,
even though that was the stated purpose. I’ve discussed this before, but the topic
has come boiling up again. It’s time to drop the Confederate stuff. As I’ve discussed on this channel several
times, the Confederacy existed for one purpose – to keep slavery. That point isn’t in dispute. It actually makes me quite angry to see people
defending Robert E Lee by saying that he abhorred slavery, by using the same quote that I – you
know what, here. This is a popular meme on facebook. And by that sentence, yeah, it sure sounds
like he disliked slavery. But they’re cutting off the next several
sentences, like “I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. The blacks are immeasurably better off here
than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially.” It goes on and gets worse, link to his full
letter down below. But, he was very pro slavery. Or they’ll show this one. Yes, Grant owned slaves through his wife’s
estate. You know who else did? Robert E Lee. He owned his own slaves, and then a few years
later inherited more through his wife’s estate, he eventually freed them in 1862 – in
the middle of the Civil War. But I also really enjoy this meme, because
yes, there is a Lenin statue in Seattle, but the people there have been complaining about
it since it went up. But it’s on private property, so it’s
much harder to take down. Unlike the several Lee statues which are on
public property – and that’s part of the problem. These statues went up in public places mostly
in the 1910’s and 20’s, during the hayday of the KKK, as signals to black people to
know your place… at least, that’s how they saw them. As I said in the beginning of the video, fifty
years later, during the Civil Rights Movement, the Confederate flag became a thing. Obviously, it existed during the Confederacy,
but it kind of went away for almost a hundred years, and as you should know, this isn’t
the flag of the Confederacy. This is. This is the “stars and bars” – so what
the heck is this? It’s the Confederate battle flag and naval
ensign. Similar to this, actually. Do you know what this is? It’s not just the top corner of the US flag,
it’s the naval ensign, or at least it was until 2002. It’s what was flown on the back of ships
to tell everyone that this is an American ship. If a picture tells a thousand words, than
this says a lot more than just “The Confederacy.” It’s a symbol of what the Confederacy stood
for – and no, not states’ rights. Slavery… and white supremacy over black
people. There is a reason why the Neo-Nazis were walking
around looking like this. That’s a nazi flag… Pretty easy to figure out what it is and what
it means… I don’t really know what this flag is…
but this seems a little out of place if it’s just a symbol of states’ rights right next
to the Nazi one. This used to be a Hindu symbol for thousands
of years. Then some jerk in the 1930’s used it and
completely changed its meaning for everyone forever. If I were to get a tattoo of this and tried
to tell everyone that it’s just a symbol of good luck, nobody would believe me. So even if, up to this point, you believe
that this flag stands for states’ rights or southern pride… that’s not what it
means anymore. Some jerks have taken it and changed it. It’s just plain racist. And if pictures say a thousand words, then
a 3D statue in a public space says a million. It’s not just a monument to the person,
it’s a monument to what they stood for. What are they remembered for? The argument that removing statues will erase
history is dumb. First of all, they aren’t destroying the
statues, they’re simply putting them in museums. But even if they were destroying them, that
doesn’t take them out of history books. You haven’t seen a Hitler statue, yet we
all know who he is. Likewise, the “where will it end” argument
isn’t valid either. Nobody wants to take down statues of Washington
or Jefferson. They were founding fathers and presidents. They were slave owners, but that’s not what
they’re remembered for. Martin Luther King was an adulterer, Gandhi
was an extreme racist and weird pseudo-pedophile, but that’s not what they’re remembered
for either. What is Robert E Lee? A Confederate general. The argument that they were rebels, traitors,
and losers, while true, doesn’t help either. It’s not a statue to them losing. And there are statues to historical losers
everywhere. This is a statue of William Wallace, if you
saw Braveheart, you know that he lost. But that’s not why he has a statue in Scotland. It’s because he’s a symbol of the Scottish
national identity and fought against English tyranny. There are many legitimate reasons to remove
Confederate statues, but bringing up that they lost the war isn’t one of them. So what is a Confederate general statue for? If you said the Southern identity, you need
to ask yourself what that means. Because unlike the Scottish, the Southern
identity is rooted in racism. Thinking that the Civil War was over states’
rights or southern pride, is all part of the Lost Cause myth. I’ve mentioned it a few times in the past
but I’ve never really explained it. I’ll put a link to a few blog posts below
by people who grew up believing in the Lost Cause, one of which is by Rhett from Rhett
and Link. If there’s enough interest, I’d be happy
to make a video about it. But it’s a myth. A Robert E Lee statue is a monument to the
Confederacy, which stood for slavery, white supremacy, and… little else. That’s why these statues have become Neo-Nazi
holy sites, and I wish I was exaggerating, but that’s what last week’s rally and
many upcoming rallies are centered around. Look, we all thought this type of racism was
dead and gone, or at best, a small fringe. We were wrong. And in our ignorance, they’ve gained strength
and convinced people from the middle to at least quietly support them by saying that
their cause is to preserve history or defend freedom of speech. I will not say that silence or doing nothing
is as bad as carrying a nazi flag, because it’s obviously not. But I don’t think that we can sit by and
simply watch this on the news or read about it on facebook anymore. What can you do? I don’t have the answer to that, every person
has to find that out on their own, I just made a video though, so… I’m doing my part! And the next time someone tells you you’re
a terrible person for laughing at an innocent racial stereotype joke or that it’s just
a symbol of southern pride, hopefully now, you’ll know better. So what do you think about these rallies,
is it hate speech or just free speech? Let me know down in the comments below, and
don’t forget to appropriate that subscribe button.

🎬 Get Out Review – More Than A Political Piece?


By the way there’s no story spoilers in this video I’m literally just talking about the production quality and politics. So let me set the scene, it’s an evening and I’ve gone to the cinema with my girlfriend. We’re going to see Get Out, which is a horror film directed by Jordan Peele of Comedy Central acclaim. He’s in a few sketch shows on that network but this is his debut as a film director. Now I’m a little bit skeptical about the film, a little bit nervous too I don’t know if I’ve just wasted six pounds and this is because I’ve seen attempts at putting political commentary into films and they can come across a little bit ham-fisted [PIG SQUEALING WITH MEAT-BEATING SFX] Such as Gen Zed or the recent PEPSI advert where the production quality or the message can kind of be the only focus depending upon who’s making it. Usually the production quality or the script or even the editing suffer to the detriment of the message that they’re trying to convey and there’s a case even to argue that Bioware did this recently with Mass Effect Andromeda. So back on to Get Out. Did the film suffer script-wise, editing-wise production quality-wise all that stuff due to the political message they were trying to convey? No The film is actually very well made on a technical level, it’s very suspenseful, the script is very good, the visual effects are great, the practical effects are great actually as well. There’s a bit of gore in this, there’s a bit of horror, there’s a very uneasy feeling throughout most of the film and it’s genuinely done very well, even the acting is top notch. As for the political message I didn’t actually mind it. It was talking about something that we don’t very often see which is the sort of racism that you get from liberal people who are….. I don’t know whether they’re trying their best or they’re just trying to virtue signal and it winds up coming off the wrong way with black people. Whereas they want to be treat like a normal person and not just somebody who can be told “I would have voted for Obama a third time” again and again and again to try and make them feel better about their own politics. if you want my opinion on Obama, I didn’t like him as president. I thought he was kind of shocking when it came to foreign affairs and this is the kind of thing that the film is sort of talking about, is the people will ignore what he did in Syria completely just because they want to say we voted for a black president. It’s the kind of people that will play demographic and identity politics with people who don’t. Because a lot of the time within this film the main character is basically a black guy who seems to be a bit fed up talking about his race and being treat poorly by people and being as if the fact that he’s black is the only thing that matters. There’s actually seen in this which does it quite well we’re the only person who doesn’t talk about his race is a blind guy and that’s the thing and it’s…. you can see the disappointment in this characters eyes when he’s like “Oh this guy’s interested in photography and who I am” and then he finds out he’s blind and you can see him go *sigh* and that’s something else I have to commend the film and the script writing for, it was very much a show don’t tell kind of affair whereas it wasn’t the characters telling you how hard done they’ve been treated by.Iit was kind of done through the acting and providing examples and just showing you sort of shit that some people can say and that was something I actually liked, it wasn’t actively attacking a specific group of people it was showing you bad examples of how certain people were acting and that was fine to be honest. It’s a refreshing change in my opinion and even the director has said that he’s not out to alienate people with this he’s trying to get people to be able to relate to the film and he’s actually said that he wanted to make a film that stands on its own as a horror film as well as a piece of political commentary. The political commentary, while you might not agree with it, is done very well as is the rest of the production quality. It’s got comedy elements, it’s got harder elements, it’s got gore in it and I liked it, it was good. It’s worth seeing [MORE PIG NOISES]

10 Common Slavery Myths


Hey, Cypher here. There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding the institution of slavery, especially here in the United states. These myths often serve pernicious political purposes that can be highly detrimental to a proper conception of history, so here are ten of those myths debunked in no particular order. Since they aren’t in a particular order, each one is fairly different from the other so you should stick around because the list goes all over the place. Just as an aside, I’m going to be focusing mostly on the U.S, because this is where the myths serve their most malignant political purpose. If you are someone who is offended by these facts… Check my sources. As per usual, they are in the description. It is a common meme going around the internet. Anytime a Black Lives Matter issue comes up, I’ll see people putting these up on Facebook. Well, these are all wrong. White slaves did exist but not in the American colonies. Mostly on the Barbary coast where Muslim corsairs would capture and enslave Whites. In the New World, the closest whites got to being enslaved was indentured servitude. Indentured servitude is a system in which one is forced to labour for a limited period of time. Sometimes there were cruel bosses, but there were many more laws protecting against cruel masters of indentured servants than slaves and there was, in fact, a legal difference. Also, sometimes people were sentenced to indentured servitude for crimes they had committed. Their contracts could even be sold by owners, but generally these contracts would only be for five to twenty years Slavery indentured servitude was not some might call indentured servants sentenced to life slavery But that would be like calling a modern prisoner sentenced to life a slave That’s just weird. This myth tends to focus on the Irish who did in fact suffer tremendously under English rule some could be said to have been put into serfdom But that was in the old world in the new one the closest they came to slavery was indentured servitude And it was generally voluntary not coerced nor were they treated more brutally than black slaves the invention of slavery Predates history itself while it is generally incorrect to say that ancient persian and Egyptian States practice slavery, We know from their records that slavery existed in Surrounding States Furthermore there is archaeological evidence that shows it was a common practice throughout the world and nearly every place in the world Had slavery at some point in its history or prehistory chattel slavery as in the practice of hereditary race-based enslavement was something that was practiced throughout the middle East an Asian step for Centuries prior to 1492 [n Fact much of Islamic States practiced it until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918 and some well after that the last African country to abolish slavery was Mauritania, and it happened in 1981 and it is still a problem for many countries Several countries, especially Mauritania still have prominent illegal and De facto Slavery since the government is unwilling to enforce its mandates against slavery many people still hold slaves today European empires such as the Greeks and Romans Had practiced slavery and were crucial to their economies the only real reason why they stopped was that the system of serfdom? implemented after the Roman Empire made slavery kind of unnecessary for a while no black man was the first slave owner in America as Internet memes are apt to say the person they’re referring to was an Angolan indentured Servant [Naydon] Anthony Johnson who in turn came to own indentured Servant contracts after he earned his freedom he even had the first written record of Refusing to accept the end of an indentured contract thereby making the man named John Kaiser a legal slave But there had been slaves in that colony since before the Kaiser lawsuit in 1655 African slaves were sold in 1634 there and I’m not referring to indentured servants either. I mean straight-up slaves This is normally meant to show that slavery in the new world was colorblind But that doesn’t show it in the slightest it had been racially based since the second voyage of Columbus Spanish Colonies had been practicing chattel slavery for over a century Including in Florida it took a while for the racism to build up in the English colonies But it did so regardless of who owned the slaves The Civil War was not initially fought to end slavery Abraham Lincoln was very clear in 1862 by stating if I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone. I would also do that The emancipation proclamation was not an easy decision on his part [for] there were slave states fighting for the union, but it was prompted by people like John C Fremont declaring slaves emancipated under Their own authority as Military governors it also gave a crucial purpose to the Union’s fight as people were becoming more and more disillusioned [of] the Civil war Instead the North Fought to keep the union intact Ending secession was their chief motivation of course the reason for secession in the first place is a bit different oh boy is this a thorny issue I’ve done an entire episode on the causes of the Civil war But it is absolutely undeniable that slavery was a chief motivation for secession in every document proclaiming Secession slavery is explicitly mentioned This is part of lost cause revisionism they try to say that slavery was a minor factor and that the North had been trampling over the rights of the south as Independent states they bring up the tenth amendment to the constitution which states that any power expressed by the Constitution would instead be given to the states rather than the federal government they call out that there was a tremendous Difference in culture and that terrorists were choking farmers these were all factors for sure but not the most important one Lincoln being elected was and the South’s fear of his position on slavery made them secede Everything else is peripheral to this one problem. If you want more on that go watch the episode that I mentioned before In 1860 the time of the last census before the Civil war Roughly 36 percent of freeman in the south owned slaves That would seem insignificant since they were in the minority overall but as one article pointed out men is roughly the same percentage of Americans with college degrees right now [it] is not an insignificant number Furthermore the Southern Social system was entirely dependent on their peculiar institution So even if they were not slave owners most were heavily entrenched in a way of life That was absolutely dependent on slavery I’ve heard this from actual graduate students hell, Karl Marx made a similar argument in dust capital it’s that tired Marxist terminology of wage slavery ”We have been paid in two weeks and We want our wages.” ”wages. You want to be waste slave answer me that.” ”costs not but what makes way slaves” ”Wages I want you to be free” But this is a false equivocation as I pointed out in class back then when one possesses different legal rights It is impossible to say those same people are equal slaves had far less legal rights than white Factory workers in some States They had no rights whatsoever [if] a factory owner whipped their workers They could be sued or even jailed for assault as a side myth busting Americans were far more likely to sue each other prior to world war one than ever since Lawsuits were extraordinarily common in comparison to today and that myth needs to go away because it is perpetrated by big businesses and benefits them only anyways there were many business practices such as Chaining workers to their factory position that were decidedly cruel, but that is nothing compared to what many slaves Experienced now it is also a myth that all slave owners were cruel and abusive For many slavery was not as unpleasant as movies like to make it out to be after all one had to keep slaves controlled and love is often a far more potent force of coercion than fear the various acts of Rebellion that were prevalent throughout the history of Slavery had to be curtailed Somehow and many Masters were kind to their slaves But the peculiar institution had a corrosive effect on anyone involved It is true that there were slaves who were forced to work for the confederacy There is no record of slaves voluntarily working for the confederacy save for one particular instance Towards the end of the Civil war the Confederate congress passed a bill [that] allowed for a slave regiment to be created It was supposedly voluntary but then again so was their conscription act and conscription by no stretch of the definition can be defined as Voluntary in either case the regiment that was created never saw action and was a divisive issue for the confederates in General The Columbian slave trade was created by Europeans and the place that they received slaves was in West Africa But unlike what is commonly conceived they did not just go raiding inland with nets to grab up unsuspecting tribesmen the African slave [trade] was Predicated on Africans selling other Africans it was a system already in place Before Columbus arrived to take the first slaves to the new world in 1498 like most slave Institutions. It was created by capturing prisoners during warfare Europeans had no need to kidnap Africans like they show in movies all the time Africans were already doing that for them they developed an entire economy around that trade this Devastated western Africa which has yet to recover from the economic circumstances imposed by the transatlantic slave trade that doesn’t Vindicate Europeans for their slave trading of course two wrongs don’t make a right let alone How europeans would encourage the trade through their economic incentives and political maneuvering in Africa? It was a lucrative business after all it just means that Africans were active participants [in] the trade and not only victims of it First of all slavery is still an ongoing issue many countries throughout the world have Clear slavery and not just coerced labor like Chinese factory workers. I mean chattel slavery still exists We weren’t allowed to be reporting on slavery. It’s a practice the government tries to hide from outsiders But as we would find slavery is everywhere in Mauritania If you know where to look it is illegal worldwide But practiced anyways in a number of countries so slavery has not ended Furthermore abolishment of slavery was not an invention of white people the qin dynasty were the first recorded Abolitionists, they are the reason why we called that country China, *Donald Trump repeating the word china* and the first Chinese emperor was an abolitionist Slavery fluctuated throughout world history the idea that slavery is inherently wrong does not originate in Europe nor is it particularly unique their Abolition was also motivated by slave Revolts slaves were not just docile servants But often actively opposed their own enslavement slave Revolts happened throughout the Modern period One of which culminated in the liberation of Haiti long before most European countries Abolish slavery even when they were forced into the most wretched conditions possible aboard ship on the middle passage there were around 250 shipboard slave Revolts it was such a problem that slave ships often had Barricades to defend themselves against such revolts. There’s also a kind of disgusting side to claiming that whites freed the slaves *sarcastic tone* For how wonderful it is that the captors freed the captives? How nice of them to just decide on their own volition to stop oppressing people? This is a particularly pernicious myth, because it makes slaves Objects rather than actors in their own right as well as completely forgetting the western powers were Particularly egregious when it came to the abolition of slavery ALL of these myths need to be stopped

Hip-Hop is political again. Here’s why.


If you look back at hip hop in the mid 90s,
you might notice a political theme. Rappers like Ice Cube transcended music and
began to tell the story of the ghetto through film. Lauryn Hill was preaching gender equality
in songs like Everything is Everything. [More powerful than two cleopatras, bomb graffiti,
on the tomb of Nefertiti, emcees ain’t ready to take it to the serengeti, my rhymes is
heavy, like the mind of sister betty (el Shabazz!)] Rappers like Tupac, Nas, and Biggie Smalls
who made music that uplifted and educated young people from the projects But somewhere around the turn of the decade,
things changed. Politically conscious hip-hop gained steam
underground, but began to exit pop-culture. Underground artists like Mos Def stayed true
to to conscious rap. But the rise of crunk & gangster rap made hip-hop look more like
a rowdy party scene. But in 2015, Hip-Hop returned to politics. Kendrick Lamar spearheaded the return with
his grammy nominated album To Pimp a Butterfly. The title itself is commentary on the role
of black artists in commercial music. President Obama named a song from the album
— How Much A Dollar Cost — as his favorite of the year. In it, Lamar disregards a homeless man who
turns out to be god. The lyrics weigh the literal value of a dollar
against that of helping someone in need. And Kendrick isn’t the only one who made
a statement last year. [Borders, what’s up with that?] Killer Mike gained notoriety on the strength
of the anarchy-themed Run The Jewels project. He also endorsed presidential candidate Bernie
Sanders. [And you make sure that when they leave, they
are on fire, because they have felt the Bern] And for four weeks straight, Straight Outta
Compton topped the box office. It tells the story of NWA, the 1980s rap group known for
criticizing the police. But the forefathers of hip hop have always
been sociopolitical. [Fight the Power] They were influenced by protest music that
came before theirs. So, why is now different? Over the past couple of years, several cases
of police brutality against unarmed black people have drawn the nation’s attention. Groups like #BlackLivesMatter are meeting
with presidential candidates; And conversations about injustice travel faster than ever through
social media. If you look at this chart of public opinion
on whether racism is a “big problem” – you see it was pretty high in 1995. By 2009, when
Obama took office, it had dropped to 26%, but has since spiked back up to 50%. Since 2013, the number of Americans saying
race relations are “good” has dropped by 15 percentage points among blacks and 27
points among whites. Public awareness has clearly shifted. And
in many ways, the success of political hip hop reflects that change

Prof. Mark Lilla: Politics Isn’t About Identity, It’s About Winning (Spiked Unsafe Space Tour)


MARK LILLA: There was a time when it was possible
to talk about equal rights for these groups, civil rights movement, the women’s movement,
gay rights movement, without using the word “identity” at all. You talked about social justice. Then something happened. The word “identity,” the concept of identity,
entered the American language, and politics was no longer a question of being committed
to a cause affecting people out there, but became a species of self expression. I am expressing my identity by getting involved
in this issue, or that issue, and I’m focused on politics only because of my identity, and
the point of that is: I need to speak truth to power. I need to call people out. I’ve got to fight the power. When in fact the point of politics is to be
the power. Identity movements have put themselves into
a state of, at the moment, a kind of frenzy that defeats this very practical purpose,
and two things happen, and then I’ll be done. One is that a radical rhetoric gets employed
that gets in people’s faces in a way that is not helpful. Black Lives Matter, which laid out a call
to the conscience of anyone with a conscience in this country, ended up breaking up meetings
with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Suicide. But the other point, and this is where we
come to free speech, is that if your politics are wrapped up with your definition of your
self, it gets very hard to have a political discussion because people feel that in disagreeing
with their opinion that you’re challenging their identity, and that’s what’s happened
on our campuses. We’re no longer detached enough to argue without
feeling that it’s about us, and the big lesson we have to learn it’s not about us. It’s not about how we define ourselves, it’s
not about intersectionality, it’s not about my sensitivities, it’s about fighting for
justice out there for other people, and to do that, you need to retool. TOM SLATER: Thank you very much, Mark.

Racism, Law, & Politics (Race Part 1) | Philosophy Tube


This video is part one of two. In this episode
we’ll be exploring the work of Falguni Sheth and learning about race, racialization, and
political philosophy. In part two we’ll look at a case study and discuss the racialization
of Muslims in so-called Western liberal societies. We’ve got a lot of ground to cover today so
I’m gonna jump right in. There’s this big debate over whether race is a series of biological categories or whether it’s just a social construct. And in her book “Toward a Political Philosophy of Race,” Falguni Sheth tries to break away from that binary. She says that to talk about race just as a biological category ignores all the ways that it’s used in politics and law, and
to talk about it just as a social construct ignores the more interesting questions of
who constructs it, why they construct it, and how they do it? Sheth thinks that the concept of race is a
type of technology: it’s a mental tool used by those in power: that’s
the who. They use it to manage unruly populations: that’s the why. And they do this through racialization: that’s the how. So let’s get into it, and I’ll explain to you what all of that means. The technology of race is used by ‘Sovereign
Power,’ that’s a term that Sheth borrows from from Foucault, and for the purposes of this video we can take it to mean, ‘whoever is officially in charge and the systems through which their power is expressed.’ Sheth talks specifically about liberal societies.
By ‘liberal societies’ she means societies with certain basic assumptions at their heart,
for instance a division between the public and the private spheres; an insistence that
all citizens are equal; emphasis on the ‘rule of law,’ where the law is thought to be fair
and consented to democratically by the people. Liberalism also usually means capitalism,
and since the tail end of the 20th century it’s increasingly meant neoliberal capitalism,
with an emphasis on low welfare, low taxes and free markets. Sheth has a very interesting view of what Sovereign Power and its legal and political systems are for. She thinks the purpose of the state is to conserve its own power, and, by extension, conserve those basic liberal assumptions. The function of government is not to ensure peace, or justice, or fairness, or anything like that. “This is the self-preservation society.” She thinks there’s a paradox at the heart
of liberalism. Liberal societies talk the talk of inclusiveness and universal human
rights for everyone, even as they systemically exclude from that embrace certain groups of
people. Think about how the founding fathers of the US preached “Liberty and justice for
all!” whilst owning slaves. It’s not always as stark as that but Sheth says that the promise of liberalism is very rarely realised for everyone. But Sovereign Power has to preserve the basic liberal assumptions, so what does it do? It creates exceptions. It rules out certain groups of people as not being eligible for entrance
into the Promised Land, as not being eligible for protection, benefits, voting rights, whatever.
As a bonus, if a population is enslaved, or there’s an unjust war, or a refugee crisis,
or a financial crash, then those disasters can be written off as mistakes. As misapplications
of the principles of liberalism. Because Sovereign Power can always say, ” Oh, the exceptions that we made at the time looked legitimate but in hindsight they were actually errors.” Anything but systemic problems. Ok, so we’ve said that the technology of race is used by Sovereign Power trying to preserve itself. We’ve covered the ‘Who?’
But preserve itself against what exactly? Time to look at the ‘Why?’ Fortunately this bit’s pretty easy. Sovereign
Power wants to preserve itself against what Sheth calls ‘the unruly.’ The unruly is that which is “unpredictable,
undependable, or threatening to a political order.” Sovereign power doesn’t make exceptions
of people randomly. If your existence or the way you live threatens any of the basic liberal
assumptions, or even, as is often the case, if it’s just perceived as a threat to them,
you’re in danger of being marked as unruly. So for instance, If you openly display your private values
in public, if you remind people that the law isn’t always administered equally, if you actually need the welfare state to survive, then in the eyes of Sovereign Power you can be a threat, whether they’re consciously aware of that and whether you actually are, or not. So Sovereign Power wants to preserve itself against perceived challenges from the unruly by making exceptions of people. It’s now time to bring race back into this,
tie all the threads together, and talk about how making those exceptions works. Racialization is the process by which a population
is divided, and one group is pushed further and further away from that promise of liberalism, both in the law and in the minds of the people. It is “the process of delineating a population
in contrast to a dominant population and a corresponding political tension.” It’s how
Sovereign Power creates exceptions to its own rules and makes those exceptions seem totally legitimate and natural. Racialization protects sovereign power and
suppresses the unruly because there’s an implied threat of violence for those who can’t get
into the Promised Land. If you’re in the group that racialized and pushed out, and you don’t get the protection or the benefits or whatever it is, well that’d be bad for you wouldn’t it? So better stop being unruly and tow the
line. Let’s say you and I represent sovereign power,
and there’s this group of people we think are unruly and we want to racialize them. In order to do that we first need two things. They need to have some distinguishing feature that we can use to point them out to the dominant population and say “Look, there’s the enemy.” It could be a physical
thing like skin colour but it might not: it could be religion, socioeconomic status, gender, or their sexuality. If they don’t have a distinguishing feature then we could always try giving them one, like a yellow star. Or a red wristband. They need to already be vulnerable already
compared to the dominant population, otherwise it’s going to very difficult for us to racialize and push them out. Maybe there’s some historical inequality that hasn’t
been rectified, maybe they’re underrepresented not represented in positions of power, maybe they’re new immigrants to our nation and they need our help to survive. We take their perceived unruliness and we say “Everybody with that distinguishing feature is like that.” And that’s how we write them all off as bad, and begin to justify excluding them from society as a race, a race that we have effectively just created. Now, this is the hardest bit to understand.
The distinguishing then become the criteria by which sovereign power tells us it’s making the distinction. It’s actually
distinguishing on the basis of unruliness, but it’s disgusting that as a neutral, objective, possibly biological category. Think about the lengths the Nazis went to to prove that
Aryans were a different race from Jews, Poles, whoever they wanted rid of at the time. Politics
disguising itself as neutral, objective science. Sheth thinks that physiological markers like
skin colour or genetics don’t constitute race. Rather, those features are used to point out populations that are
already being racialised and pushed out because Sovereign Power perceives them as unruly. That’s why some biological differences like skin colour are thought to constitute race, and some biological differences like hair and eye colour are just natural variation within a race: because the rules for deploying the concept of race don’t
come from biology; they come from power. All this theory might seem a bit abstract so let’s look at a concrete example. Consider the internment of Japanese Americans in the USA just prior to WWII. Many so-called
Japanese Americans were actually American citizens, 2nd or 3rd generation descendants
of Japanese immigrants. They could be distinguished on sight from the dominant white population. Their ancestors had faced obstacles like the Alien Land Law and laws against mixed marriages, so compared to the white population they were already vulnerable. When the war started the US government worried that they might rise up and commit mass sabotage. That was the perceived unruliness. And so,
on President Roosevelt’s orders, 120,000 people had their ordinary rights suspended and were imprisoned in concentration camps. The state took a bunch of people who were in their eyes potentially
unruly, drew a line around them, said “Everybody within that line is the same in terms of their threat to us, regardless of how much individual evidence we may have for their cases,”and used that line as an excuse to literally lock them up. So to sum up, the concept of Race functions
as technology in a threefold way: Firstly, It classifies people according to their perceived
unruliness Secondly, It disguises that classification under criteria that are politically neutral, like skin colour And finally, it hides the true relationship of violence between citizens and Sovereign Power Sheth’s model of race is neither biological category
nor social construct: rather, race latches onto certain observable variations in humans,
sometimes biological sometimes not, and attaches sociopolitical importance to them in
order to preserve power. And this might actually explain a lot: discriminating
against someone because their skin is a different colour – it’s difficult to understand why
anyone would do that. But discriminating against someone because you’ve been told people
like them are a threat? Suddenly that’s a lot easier to understand. And it might explain a few things too, like how young black men in the US are much more likely to be thought threatening and therefore shot by the police than young white men. Race is more than just a biological category: it’s a socio-political
one. It’s worth noting that once racialization becomes part of the law and the common discourse we can perpetuate it without even meaning to or realising. Sheth’s work has the power to transform not only our understanding of race but our understanding of racism. You might have heard people say, “I’m not racist because I don’t hate anybody because of the colour of their skin.” Well now we know there’s more to race than that we are better equipped to identify racist thinking in others and in ourselves. I’ve had the misfortune of meeting
a few racists in my time and they won’t tell you they hate people because of
the colour of their skin: they’ll tell you that people “like that” are aggressive, or lazy, or rude, or whatever it is. You might also have heard people say, “You can’t be
racist towards white people,” and at first glance that can look very odd, but if Sheth
is right that race comes from power, given that white people have historically held the
balance of power, we can see that racism is a more specialised and technical subset of discrimination. Obviously, if anyone were to just quote the dictionary definition or the “common definition”
of racism in order to refute that idea, they would be begging the question against all
of Sheth’s work. You would need to actually engage with her arguments, which leads me,
finally, to this. There are some final concerns to address before
we finish part one. Firstly, does this erase racial identity? Some people very proudly
self-identify as members of a certain race; if race is a tool of division and oppression created by the powerful then aren’t we taking that identity away from them? Sheth considers that and says no. Racial self-identity follows after a population has already been
racialized. The racialized population learns from Sovereign Power to identify themselves as different from them. They are to be distinguished and we can have both. Secondly, we’ve talked a lot about the failings
of liberalism in this episode. Does that mean liberalism as a project is doomed, that fairness and equality and justice can’t be had? Well, not necessarily. But what we need to
realise is that the ideal of a liberal society is one that we often fall short of. Fairness, democracy, equality – these might be worth striving for. But we need to recognise not only where
we fail to get them, but also where we set ourselves up to fail. Some people I’m sure will say Sheth is “redefining the word race” and “You can’t just redefine words!”. Well hold your horses there because she’s
not just plucking a new definition out of thin air so much as she is arguing that
the old definition in the dictionaries and the common discourse actually leaves a lot of very important things out. And if we wanted to critique Sheth’s ideas, if you’re writing an essay or a comment, then the thing to do would be to ask, “Does her model of race explain how we see the concept actually being used in the world, not just how the dictionary says we should see it being used? Does it make any predictions about what we might observe, does it explain any of the things we observe? I’ve suggested some ways already in which it might. Is it useful? Remember though that it also makes some predictions about whose evidence
we are more likely to think is authoritative in a society governed by Sovereign Power. So what do you think of Sheth’s work on race
and power? If you’d like a firmer grasp of how this theory translates into reality, then you can click on my face right now and head on over to Part 2, where I’ll be discussing the racialization of Muslims. There is a little bit more to racialization than I had time to mention today, so if want to hear more about it you can pick up a copy of Professor Sheth’s book. Leave me a comment telling me what you thought, next time we could either look at John Stuart Mill’s essay “On Liberty” or we could discuss “What is Fate?” For more philosophical videos every Friday, please subscribe. This episode was sponsored by Audible.com,
if you go to audibletrial.com/philosophytube you can get a free audiobook, and a free 30
day trial of their audiobook service you can cancel anytime. And every time one of you signs up I get a tiny bit of cash, which I really, really, appreciate!

Make Politics Practical


– You’re talking about all of
these high-level ideologies. How have you made that
practical for me to turn it into something that I can
pay my light bill with? The Democratic and Libertarian Party, excuse me, Democratic and Republican Party are very good at that. Sometimes to the point of contradiction. Say one thing and do another. We have the ability to infuse
a liberty concept and… Make it practical. But they haven’t been in the hood. Practicality exists in the hood. You know what I’m saying? Stupidity exists everywhere,
like the hood too, but practicality to
balance that out a bit, and maybe that’s part of the reason why they’ve avoided urban America. You don’t want that mirror, you know, yeah bro, you’ve got great, great. I can call Friedman Jr. Yo, what’s up, tell me about these great, I have literally had
dinner fireside with him reciting poetry in one of my, like rich lawyer’s houses in
Phoenix for the Freedom Summit. – David Friedman? – Yeah. – I didn’t know he did poetry. – He does poetry, I heard
it, like, reciting poetry. – We gotta get him on
to do poetry, I think. – You know what I’m saying? And it’s like, this was awesome. – Yeah. – Now, let’s make those
economic conversations and those beautiful lines
of prose and all of that now, simplify it and make it practical and give it to urban America. We win overnight that way. And I’m just cool being a lightning rod to get beat up a little bit, cause like, I’m from Philly, like you
can’t even hurt my feelings. What are you gonna do? – So we wanna come to the hood, by the way, and tell that story, cause the whole question of
practically doing liberty instead of just talking about
it is, that’s everything. I’m totally with you on that. – [Maj] Let’s do it. – But I wanna go back,
because you’re most famous for Black Guns Matter. – [Maj] Yeah. – You spend a lot of time on Fox News talking about Black Guns Matter. Did this start out just sort of trolling Black Lives Matter, was it… Was it a pun? Or what was the instigation? – No, I supported even like Kaepernick and bringing attention,
like use your platform. It’s like, people get
shot regardless of race. That summer a few years
ago when Kaepernick started taking that knee, it
was almost like in the hood. We couldn’t through a
weekend, but an American citizen had happened to
be melanated getting shot. One of the dudes was laying on the ground defending his special needs – By the cops. – [Maj] Right, by the cops. – Yeah. – And he’s like, “Hey, that’s
my special needs student, He’s okay, don’t shoot him.” He got shot three times. Unarmed, laying on the ground, hands up. And so it was almost back to back. So Kaepernick… However you feel about how he played it after the fact, right,
he used his platform to highlight a thing, and
to be perfectly honest, a lot of the killings slowed down. So I wasn’t opposed to Black Lives Matter, I’m just, the whole hands
up, don’t shoot thing, that’s submissive. I’m Leonidas. I don’t, like take a
knee, bending, submitting, it’s not my thing. I would rather die on my
feet than live on my knees. That’s just what it is. I did not expect to be alive this long. Everything from here is a win. You know what I’m saying? I was just at the White House. Oh man, that’s dope. I did not expect to be alive,
you cannot hurt my feelings. So… I’m, with that, I’m just
not submitting to tyranny. So for me it was like, yeah, I don’t care if you think my, I’m not
trying to convince somebody that my life matters, I
don’t care what you think. That’s your business, what you think. I don’t like him, he’s
got one tattoo on one arm, Matt’s got two cool sleeves. All right, that’s your thought. I don’t care what you think. I have a gun though,
and if you don’t think my life matters to the
point where you wanna try to take my life, or my liberty, or my pursuit of property, you’re
going to see real quick how important my life matters
to me, with my firearm. So that’s where Black
Guns Matter came from. (rock music)

[YTP] The Actual Democratic Debate


Anderson Cooper: Ladies and gentlemen, please
welcome the Democratic candidates for President of the United Socialist States! *cheers* Anderson Cooper: Now everybody, please rise
for our Soviet Union national anthem! *Soviet Union national anthem* Anderson Cooper: There is certainly a lot
of excitement in this room tonight and before we dive into the issues I want to quickly
explain some of the ground rules tonight: Each candidate will get 1 minute to answer
questions, Secretary Clinton will get 2 minutes to answer
questions, and Senator Webb will get 1 second. Let’s begin with Governor Chaffee. I’m the only one running for President that
has been a mayor, a United States Senator, and a Governor. I was appointed by my dad three times. I’m coming to take away your guns. *applause* Cooper: Governor O’Malley There are some things that I have learned
to do better in life than others and after 15 years of executive experience I have not learned how to be an effective
leader. I learned how to be a magician. I have learned how to get things done, whether
it was saddling our kids with a lifetime of crushing
debt. Thanks to Martin O’Malley, we had allowed
ourselves to become the most violent, addicted, and abandoned city
in America, and I ran and promised people that together
we could turn that around. I did not turn that around, but I attended a lot of funerals. *applause* Cooper: Governor O’Malley thank you very much,
Senator Sanders. Middle class, middle class, casino capitalist,
middle class, Wall St. Raise the minimum wage, middle class, insitutional
racism Middle class, a handful of billionaires, middle
class. Thank you. *cheers* Cooper: Senator Webb you have one second. Thank you. Cooper: You’re over your time. Webb: Well you’ve let a lot people- Cooper:
You’re over their time. Webb: -I would say this-
Cooper: You agreed to these debate rules. Cooper: Secretary Clinton. Clinton: Well first of all-
Webb: Anderson, can I get into this discussion at some point? Cooper: You will get one second, she will
get two minutes, so. Webb: I’ve been standing over here-
Cooper: You’re over your time. You agreed to these debate rules. Clinton: Well I am in the middle here, and I am coming from all directions. Um, you know I have to say When I think about capitalism I think about
me. You know, both Bill and I have been very blessed. I have spent a very long time, my entire adult
life looking for ways to stack the deck to help
me have a chance to get ahead. We have to figure out how we’re going to make
the tax system a fairer one. Right now, you pay too little and Bill and
I pay too much. What we have to do in America is save you
from the opportunity and the freedom in our country, Bill and I need it the most. Finally, fathers will be able to say to their
daughters, you too can grow up to stack the deck. *cheers* Anderson Cooper: Thank you all, time is up,
that is the first Democratic debate of the 2016 campaign, I’m Andersoon Cooper, thanks for joining us.

Tomi Lahren – Giving a Voice to Conservative America on “Tomi”: The Daily Show


Please welcome Tomi Lahren. -♪ ♪
-(cheering, applause) Thanks. Thank you. I’m in the lion’s den, Trevor. I am not a lion at all. Is that, like, an African thing?
No. Um, welcome to the show. Be-Before we get into it,
uh, I-I know who you are, because I-I…
my Facebook feed has you in it. Uh, there are a lot of people
who don’t, so if you don’t know Tomi Lahren, this is
a little taste of her show. The protesters are still out in
force, but let’s be honest– they’re not protesters, they’re
crybabies with nothing better to do than meander
around the streets with their participation
trophies and false sense of purpose.
This isn’t for Hillary. I’m not even sure
this is against Trump. It’s the same thing we’ve seen
time and time again with these so-called
protesters and demonstrators. It started with
the Occupy Wall Street brats, moved on to the more militant
and overtly aggressive Black Lives Matter More crowd, cycled through the DNC-paid
violence instigators and now here we are,
November of 2016, with President-elect
Donald Trump and a crowd of misfit babies formed from
every failed movement, all sandwiched together
to become the largest group of whiners the country
has ever seen. -All right… -Pretty much
covers it, doesn’t it, Trevor? Quick question–
like, why are you so angry? I’m actually not that angry.
It’s just there’s things that need to be said, Trevor,
and a lot of people -are afraid to say ’em.
-In an… in an angry way. I mean,
you can’t say you’re not angry and, I mean, this is-this is
what you’re known for. It’s a strange thing to say–
“I’m not angry”– but that is the one thing…
It’s like Ellen saying, “I don’t like dancing.”
It’s like, yeah, you do, Ellen. You do. You-you are angry
about everything, it seems. Some of these people just need
to be called on their (bleep). -You know? I mean, when…
-What-what… But when you say “your (bleep),”
what in particular? -Well, when you’re… -‘Cause
this is the-this is the thing– protesting a, you know,
fair and free election… that, to me, you-you’re gonna
get called on your (bleep) a little bit. It’s time
to clear the streets, it’s time to accept reality,
it’s time to move on, time to make America
great again. -You consider yourself
a conservative. -I do. -Okay. -I mean, a millennial,
so I don’t really like labels. -But, yes, I’m conservative
in thought. -Sorry, my brain… You just gave a label
to say you don’t like labels. -But, anyway, um…
-We exist on a spectrum, Trevor. I mean, you’re… Would you
consider yourself a liberal? That was just… that was
just funny. That was just funny. -It was just a funny moment.
Um… -I’m a millennial. -We can surprise you.
-It’s just… it’s just funny. Um, in terms
of Black Lives Matter, like, you know,
you have quite a record… For somebody who is not racist, you have to spend a lot of time
saying, “I’m not racist.” Uh… what is your biggest issue
with Black Lives Matter? I think– and I’ve said this
many times– it started with good intentions. I think it was.
It was well-intentioned. The moment that
they started pushing “hands up, don’t shoot”–
which is a false narrative, proven time and time again
to be a false narrative– the minute that that became
their slogan, the minute that protesting
turned into rioting and looting and burning
and militant actions, that’s when I lost respect
for Black Lives Matter. Okay, but, now, here’s my thing. Let’s address each
of these things one by one. When you go, protesting, turning
into rioting and looting, that’s not a Black Lives Matter
phenomenon. That is what happens when there
is a protest a lot of the time. There are people
who rioted and looted when teams won in Chicago
years ago. It doesn’t mean
that they are now bad people. That’s what happens… There are some bad people
in every instance. Going back
to Black Lives Matter, though, for you to say that… You say
they have good intentions, they had the good intentions. How are you labeling out
the actions of a few and condemning an entire group?
I don’t understand that. Because they subscribe to the
Black Lives Matter movement. They say, we are
the Black Lives Matter movement, fry ’em like bacon,
“F” the police. They are saying those things. These are a few people.
These are a few people. This is not
the Black Lives Matter pro… -These are… these are… -That
is not the platform, though. I saw it in my…
my city of Dallas. I saw what a Black Lives Matter
protest looked like. And I saw five fallen officers
because of it. -So I’ve seen… -That’s
not fair and that’s true. -That’s-that’s not… -No, no,
no, no, no, it is fair, Trevor, because the shooter said,
point blank shooter said, he’s doing this
because of Black Lives Matter. Yes, and there are many things
you can say. I mean, if you go outside, you can say anything about doing
something because of… You cannot deny that the man
had mental issues, as well, and he was in a tough place. Just because you say the thing
doesn’t mean -it’s what it stands for, right?
-Do you feel emboldened? Because
you’re the same person… You’re the same person
who argued on your show that just because Donald Trump
has supporters from the KKK doesn’t mean he’s in the KKK, so it goes
against that argument. He didn’t say…
he didn’t say… No. No. -(applause and cheering)
-It goes against that. You can’t say
he did it because of. No, but, he, the shooter said,
“I am…” Yes, but Black Lives Matter
has never said go out and shoot people. I’m saying, you’re saying this
to your audience, and I honestly do not understand
where you’re getting that from. Just because a person… What if somebody says, “I felt
emboldened by Tomi Lahren, and so I went out,
and I shot black people”? Are you now responsible?
Is that your black…? But it’s not one… Trevor,
it’s not one or two people. -If you look at it…
-How many people is it? If you look at it in every city, -look at the protests that have
gone on. -How many people is it? In Baltimore, in Ferguson,
in New York City, the protests that have now
turned to anti-Trump protests. -These are not a few people.
-Okay. -This is mass crowds of people.
-Okay. They’re doing this in the name
of Michael Brown. They’re doing this
in the name of Freddie Gray. They’re doing it as the front
of Black Lives Matter, and the mainstream media
is emboldening these people. Okay, so then let’s use
that same logic that you’re using, then,
and then go, police. Are the police racist?
Because police in many cities… You look at Baltimore, or you look
at what happened in New York, you look at what happened
in the case of Walter Scott. You tell me,
are police racist? Because they’ve been shown
to harass black people unfairly. They’ve been shown
to shoot black people when they’re unarmed. Does that
mean the police are racist then? Because that’s the same logic
you’re using. -It’s really not, though,
Trevor, because… -It is. the mainstream media is not
emboldening them as a group. -(groaning, booing)
-It’s not. And did you know that a black man is 18.5 times
more likely to shoot a police officer
than a police officer is to shoot a black man?
Those are statistics -no one wants to talk about.
-(booing, groaning) Here’s the thing.
So, let me ask you this, then. If you say, as you said
when you walked out, “I’m not as mean
as people think I am, I’m not the person
that people think I am,” what do you wish people
would understand about you that are in another bubble? What do you wish people would
understand about you on the other side? I wish that we could disagree
with each other without thinking that we are bad
people or ill-intentioned folks. So because I criticize
a black person or I criticize
the Black Lives Matter movement, that doesn’t mean
that I am anti-black. It does not mean
that I don’t like black people, or that I’m a racist. It means
I’m criticizing a movement. I criticize Colin Kaepernick. That doesn’t mean
that I don’t believe in his First Amendment rights. It means that I believe
in my First Amendment rights to criticize him. So it doesn’t make me
a bad person, it doesn’t make me a racist
to point out… I mean, I’ve never used
racial slurs to address people. I’ve never looked down
on someone because of their skin color. To me, true diversity
is diversity of thought, not diversity of color.
I don’t see color. I go after Hillary Clinton, -(laughter, groaning) -and
she’s as white as they come. You don’t…
you don’t see color? So what do you do
at a traffic light? -(laughter, applause & cheering)
-I don’t believe in that at all, when people say that. There’s nothing wrong
withseeingcolor. It’s how you treat color
that’s more important. -You’re right. It is.
-Here’s my thing. Like, all these points
that you make are great, and I do believe
that you believe them. And I don’t believe
anyone is actively trying… There are a few people
who are trying to be bad
from their point of view. But when I look
at what you’re saying, you say you’re not pushing
a racist narrative, you’re not…
you’re criticizing. Do you really believe
you’re criticizing and you’re not mal-intentioned
when you say things like Black Lives Matter
is the new KKK? Because you realize Black Lives
Matter can’t be thenewKKK, the KKK is still around. -They have not vacated
their premises, -(clears throat) -(applause)
-and most importantly, to say Black Lives Matter
is the new KKK is… like, to really, really minimize
what the KKK did and what they stand for–
that is not the same thing. Surely you understand
the incendiary, like… -But… -feeling of your
comments. You know that, surely. It’s controversial, but
I think there are some things that need to be said, and when
the Black Lives Matter movement is going out with signs saying,
“Fry ’em like bacon, F the police,”
when they’re going out saying if you see a white person,
target them… That is happening, Trevor. That happened in Milwaukee
not too long ago. That is happening. So when
that now becomes the narrative and you’re starting to loot,
burn and riot, -what did the KKK do?
-That is not… Look, we’ll go around
in circles… Did you say,
“What did the KKK do?” No. What did they do?
When you’re saying… -(laughter) -Wow.
-Listen, listen… Trevor… -Wow.
-Trevor, when you’re saying… when there are people
in the street saying if you see a white person,
beat their ass… does that not sound reminiscent
of the KKK -or their motives to you?
-Is that the narrative of Black Lives Matter,
or are there people who are saying that within
a crowd of other human beings? There is a distinction between
a movement and the people. That is something
that we keep coming back to. But let’s go back
to what you were saying on Colin Kaepernick
and the National Anthem. This is something
I don’t understand, and I…
when I watch your videos, I go…
I truly do not understand. You say… Colin Kaepernick
is exercising his First Amendment rights,
and you are exercising your First Amendment rights
in criticizing him. -Mm-hmm.
-So what you’re saying is… “You have the right to say
anything you want, so shut up.” No. Not at all. I’m saying I don’t agree
with what he did. -Yes. -I think that
he went about it the wrong way. -I don’t think he understands…
-What is the right way? When people say that,
I’m always fascinated. What is the right way? So,
here’s a black man in America who says, I don’t know
how to get a message across. If I march in the streets,
people say I’m a thug, if I go out and I protest,
people say that it’s a riot, if I bend down on one knee, then
it’s… What is the right way? That is something
I’ve always wanted to know. What is the right way
for a black person -(applause, cheering)
-to get attention in America? Taking it out… Trevor… taking it out on our flag
and our National Anthem, -to me…
-But how? Why would you take out your perceived oppression
of black people out on the National Anthem
and our flag? A country that you live in,
a country that you benefit from, a country that people
of all races have died for, have died to protect,
have died for the vote, died to be enfranchised
by this nation, how do you then go
and disrespect the flag and the anthem of that country? -Why is that the outlet?
-Well, maybe you’re a person who’s lived
and read through history, and you realize that a lot
of those people of every color who died for this country, some
of them didn’t have the rights that their fellow servicemen had when they came back to the
country after fighting for it. And that flag means a lot
to those folks, too. Maybe you’re one
of those people who realizes that the penal system in America
wasdesignedto oppress black people, it was
designed to enslave people, it is a relic of slavery. Maybe you’re
one of those people. So what I don’t understand is,
a guy is kneeling in the corner, I don’t understand
why that offends you so much. It’s not even like
he’s trying to sing over you. If he was doing that, he’s like,
♪ O say… ♪ O say canmesee!
No. He’s singing… He’s not… he’s not doing
anything that affects you. I don’t understand
why it gets to you. I genuinely don’t.
He’s in a corner, kneeling by himself– why
does that offend you so much? For me, I know what
that flag means to me, I know what that flag means
to those that are fighting for our country right now– it’s
bigger than a piece of cloth. It’s a symbol of patriotism. Our National Anthem has meant
a lot to a lot of people, it’s got a lot of people
through very hard times, and this country,
it’s got its scars, it’s got its wounds,
it’s got its history, but I still believe
it’s the greatest nation on the face of the Earth,
and I believe if you live in this country,
you can want to better it, but to disrespect
our flag and our anthem, in that way,
and that be your outlet to get out
whatever aggression you have, whether it be passive
or active aggression, I disagree with it. And so he has every right
to do it– that’s his
First Amendment rights, and I agree with his First
Amendment right to do it– I don’t agree with what he did. So because I don’t agree
with what he did, then nowIshould shut up?
Because I’m white? So I should shut up?
I shouldn’t be able to talk about black issues
’cause I’m white? No one brought up whites at all. I never said that.
I don’t see color. -I…
-(laughter) I don’t think that
that’s what the argument is. What I’m saying is…
I asked you one question, and that is:
How should a black person bring up their grievances? That’s all I ask. How? If that’s not the right way,
if marching isn’t the right way, whatisthe right way? When you talk…
What he said was, he is protesting
the anthem and the flag because of the oppression
of black people -in this country.
-Yes. I would like him
to further explain what he’s talking about
when he’s discussing -the black oppression
in this country. -Which he has. Also, is it against police?
Is it against the government? I’m not sure what oppression
he’s discussing. I would love
to have him come on my show and discuss it with me. To me, when you make the flag
and you make the anthem the outlet for your anger, or the outlet through which
you’re going to protest your country that you live in,
you reside in, that you take
$19 million a year from, I don’t think that that is the
correct outlet for your anger. So, what is he protesting? Again, you haven’t answered
my question of how… -how you want black people…
-So… I’m just asking how.
And I’m asking you… honestly, I’m not saying
in a challenging way– I’m saying to you,
I don’t know the answer apart from these methods,
so I would like to know if you’ve ever thought of a how. Because you’re the first person
I’ve met who’s said this. I’ve seen this message online. I’m not labeling you
as“thebad person.” I just want to know if
you’ve ever thought of the how. That’s all I want to know. For me, I think there are a lot
of folks in this country, I, being a woman, um, I didn’t
have rights after black people, until women
got the right to vote, but because I feel like
I’m a woman, and I’m marginalized
in some way, I don’t protest my country. I don’t see
what he’s protesting. -I would like to know exactly
what he is protesting. -So… -It’s a very…
-So how do you– No, no. -How do you protest, then?
That’s what… -I don’t protest. Because I’m not a victim. I guess we can,
we can go back and forth on a lot of these issues, um… It’s-it’s an interesting place
to be in, because, honestly, y-you’ve won,
you know. Like, your side has won,
as you say, you know. The liberal snowflakes
are melting in the streets as they protest. And now I would like to know
from your side, genuinely, as someone who’s won,
do you believe that Donald Trump will follow
through on his promises? I will be a vocal opponent
if he doesn’t. I am not somebody that gets on
the cheerleading bandwagon. If he does something I disagree
with, I will discuss it. I did before I was
a Trump supporter, I was critical of Trump. I was a Marco Rubio girl
for a long time, and then I started to see that
was gonna be our nominee. And I said it’s him or Hillary. -A lot of Americans
were in that position. -Yeah. And then I got closer
to the campaign, and I started seeing some
of the things he was saying, and I started seeing the effect
he was having on people, and the things that he was
saying that was touching people, -and making them feel like
they… -He was touching people. -Yeah. He was.
-(laughter) He really was. Hillary could use some of that
every now and then, right? Bill’s a little busy,
Bill’s a little busy. I appreciate you being
on the show. Thank you so much
for being here. -Thank you, Trevor.
-It is, a… a conversation we should
continue having, uh, having. You can find, uh,
Tomi’s Final Thoughts at Facebook.com/TomiLahren.

Don Lemon, sheriff spar over police shootings


>>>OUR BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT. THREE OFFICERS DEAD, THREE WOUNDED IN BATON ROUGE. A TOUGH DAY FOR BATON ROUGE AND FOR THE COUNTRY. HERE TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO KEEP OUR POLICE SAFE IS SHERIFF DAVID CLARK OF MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. HE’S GOING TO BE SPEAKING AT THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION TOMORROW NIGHT. SHERIFF, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. HORRIFIC DAY. SPOKE TO THE HEADS OF THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE POLICE DOWN THERE. THEY TOLD US HOW THEIR HEARTS WERE REELING. THEIR MESSAGE IS PEACE AND COMING TOGETHER IN THE COUNTRY. WHAT’S YOUR MESSAGE?>>YOU DON’T BELIEVE THAT FOR ONE MINUTE, DO YOU?>>THAT THEIR MESSAGE IS?>>THAT’S WHAT THEY SAID TO ME.>>OKAY. YEAH, I BELIEVE THEM.>>PROTESTS OVER THE DEATHS OF THE COPS IN BATON ROUGE?>>I DON’T KNOW THAT.>>ANY RIOTS OR PROTESTS OVER THE POLICE OFFICERS IN DALLAS, TEXAS?>>WHAT ARE YOU ASKING?>>IT’S A PRETTY SIMPLE QUESTION.>>I ASKED YOU WHAT YOUR MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE, THEIR MESSAGE IS ONE OF PEACE. WHAT IS YOUR MESSAGE?>>MY MESSAGE HAS BEEN CLEAR FROM DAY ONE TWO YEARS AGO. THIS ANTI-COP SENTIMENT FROM THIS HATEFUL IDEOLOGY CALLED BLACK LIVES MATTER HAS FUELED THIS RAGE AGAINST THE AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER. I PREDICTED THIS TWO YEARS AGO.>>DO YOU KNOW THAT THIS WAS BECAUSE OF THAT?>>YES, I DO.>>AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER — >>I’VE BEEN WATCHING THIS FOR TWO YEARS. I’VE PREDICTED THIS. THIS ANTI-POLICE RHETORIC SWEEPING THE COUNTRY HAS TURNED OUT SOME HATEFUL THINGS INSIDE OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOW PLAYING THEMSELVES OUT ON THE AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER. I WANT TO KNOW WITH ALL OF THE BLACK ON BLACK VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY THE WAY, WHEN THE TRAGEDIES HAPPENED IN LOUISIANA AND MINNESOTA, YOU KNOW THAT 21 BLACK PEOPLE WERE MURDERED ACROSS THE UNITED STATES? WAS THERE ANY REPORTING ON THAT?>>BLACK OFFICER WHO WAS KILLED TODAY.>>WAS THERE ANY REPORTING ON THAT?>>SHERIFF, PLEASE. LET’S JUST KEEP THE VIBE DOWN HERE. SO I UNDERSTAND, AND, LISTEN — >>I’M LOOKING AT THREE DEAD COPS THIS WEEK AND I AM LOOKING AT FIVE LAST WEEK. YOU’RE TRYING TO TELL ME TO KEEP IT DOWN?>>CAN WE JUST PLEASE? WE CAN KEEP IT CIVIL. THE MESSAGE TO PEOPLE AT HOME, I’M SURE YOU WANT IS ONE OF CIVILITY.>>DON, I WISH YOU HAD THAT MESSAGE OF CIVILITY — >>I’M TRYING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU — >>FOR THIS HATEFUL IDEOLOGY. THESE PURVEYORS OF HATE.>>WHAT I WANT TO SAY TO YOU IS THESE PEOPLE — ARE WISCONSIN, HERE LIVE IN CLEVELAND, YOU’RE SET TO SPEAK TOMORROW. AND ALL I WANT TO DO IS HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU, I CAN’T HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU IF WE’RE BOTH TALKING AT THE SAME TIME. WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME IS THAT YOU’RE ACCUSING ME OF VIOLENCE, BY SUPPORTING A NARRATIVE THAT I’M NOT NECESSARILY IN SUPPORT OF. I DON’T SUPPORT VIOLENCE AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS OR ANYONE. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION, I AM MORE THAN WILLING TO WELCOME A CONVERSATION WITH YOU, I DON’T DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE’S A NARRATIVE ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT COULD BE HARMING POLICE OFFICERS, BUT WE DON’T KNOW RIGHT NOW, AS SOMEONE WHO WAS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, IF THAT WAS THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF IT.>>LET ME ASK YOU THIS, DO WE KNOW THAT GENERALLY THE AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE RACIST? DO WE KNOW THIS?>>GO ON.>>I ASKED A QUESTION.>>DO I KNOW THAT IN GENERAL AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT IS RA RACIST? IF YOU’RE ACCUSING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT ACROSS THIS COUNTRY AS A WHOLE IS RACIST, THEN YOUR ASSUMPTION IS WRONG.>>THIS WHOLE ANTI-POLICE RHETORIC IS BASED ON A LIE. THERE IS NO DATA, AND YOU KNOW THIS, THERE IS NO DATA, THERE IS NO RESEARCH THAT PROVES ANY OF THAT NONSENSE. NONE.>>YOU HAVE TO BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT DATA AND WHAT NONSENSE YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT.>>THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TREAT BLACK MALES DIFFERENT THAN WHITE MALES IN POLICING IN THESE URBAN CENTERS.>>THERE IS DATA THAT SUPPORTS THAT.>>THERE IS NOT DATA.>>THE PRESIDENT SPOKE ABOUT IT. CEDRIC ALEXANDER, WHO’S A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.>>THE PRESIDENT IS LYING ABOUT IT. HE SAID IT THE OTHER DAY WHEN HE SAID THAT BLACK MALES ARE TWO TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE SHOT BY A WHITE POLICE OFFICER AN A BLACK POLICE OFFICER. THAT IS A LIE.>>THAT IS NOT A LIE. THE RESEARCH THAT WE HAVE FROM “THE WASHINGTON POST” — >>”THE WASHINGTON POST” DEBUNKED THAT NONSENSE.>>SHERIFF, THERE’S ALSO RESEARCH — >>HE CONTINUES.>>FROM A HARVARD PROFESSOR THAT ALSO SHOWED THAT BLACK PEOPLE ARE TREATED MORE AGGRESSIVELY BY POLICE OFFICERS — >>NO, YOU WHERE WRONG AND YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT HARVARD STUDY, I READ THE STUDY. THAT’S NOT WHAT HE SAID. HE SAID HE WAS SURPRISED TO FIND — >>HE WAS SURPRISED TO FIND THAT IN SHOOTINGS, THE MOST SEVERE IN SHOOTINGS, HE FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE. ALSO IT SHOULD BE NOTED, THAT THERE’S A STUDY OF A VERY SMALL SAMPLING OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, MANY DID NOT FIND IT CREDIBLE. BUT IT’S ALSO INTERESTING THAT IN THAT RESEARCH HE FOUND THAT BLACK WERE TREATED DIFFERENTLY WHEN IT CAME TO AGGRESSIVE POLICING.>>ARE WE TALKING ABOUT GENERALLY? OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT POLICE OFFICERS BEING UNDER ATTACK. LET’S GO BACK TO WHEN THIS WHOLE THING STARTED IN FERGUSON. >>YOU’RE LUMPING A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS INTO ONE. >>THAT’S WHERE THIS WHOLE PHONY MOVEMENT GOT STARTED. >>YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT BLACK LIVES MATTER?>>RIGHT.>>SO YOU WOULD NEED TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE WHO IS A MEMBER OF BLACK LIVES MATTER ABOUT WHETHER THEY ARE — HAVE PERPETRATED A FRAUD ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT’S UP TO BLACK LIVES MATTER, I’M NEITHER A MEMBER OF BLACK LIVES MATTER, I’M NEITHER A SUPPORTER OR SOMEONE WHO DOESN’T SUPPORT THEM.>>CAN YOU SUPPORT THE ANTI-POLICE RHETORIC COMING FROM THIS HATEFUL IDEOLOGY.>>AS A JOURNALIST SILTING ON TELEVISION, I DON’T HAVE TO CONDEMN ANYTHING. IT’S OTH . >>IT’S LIKE GROUPS LIKE THE KKK, I CONDEMN IT. THERE IS NO PLACE IN AMERICAN DISCOURSE FOR THAT SORT OF VILE, VITRIOLIC HATE COMING OUT OF THAT IDEOLOGY. THIS HAS FUELED AND FANNED THE FLAMES OF THIS ANGER TOWARD THE AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER, THERE’S ONLY ONE GROUP IN AMERICA, ONE TIME, THAT TRULY CARES ABOUT THE LIVES OF BLACK PEOPLE IN THE YOU ARE BAN GHETTO, AND IT’S THE AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER, WHO GOES OUT THERE ON A DAILY BASIS, TO PUTA ATHEIR LIVES ON THE LIN TO PROTECT WHO? BLACK PEOPLE. LET’S HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE BLACK ON BLACK CRIME WHICH KILLS MORE BLACK MALES, WHICH IS MORE LIKELY IN THE UNITED STATES THAN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.>>THAT’S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. WE CAN WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME. THERE’S AN ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO VIOLENCE. IT’S CRIME, WHITE PEOPLE TEND TO KILL WHITE PEOPLE. BLACK PEOPLE TEND TO KILL WHITE PEOPLE. THERE IS A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION THAN POLICE BRUTALITY. AND WE’RE NOT HAVING THAT CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW. I WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH YOU, I CONDEMN ALL VIOLENCE OF ANY TYPE. JUST FOR THE RECORD.>>IT WAS A SITUATION BETWEEN MIKE BROWN AND DARREN WILSON, WAS THAT POLICE BRUTALITY?>>WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT MIKE BROWN AND DAREN WILSON. IF YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOWED, IT EXONERATED OFFICER CARRRCARREN DA DACAR DAREN WILSON. >>YOU’RE GOING TO SEE THAT BLACK MALES ARE OVERREPRESENTED IN TERMS OF BEING INVOLVED IN VIOLENT CRIME, THAT’S GOING TO MEAN MORE ARRESTS, MORE PEOPLE GOING TO PRISON. THIS STUFF HAS ALREADY BEEN DEBUNKED.>>SHERIFF, THERE’S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.>>ANY TIME YOU DON’T HAVE A RESPONSE TO SOMETHING I SAY — >>THE REASON I DON’T HAVE A RESPONSE IS THAT WE’RE HAVING TWO DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS. I’M ASKING THE QUESTIONS HERE, YOU’RE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS BY ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OTHER SUBJECT THAT WE’RE NOT DISCUSSING, THAT’S NOT A CONVERSATION. >>WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE HATEFUL IDEOLOGY OF BLACK LIVES MATTER, YOU CAN’T BE A MEMBER, IT’S AN IDEOLOGY, IT’S A HATEFUL IDEOLOGY.>>I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A VERY SENSITIVE TIME FOR YOU.>>THESE INDIVIDUALS — >>AND SHERIFF, WE APPRECIATE