Learning from History

I was going to add this as a PPS to another thread. Then I thought, "no this is bigger than that thread".

A couple posters who I respect may not take kindly to bringing up this point in a new thread. However, this is honestly not any attempt to single them out but rather to address that many many people who feel the same way and therefore make the same argument. This is an argument, that I hope, will one day cease to be used.

the response to slavery and racism in the US if often... I don't want to say defended because I don't like how that sounds because I don't think either poster was trying to defend what happened, but I have often heard this response which is an attempt to deflect. My assumption is that people don't mean or intend to say that racism/slavery was ever okay. But for some reason people keep bringing up the fact that slavery existed outside the US.

And?

Listen to what you're saying. Does that change anything or make anything okay?

For many people on this site, slavery is a word in the dictionary because they have no direct experience with it. Same with racism. Racism is a word in the dictionary and they accept whatever the dictionary tells them it means. Again, this thread is not about calling anyone out or shaming anyone. The reason I believe the subject of race still haunts us is because we often try to ignore it while those who don't ignore it, racists, are using it to be as racist as they please while everyone else is busy pretending its not happening at all and if it is, it's just like being called names at school. So get over it and "be best".

Instead, what we need is an open line of communication; a two-way street on which to trade information and insight. What do black people think about racism? What do white people think about racism? This is not really THAT thread. I mean you're welcome to branch into other subjects. That's fine. The reason for this thread is just to discuss the framing and reliving of history.

While I can argue that slavery, the way it existed in the US, did NOT exist all over the world, this is not the thread for that. It doesn't matter. It is irrelevant. Again slavery is a word. Slavery in other parts of the world is often called "human trafficking" which is different from "indentured servitude" or 'debt based slavery'. These terms are often confused. Human trafficking, as the name implies, is illegal. Slavery in the US, on the other hand, was the law. If you can escape human trafficking you're free. If you escaped your plantation in Alabama and were caught by the police you would be brought back to the plantation where you might either be whipped or lose a foot. You didn't need both feet to pick cotton.

There are similarities between slavery and human trafficking. There is no morality in holding someone hostage against their free will and forcing them to work for you. It's universally wrong. This is sometimes compared to indentured servitude in which a person, who probably didn't have the means to support themselves, became a servant to a family or landowner. Either there was a past debt to work off or the payment for those years of labor would be paid after the service was complete. In the bible a good example of this is Jacob. He worked for 7 years to marry Rachel and then another 7 years to marry Rachel because he was tricked into marrying her sister first. And still, at the end he managed to go free with a lot of his uncle's cattle because he got to set terms that Laban had the choice to agree with.

Everyone didn't have jobs back then like they do now. Abraham was extremely wealthy and so his land and resources were like running a small corporation. He had hundreds of servants. But these weren't people pressed into slavery and kept in chains. And so most people made contracts to take some of the bosses wealth in exchange for their service. And once they were done they could buy their own land and have their own cattle. This was basically a retirement plan of sorts.

Once the Hebrews became a nation they adopted rules that were either murky or flat out wrong. How they treated strangers ("foreigners") wasn't equal and they could, for example, keep a man's wife as their servant until her contract was finished and he would have to leave. But if he wanted to stay with her they put an aul in his ear which marked him as a servant for life. However, this was still his choice. But like I said... murky. Because he could wait for her years of service to be complete and they could be together.

Where the Israelites crossed the line was in war.

People often have a romanticized view of war and its purpose. Wars have different purposes but there's nothing noble about going to war to expand your territory. When gangs fight rivals for their corners, this is a "hostile takeover" of a financial asset. However, no one honestly would think of it as "territory expansion" and excuse it as "conquest". Call it what it is. It's trying to take something that belongs (at least in their minds) to other people. When natives said "no one owns the land" what they meant is that they all live on the land collectively. It's not for sale. It wasn't something, in their minds, that could be owned. And their society was so different who could say that they really understood what this really meant? That ownership = control.

Fighting against that control... that's noble. Fighting to protect your friends and families from tyranny and oppression. That's noble. That's honorable. But when YOU become that tyranny and oppression then the fight loses all of its honor and nobility and you are just the tool for the rich landowners who sent you over there. If beating up a kid and taking his lunch money is wrong for an individual then the same thing is wrong for one group to do to another. The involvement of more people doesn't make it permissible in any way. It doesn't mean victims of sex trafficking who are forced to do it aren't victims because there's many people involved. Even if some of them choose to do it, they are responsible for their choice but not beyond the extent that they are exploited by others.

These forces form, often because of imbalances; imbalances that shift the balance of power from the hands of the many to the hands of a select few.

Those select few are usually those who seek power and wealth over the greater good of all.

In my view, Jedi have also was been protectors of balance, willing to fight against evil and oppression when they take root. To be a universal force for good, good and evil must have universal definitions. It's not just bad when its happening to you. And its not good just because it's good for you or works out to your benefit or advantage.

So why, in dealing with past evils, mistakes, and everything in between that have hurt and oppressed others, why is there a need to deflect; to say that the same thing happened over here or there or this time history or this other time in history? If it's wrong, it's wrong. Is it really so complicated?

its Hard to talk about racism for me because it’s such a blind hate to me that keeps being passed and passed and no one wants to do anything about it - so I decided to kill it once and for all in me and in my family.
Color isn’t a description for people. We stoped that flat cold. It changed things. We make it a point to teach random kindness in form of assisting the elderly - regardless of - race gender or anything like that -
This year we adopted the use of the terms “grandma and grandpa “ as a attempt to calm us and connect us one to another - in our immediate circle. I’ve watched the mental and upset from impatience go from ten. . . To genuine concern - real quote from the wife- “ grandma can’t see over the wheel - I hope she makes it home. “
I’m about erasing lines and taking stickers off any day, especially the ones that keep me - salty and grouchy. Racism keeps me salty and grouchy for days.
I guess that to each of us to figure for our selfs hu...

I’m effected by racism almost weekly.
Face to face.
In real life.
I’ve changed the way I combat it in my life. I’ve changed what I plant today. I’ve even been able to be blessed to be a part of a few freeing moments in life as well. Most folk I meet - understand racism it’s a good thing.
How
How
How
To get rid or away or change - yea it’s there - but how to do something different- that’s the million dollar questions that springs change worth passing.
How do we NOT repeat history... at least the parts that we know arnt worth passing?

Are we even trying ?

Are you suggesting problems have to be understood and defined by the experience of the victim? That seems like a bad way to understand the evolution of the cause of the problem to me, as I find problems are better avoided by understanding their causative factors before they become causative agents with resultant effects.

ZealotX wrote: To be a universal force for good, good and evil must have universal definitions. It's not just bad when its happening to you. And its not good just because it's good for you or works out to your benefit or advantage.

Yea, I use good and bad together as a subjective set, and compassion and evil as an objective set. It's too difficult to work purely on the subjective obviously, and its hard to get a pure objective measure.
But things being measures, and that the details are so very difficult to track, together means the absolute is not really of relevance for those objective concepts, but rather a mix of what is available tends to be what we can work with. The intention of the perpetrators is the most useful one to measure IMO - not the impact. Though often times not knowing the intention means we need to work with what is apparent rather then the why, and that is when the impact becomes a most valuable measure.
So to me balance can mean finding that fairness in subjective bias being a predominate data source with limited objective data. But also in this regard to me the balance is in distributing compassion to all parties with subjective positions while holding those responsible who have created the imbalance. It's just that subjective and objective in this context are different, and the objective is easier to work with albeit not usually possible. Dealing in the subjective only is what just feeds cycles of conflict, because every mug thinks his pain is worse then others.

Exploring it fairly for accurate understanding of events means understanding others bias, but to do that we have to understand our own and limit or remove it. From there we can slice away the rhetoric of pain which might obscure important details to better understand really what happened and where fault is distributed. That process is not complicating things, its clarifying them. The process of clarifying things is not one to ignore any particular subjective experience but rather understand it within the bigger picture. Focusing on one particular person or communities subjective experience of an event does not inform the bigger picture as much as it informs the experience of that individual of society, so the approach taken is best aligned to the purpose of the approach. In the context of learning from the past, its much better to identify causative agents in as much detail as possible so problems can be avoided before they grow too big, and in that regard it would seem better to explore it as the bigger picture then any narrow focus on one part of it's result.

Two fundimental teachings here is letting things go and forgiveness . So yes slavery happened and we all know it and we know it was very bad . We do need remiders so this atrocity will never happen again . But we don't need to make this a weapon in our arguments ! Those people who committed these acts are dead and we can't do jack about it . Everyone who lived through those times are dead nothing we can do now besides let go of all the negative emotions . The only thing that the topic of slavery " in the sense of old age methodology " is good for is a reminder to not let it happen again and as history . No amount of arguing with each other will change this in anyway no matter how hard you try .

Malicious wrote: Two fundimental teachings here is letting things go and forgiveness . So yes slavery happened and we all know it and we know it was very bad . We do need remiders so this atrocity will never happen again . But we don't need to make this a weapon in our arguments ! Those people who committed these acts are dead and we can't do jack about it . Everyone who lived through those times are dead nothing we can do now besides let go of all the negative emotions . The only thing that the topic of slavery " in the sense of old age methodology " is good for is a reminder to not let it happen again and as history . No amount of arguing with each other will change this in anyway no matter how hard you try .

What a breath of fresh air.
Just imagine if we all started practicing what we preached?

Malicious wrote: Two fundimental teachings here is letting things go and forgiveness . So yes slavery happened and we all know it and we know it was very bad . We do need remiders so this atrocity will never happen again . But we don't need to make this a weapon in our arguments ! Those people who committed these acts are dead and we can't do jack about it . Everyone who lived through those times are dead nothing we can do now besides let go of all the negative emotions . The only thing that the topic of slavery " in the sense of old age methodology " is good for is a reminder to not let it happen again and as history . No amount of arguing with each other will change this in anyway no matter how hard you try .

Good contributions to the discussion so far.

Question for you:

Do you perceive every conversation about racism to be about slavery?

Has any one ever won an argument over racism?

Show of hands any one?

And what was really won?
Just wondering
Rhetorical if ya like.

Are you suggesting problems have to be understood and defined by the experience of the victim?

No, let's picture it like this.

Let's say that a woman is raped on the way home from work. There were two witnesses. One came forward and tried to stop it. One participated in the act. One witness saw the abduction but ignored it. Another witness saw the rape and ignored it. None of the witnesses so far saw the entire thing, which actually started 2 weeks prior, when the rapist asked the woman to dance and she said no and he called cyber stalked and bullied her for those 2 weeks. Two witnesses saw almost everything. One of them was the rapist, the other the victim. The victim is the only one who clearly saw the face of the perpetrator and his facial expressions.

The victim says she was raped but the perpetrator says that it was consensual.

So let's become the investigators:

Which witness has the best understanding of what happened? Is the woman making it up? Maybe the accusation is payback for being cyber bullied. Maybe the rape was payback for the rejection. The accused certainly knows what he did and why but is he going to tell you? Is he going to incriminate himself and solve the case for you? Is the victim making it up? We could use the cyber bullying as evidence but shouldn't she just have forgiven the guy for that and moved on? He said it was consensual so maybe she's lying.

Each witness can only give you their unique perspective on the situation. The guy is going to claim he's innocent because he knows its his word against hers. It would be foolish to trust his perspective because he has every reason to lie. But... his words can be used against him, especially if his details don't match the other witnesses. Other witnesses can also provide reason to believe the woman is telling the truth if her details match up to their statements.

Now... let's complicate it further. What if the woman is related to you? What if she is your wife or sister?

If the witnesses who ignored it saw that it was their sister, they probably wouldn't have ignored it. If the witnesses saw their own wife they would probably be trying to fight the guy off themselves.

When it comes to racism it's like a woman who is continuously raped by the same guy. It happens often enough that she expects it and takes extra precautions around men. Because of her experiences she starts taking self defense classes, and she starts researching rape. She wants to understand who, what, why so she can cope the best she can. She figures that he does it to feel powerful in order to compensate for getting bossed around at his job. But she doesn't know everything about him. Maybe he's been sexually molested before. She also stops trusting these same people that keep acting like they don't see what's happening even though it happens repeatedly. So she starts filming the guy on her new smart phone. And even then, people still don't believe her. Maybe because they don't want to. Maybe because the guy is their brother... or husband... or best friend.

Whether people participate in racism or not, there is no question that there are different groups involved. There are groups that are racist. There is a group that is the victim of their racism and may or may not fight back. There are people who help that group (like the abolitionists and people like Bernie Sanders); some in private and some in public. There are people who just don't care because its not happening to them or anyone they care about. There are people who see but just don't want to get involved. There are people who don't want to confront the guy as well as people who know him and want to protect him. There are people who think she's a liar because they think they know him and assume he wouldn't do it. There are people who see him as so much like themselves that they get defensive as if they were the ones accused. Everyone is biased and so everyone's understanding is relative to their own experience.

What we should take from this is that what we should do is not lean on our own understanding but assemble a greater understanding from all the various pieces. However the biggest piece is going to come from the victim and the perpetrator. And if you cannot get the perp to talk, because he has a motive to lie, then you cannot dismiss the experience of the victim. And maybe there will even be some kind of movement... like some kind of "me too" to support the woman getting raped; to raise awareness and say to the world that this pattern of behavior is not okay.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Has any one ever won an argument over racism?

Show of hands any one?

And what was really won?
Just wondering
Rhetorical if ya like.

I have. What you win is greater understanding.

its Hard to talk about racism for me because it’s such a blind hate to me that keeps being passed and passed and no one wants to do anything about it

Thank you for proving that everyone can do something about it.

Anyone can

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Anyone can

true.

I think the question is whether or not people actually SEE a problem. If they think we've made so much progress and its mostly over with and the rest will slowly die on its own like a wounded animal well then... maybe there's no reason to actually DO anything.

But that's not the reality. Racists are actually getting stronger, groups are recruiting more people.

Learning from history is one thing.
What you do with that knowledge is completely different.

It also matters as to how much of that history you actually understand. It is one thing to read and remember that some guy made an ocean trip on some date. It is another thing entirely to understand the significance of the trip, who did it, why and the geopolitical ramifications of and of the outcome. Then to correlate that to modern times and events and extrapolate and reasonable correlation that can be compared to… that is another matter altogether.

If discussing racial parity happens in the form of an argument, neither side will gain any traction with the other. People tend to interpret facts based on their biases, rather than the other way around. Changing someone's mind takes time and personal connections in my experience.

Now that we are faced with riots, I'd like to take a minute to reflect on this and other threads. As an intellectual I do not agree with riots or looting. But what I understand is that these are the voice of the emotional. I texted a friend of mine yesterday to see if he was okay and he said yeah, but that he just wished people were "this passionate about making change instead of reacting any time someone looking like you or me gets shot."

I replied that "there's always an emotional reaction that isn't exactly compatible with the intellectual reaction. These are 2 separate groups that have a hard time working together. While one is thinking the other is feeling."

...

My friend ended with "My protest will be trying to get Mark Fogel elected to Congress. If he wins I'll remind him who got him there."



There is no passion, there is serenity. - Jedi Code

There is no passion, there is serenity. - Jedi Code

I understand the passion of the protesters in my heart. The conversations typically had in the media are often the voices of the intellectuals mouthing desperate pleas for people to think rationally about these problems. But too often those voices do not penetrate the defenses of the masses of more emotionally driven people on the other side. And what sux is the fact that I know that many people will stop caring about what they're protesting and focus on the protest itself. They did it with Black Lives Matter. BLM was actually a calm and measured response with organization and restraint; where people could channel their anger in a more positive and constructive direction.

But when I defended BLM on this site and others, perhaps people... good people... simply didn't realize what BLM was able to restrain. Now, because people didn't listen to BLM and attacked it instead, the protests grew beyond BLM. It's like the (ex) Verizon guy when he said "Can you hear me now?". The volume of that voice modulates only as much as needed to hear. But it has been muted for so long that it allowed so many people to doubt there was a problem. George Floyd was murdered in broad daylight.

Can you hear me now?

We all want peace. Peace is also the desire of the soldier. Because after his job is done he wants to go home and have a safe home to go back to; a place for he and his family. Why do people riot? Same reason people have fought throughout history. When the rules do not serve your needs people tend to go outside the rules. Every way and means has, at this point, been tried. What else is left? What have people been left with? A quarterback simply took a knee and people lost their minds about it. The president of the United States acted like he was an indignant slave that needed to be put back in his place. Taking that knee represented something bigger and greater to him than his own comfortable life and career. He knew well the possible backlash that could come, but he also knew that the backlash was inevitable because of how many people were watching.

That quarterback was kneeling for George Floyd as much as he was for Trayvon Martin. When each event happens someone out there thinks the response is too much because in their minds it's just one event or maybe a few... "a few bad apples". And they're all national news. But the reality is it's not a few bad reports about a few apples. These are simply the reports that were able to rise to the surface of this society because for many others, no one seems to care. That's why the first thing they always try to do is malign the victim. "Oh he was wearing a hoodie." "Oh he was selling loose cigarettes", "Oh he was a weed smoker", and then it becomes "Oh she thought it was her apartment". "Oh the gun the CHILD was playing with looked real". Oops. It's not an accident. But it's not a conspiracy either. It is simply how the system works. And the way it has always been.

Sweep it under the rug. It's just a few bad apples. There's nothing to see here folks. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.

That rug now has too many bodies under it to ignore. There are too many stories of too many victims. People say they're pro-life. Whose life? Black men are being being post term aborted by cops. They too, are someone's baby. And often they have babies of their own who need them; families and communities who need them and miss them. These are people tired of losing them and tired of being afraid that someone else they know will be next. The riots are an unfortunate response. It is sad that it has come to this. But the riots are an attempt to force people to hear and go look and see what's under the rug and to burn that rug.

I hate that it has come to this. And I know people on all sides will try to exploit what's happening for their own personal agenda. Some people (probably Russian operatives) have even added it to their script of propaganda talking points. But we can plainly see who is for us and who is against. And that's really the problem. People have ignored BLM because they wanted to believe that the majority sees things clearly. But if there is something that is happening disproportionately to minorities, BECAUSE they're minorities, then the minorities are the ones who see that clearly while the majority does not. The police officers who took a knee with protesters? What do they see? There are those fighting for peace and those who are just fighting. There are wolves in sheep's clothing, on both sides. But at the end of the day, we pay the police and we give them great authority; including the authority to arrest and detain citizens against their will. That power has to come with responsibility and humility. When that power goes to people's heads, and when it gets into corrupt hands, the result is death and the opposite of peace. It's time everyone sees.

So this is short and a little to the side of this topic but hear me out please. So, when we look at the cycles of history, we often see 2 steps forward, 1 step back.

So, one thing I think we need to look at is the militarization of the police. I respect the majority of law enforcement, however, there are bad people and they do murder people. In cases this effects low income people much more than other "classes". Now where race comes in is that, the remaining(structural) and active systems of the past come in to play. Some of these have directly to generational poverty.

And, there are literally just racist people who refuse to see people as individuals instead of insert descriptor here.

Just 2 cents,
Much Love, peace and respect,
Kobos

Militarization of Police was in response to the proliferation of more effective weapons throughout society. Not so much a tit for tat, but to maintain effectiveness in the face of this type of proliferation. Since Police attending a 'scene' are usually going in not knowing what to expect, where to expect it, and what if any plan they might be walking into, something that comes into play is what the military call the 'theory of surprise'. That revolves entirely around the disproportionate effect that the advantage of surprise gives - such that a weaker force can have a greater impact (so long as surprise is in action). Police are always walking into a surprise, and will always be vulnerable to this. It doesn't justify the extent of military style conduct, but it does explain the training and equipment, and to some extent its presence in the initial response to incidents. The problem seems to be (not including any racism at play) when that gungho training and attitude persists when its not needed. The other problem is, the more people hate and cause trouble for Police.... the harder there job actually is and this gives Police less room to delineate their military tactics from their civil tactics. When protestors start blurring the line by acting like paramilitary forces, then the Police can only be expected to switch back to their military style tactics... for the above mentioned reasons. Aside all that, I think a big issue is the difference in scope between an offender and an officer.... the offender knows the extent and nature of the threat because they are the engineer of it, while the officer must be able to exert sufficient response to the apparent threat while also being able to detect and react to new unknown threats which could emerge at any moment. This also goes to explain why heavy handedness tends to occur when their is resistance to Police, because they have more to deal with then just the offender at hand. If people work with Police, then it makes the good Police's job easier, and the racist Police's actions stand out even more IMO, and be easier to spot and deal with via official channels. My comments are in no way related to the current incidents, or BLM, but specific to the factors around militarization as I see them.

This is an interesting debate.

The problem reported here is the same as in many cities in many countries.

The police, or peacekeeper, are there to protect the citizens.

Do they have the right to do everything? No Are certain actions excusable? Yes and no.

In all areas, there will always be abuse. Now once again, we accuse or excuse according to the point of view from which we place ourselves.

Did the police do anything wrong in this case? Yes and individually, they deserve a sanction.

Then take the case from a police point of view or unfortunately the violence is increased.


.You arrive for an ordinary intervention and one shoots you with rifles. How would you react? Suppose this happens once, then twice and each time during mundane interventions?
What will be your reaction next time? You will probably be nervous, suspicious and unfortunately you will over-anticipate during the next intervention for fear of dying.

The police are constantly under stress and unfortunately tragic accidents like this happen.

Take the example of an animal like dog or cat. Can we say that an animal is racist? I do not think so. Take the sweetest and kindest dog or cat. When he walks hit the suddenly very violently and repeat every day for a while.
One day it will happen that the dog or the cat jumps on you and attacks you even if it was not you that it had hit at the base. Only the animal will identify you with the pain and fear of suffering and will defend itself.

We live in a climate of fear and unfortunately violence prevails whether on the side of the police or on our side.

Now make riots ... During a demonstration like that it was seen at my house in France some time ago ... There are 60% who demonstrate peacefully and the 40% burn and break. They are angry you tell me. But when they break and burn things (Cars, Home, shops).
They destroy the lives of other people, some even go as far as suicide because they have nothing left ...

In which case is the most wrong?

I know a woman, mother of two children. She started from nothing but with relentlessness managed to get out of it. A few years later life took her husband from him. For her children, she continued to work. During the riots in France, her car and her business were burned, she lost everything. She fell into depression and was left to die leaving the two children alone.

I imagine that it is not the only one in this case who has lost everything. Who has been charged?
The government, but who are the real people responsible here?

When I see all this, the stars who make comments to make the buzz, the people who burn and break ... This will he pay homage to this young man who died? No, on the contrary, it will poison things and cause many more deaths. After covid19 I only think of putting a country in chaos and the best thing to do.

Kobos wrote: So, one thing I think we need to look at is the militarization of the police. I respect the majority of law enforcement, however, there are bad people and they do murder people. In cases this effects low income people much more than other "classes". Now where race comes in is that, the remaining(structural) and active systems of the past come in to play. Some of these have directly to generational poverty.

The militarization of the police is a valid point. Also, you have to look at the fact that there are loop holes on BOTH SIDES of the law. Lawyers exploit the loop holes on one side on behalf of the client, and therefore the ability to get away with stuff that probably should be illegal sometimes depends on how much money you can pay.

But on the other side of the law... on the side that judges, prosecutors, and police use, there are also loopholes that can be and are exploited.

For example, because this personally happened to me. You can get arrested over a traffic violation. Now if you think traffic violations = criminal then I don't know what to say. I guess I'm a "menace 2 society" because my tags were expired. But people make mistakes. Live and learn. What you would think should of happened was that I would be able to get out on bail as soon as bail could be posted. After all, I have a job and a family to get back to.

I had bail that day but couldn't get out until almost a full week later. Do I think my race was a factor? I honestly don't know for sure. So why couldn't I get out? I could have lost my job. My job was calling around to hospitals looking for me because it was like I had been kidnapped. They asked if there was anything they could do to help get me out but there was nothing. I already had bail. I already should have been out. Why not?

The judge had ordered home detention until the court date. Home detention. I had to wear an ankle monitor that would prevent me from leaving my house, going to work, going to the store, all of that. Bail? apparently bail can't get you out of home detention. I thought ankle monitors were used for real criminals after being let out on probation. Which means that technically their sentence isn't up.

But hold up. How does this explain why I couldn't get out of jail? Here's the loop hole. Because they only had 2 officers assigned to ALL the entire home detention program, I had to wait until they could get to me. And that didn't take hours. It took days. And because it took business days, getting arrested on a Thursday meant I had to stay the weekend even though they didn't work on the weekend and weren't making any progress towards getting to my case.

Again, I could have lost my job and I can easily see how many people do. When I asked around my cell block, and mind you that a lot of people are in jail for FTA (failure to appear in court), so not only is it a minor offense since many cases go to court where one side doesn't show up. I learned that this particular judge liked handing out home detentions like candy. What I don't know and cannot say, is whether or not the judge gives home detentions equally to everyone or whether he's more selective about who gets it. But if there's such a demand for it, why have only 2 guys working on the program for the whole city?

To me this is a loop hole. Bail is bail. The purpose of bail is to ensure the defendant will appear for trial and all pretrial hearings they must attend. Home detention is also called house arrest. So how is it that a person is still confined even after posting bail?

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Home+detention

According to this legal dictionary (and understandably its still "the internet"), home detention is an alternative to imprisonment. It can also refer to a program in which a "convicted criminal" is "sentenced" to home confinement instead of prison. The last sentence says "a cost effective way of punishing criminals who pose no threat to others and thus do not need to be imprisoned at the state's expense"

So why are people being given the same treatment as convicted criminals being punished, before a trial, and held even after posting bail which is supposed to free them?

Forget about me. What happened to me personally doesn't matter because even though it cost me a lot of money and time and aggravation, my problem is that many others are falling into this and other loop holes where they are losing their jobs. And yes, I tried to get an allowance to go to work during the home detention. Request denied. If it wasn't for the fact that I can do my job remotely, that would have cost me a lot more money. And if you're living pay check to pay check, which is normal for a large percentage of the population, not just black people, that can put you into debt, cause you to miss payments on your car or utilities. Etc.

Interruptions in income, lost jobs, lost wages, against many people, everyday, every single day, adds up. And when one community is policed more than others, not just for theft or murder but stuff like trespassing or traffic violations, or having some random person call the police on you for just doing everyday ordinary things like mowing a lawn, selling lemonade, going to a pool party, bird watching, jogging, barbecuing, playing with a toy gun in a park, picking up a toy gun in a store, etc. etc. when you don't know whether you're going to be arrested or shot on site? When you put it all together... it becomes "the system". That's what black people see and that's what they're talking about.

And you think police are always the good guys? No. They are part of the system. Sometimes they do very good things. Sometimes they're heroes even. But they are forced to do what they're told to do. And if the mayor wants more revenue from fines and arrests then that becomes their job to go find people to fine and arrest. Just like if mounted police are told to use tear gas on peaceful protesters in Washington DC, guess what they will do.

See what they did?

And if they would do THAT... if NORMAL non-racist officers would do THAT... to a mixed crowd of all races... what do you think an actual racist cop would do to a black man when he knows he has the badge protecting him, prosecutors who wont prosecute him, other officers who will lie for him, union reps who will keep him on payroll and protect his pension, and when he can claim that he was in fear for his life? Cops are not always the heroes and not always the villains. Some act as a tool for those in power and some act on their own behalf, according to their own beliefs and values. The question is which one is going to show up to to work that day and which one is going to pull you over and which one is going to exploit the loop holes to justify either killing you or planting drugs somewhere to have a reason for locking you up? All kinds of people wear the badge and they're not all good. The job doesn't attract the most noble among us who are willing to sacrifice their lives. Often it simply attracts those who desire power and authority.