The relevance of European and American conceptions of history

[Kaon]

That's a complete myth. American police derive from European law enforcement. For example, the New York City Sheriff's Office goes back to 1626. It's job was maintaining urban law and order.

Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing

NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

A Brief History of Slavery and the Origins of American Policing | Police Studies Online

How the U.S. Got Its Police Force

American police evolved from Slave patrols and Plantation police... I meant exactly what I said.

 

[agapelove]

The one who was convicted of murder?

If Breonna’s death was *your words* as much a tragedy as Justine’s why was only one officer convicted? They did not even bother giving Breonna a trial. I thought all lives matter? Her case was literally just opened amidst public outcry from the protests.

 

[Radagast]

Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing

NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

A Brief History of Slavery and the Origins of American Policing | Police Studies Online

How the U.S. Got Its Police Force

American police evolved from Slave patrols and Plantation police... I meant exactly what I said.

Unfortunately the facts contradict those links. America already had police in 1626. They did not evolve from "Slave patrols and Plantation police," they evolved from European police.

 

[Radagast]

If Breonna’s death was *your words* as much a tragedy as Justine’s why was only one officer convicted?

I have no idea. I followed Justine’s case in detail (for obvious reasons -- I'm Australian), but not Breonna’s.

It may be the case that Breonna’s case was a tragic accident, rather than murder (like I said, I don't know).

If so, I would of course ask: was there any alteration to training or to police procedures to prevent such an occurrence happening again? Shouldn't that be the goal here?

After all, if they'd improved Minneapolis PD procedures and training after the Justine Damond shooting, George Floyd would almost certainly be alive today.

I haven't seen evidence that the Minneapolis PD has a "systemic racism" problem, but it certainly seems to have a systemic training problem.

 

[Kaon]

Unfortunately the facts contradict those links. America already had police in 1626. They did not evolve from "Slave patrols and Plantation police," they evolved from European police.

You saying this because you want to be right doesn't make you right; it makes you dogged in your own foreign thinking. You have to know that a dismissal isn't vindication.

But I appreciate the overwhelming transparency in your thinking and application.

 

[Kaon]

I know very few will actually read this because it is convicting, but it definitely helps to understand how foreign destabilization tactics exploit a very long history of policing minorities in America, and the enmity (that purposefully goes unnoticed) and pain/trauma (to blacks) it has caused.

Slave Patrols: An Early Form of American Policing

NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

A Brief History of Slavery and the Origins of American Policing | Police Studies Online

How the U.S. Got Its Police Force


Many Americans have no problem with a black man being kneed to death for 8 minutes by a cop - in public, with apologies from the rest of the nation - but cringe at the thought of an animal undergoing the same type of death. That is a clear problem of dehumanization.

 

[Radagast]

You saying this because you want to be right doesn't make you right; it makes you dogged in your own foreign thinking. You have to know that a dismissal isn't vindication.

But I appreciate the overwhelming transparency in your thinking and application.

Shouting doesn't make your point.

It is, in fact, impossible for events in 1626 to "evolve from" events that happened later.

And 1626 is, of course, when the New York Sheriff's Office was founded (that's a police force).

 

[Kaon]

Shouting doesn't make your point.

It is, in fact, impossible for events in 1626 to "evolve from" events that happened later.

Shouting? Hmm...

You are trying very hard to be right; that is obvious. But, you aren't American, and you won't read American literature on the hisotry and evolution of its own police force - from Slave patrols and plantation police. You are choosing to ignore the history and context because you want you want to be right in your previous word choices and understanding.

This is similar to being shown racism, and then saying that those who point it out are embellishing, wrong or in need of some handout. It is an exercise in dismissive discourse - which is part of the problem America has now (not being spiritually strong enough to own up to things most obvious).

As I said, I appreciate your overwhelming transparency.

 

[agapelove]

Shouting doesn't make your point.

It is, in fact, impossible for events in 1626 to "evolve from" events that happened later.

When did slaves arrive in America.

 

[Radagast]

When did slaves arrive in America.

Sigh. You could have made your point better. I was talking about New York in 1626, which was a Dutch colony. What the English were doing elsewhere in the Americas isn't terribly relevant.

What you should have pointed out was that there were actually 11 slaves in New York in 1626.

But even that doesn't make your point: the New York Sheriff's Office was not founded in 1626 to stop those 11 slaves from escaping. The New York Sheriff's Office was founded in 1626 to handle crime within the Dutch colony. It was based on European law enforcement models, because crime already existed in Europe. Law enforcement in Europe goes back thousands of years.

 

[agapelove]

Sigh. You could have made your point better. I was talking about New York in 1626, which was a Dutch colony. What the English were doing elsewhere in the Americas isn't terribly relevant.

What you should have pointed out was that there were actually 11 slaves in New York in 1626.

But even that doesn't make your point: the New York Sheriff's Office was not founded in 1626 to stop those 11 slaves from escaping. The New York Sheriff's Office was founded in 1626 to handle crime within the Dutch colony. It was based on European law enforcement models, because crime already existed in Europe. Law enforcement in Europe goes back thousands of years.

Hm interesting. Does it not strike you as peculiar that the year slaves were first brought to New York is the same year they decided to establish a police force there? Stick with your theory if you wish.

 

[Radagast]

Hm interesting. Does it not strike you as peculiar that the year slaves were first brought to New York is the same year they decided to establish a police force there? Stick with your theory if you wish.

See? I told you it was a better argument to use.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that the New York Sheriff's Office was not founded to keep track of 11 slaves.

The key thing that you're missing is that white people commit crimes. As soon as you get a large enough bunch of white people together, you need a police force of some kind.

Up until 1664, New York was called "New Amsterdam" (it was a Dutch colony). The law enforcement in New Amsterdam derives ultimately from the neighbourhood militia or "night watch" of old Amsterdam. These guys:

 

[JackRT]

In one study, 44% of Europeans could locate Syria on a map, but only 28% of Americans.

Also, 39% of Europeans could locate Nigeria on a map, but only 23% of Americans.

And even in terms of locating US states, Americans do surprisingly poorly.

I was visiting Buffalo NY many years ago. Fell into conversation with a man who did not know that Canada was on the other side of the river. We could see Fort Erie Canada from where we were standing. He didn't believe me.

 

[JackRT]

If my wife comes to me in obvious pain and asks "Do you love me?" an answer of "I love everyone." would be truthful but hurtful and cruel in the moment.

If a co-worker comes to me iupset and says "My father just died." an answer of "Evertone's parents die." would be truthful but hurtful and cruel in the moment.

So when a friend speaks up in a time of obvious pain and hurt and says "Black lives matter." an answer of "All lives matter." would be truthful but hurtful and cruel in the moment.

~~~ Doug Williford

 

[Radagast]

I was visiting Buffalo NY many years ago. Fell into conversation with a man who did not know that Canada was on the other side of the river. We could see Fort Erie Canada from where we were standing. He didn't believe me.

And I'm willing to bet that everybody on the Canadian side could correctly name the city, state, and country on the US side.

Once, when I was bored, I watched some episodes of the Canadian "border security" reality TV show. There seemed to be several people driving across the border who didn't realise that Canada was an actual country.

 

[Radagast]

So when a friend speaks up in a time of obvious pain and hurt and says "Black lives matter." an answer of "All lives matter." would be truthful but hurtful and cruel in the moment.

If the slogan had been "Black Lives Matter Too," there would probably have been overwhelming nationwide support. But it wasn't.

 

[JackRT]

And I'm willing to bet that everybody on the Canadian side could correctly name the city, state, and country on the US side.

Once, when I was bored, I watched some episodes of the Canadian "border security" reality TV show. There seemed to be several people driving across the border who didn't realise that Canada was an actual country.

Almost every Canadian has a story or ten like that. I was in line at the check out of a local grocery store. The American ahead of me presented US currency and the cashier told him that she could only accept that at par. At the time $1 US was worth about $1.15 CA. He got quite angry. I intervened and pointed out that US money was not legal tender in Canada and she was doing him a favour by accepting it at all. I then pointed to the bank across the street where he could exchange his money at the current rate.

 

[Radagast]

Almost every Canadian has a story or ten like that.

As an Australian, my relationship to the US is a lot like that of a Canadian.

But I'm also conscious that the whole US vs Canada thing is mirrored by the Australia vs New Zealand thing.

The New Zealanders get annoyed at us sometimes; occasionally they have a good reason to do so.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That's been my point too, education needs to be objective but the US has failed horribly at that. What is the new narrative we are seeing in your opinion?

Let me give you an example: Winston Churchill and the Bengal famine. Case in point - Churchill statue 'may have to be put in museum'

So Churchill is termed racist and blamed for the Bengal famine, but let us not forget that Churchill played an important part in stopping the victory of the most racist regime on the planet. In 1943 stopping the Japanese advance into India required breaking down internal transport, in denial of the enemy. This, along with natural causes, helped precipitate the famine, but the British never tried to starve the Indians. Churchill tried to negotiate American ships to bring Australian grain, only for Roosevelt to refuse. In the end, winning the war took precedence; as Churchill said winning would also help bring a close to the shortages in India. It was a difficult decision, and the British still shipped as much food as they could without too much impact on the war effort, but now this is used to cement some view of Churchill as a callous racist. It is true Churchill was not fond of Indian self-rule, and thought (rightly it turned out) that Partition and a rush to Dominion status would result in a bloodbath.

So now a man who spent years opposing, and was instrumental in defeating, a regime that literally incinerated people they thought inferior races, now has his statue defaced in the name of racial equality. Not to mention Churchill's general benevolent view of Empire, in which he opposed the attempts to separate non-whites that the Americans tried to do, supported the Cape Franchise, opposed the extreme violence of colonial forces in Natal in 1906,etc. By modern standards, certainly a racist - but by the standards of his own time; where Kitchener played polo with heads of Mahdists in the Sudan, and the Germans collected heads in Tanzania, and the Belgians had a zoo of Congolese and lobbed off their hands and feet; he was a liberal supporter of humanity. True he believed in the White Man's Burden, but he envisioned all the colonies eventually transitioning into a brotherhood of nations, regardless of skin colour. He disliked Hindus, but he had admiration for the so-called Martial races of Gurkha, Rajputs, and Sikhs, etc.

We are replacing the Finest Hour Greatest Briton with another narrative, and while the former was by no means objective, the latter seems even less so. For all his faults, Churchill did far more for racial equality than he did to oppose it; probably more than the majority of people in history.

 

[Radagast]

That's been my point too, education needs to be objective but the US has failed horribly at that.

I'd like to see a lot less of "this is how you are supposed to think about history," and a lot more primary sources.