racism on the islands

I think I just saw someone use Infowars as a citation. I. Can't. Even.

Gonna write an article on the "Redneck-ization" of the transplant population. It's overwhelming. 😀

I love it!!!!
Funny as heck!

LOL! I mean, come on! LOL 😀

I think I just saw someone use Infowars as a citation. I. Can't. Even.

I'm still cracking up. I can't even respond--I don't even know where to begin lol

"Redneck-ization"? I'll have you know I can make a wicked Jell-O mold, and most of the time I don't even set the trailer on fire doing it.

*takes swig of Pabst*

I think I just saw someone use Infowars as a citation. I. Can't. Even.

I sold your tin foil antler hat to a higher bidder. Sorry.

"Redneck-ization"? I'll have you know I can make a wicked Jell-O mold, and most of the time I don't even set the trailer on fire doing it.

*takes swig of Pabst*

Pabst? Bless your heart, are you one of those hipster people? Ole Milwaukee goes so much better with the Cool Whip and Cheezit crumble topping.

I think I just saw someone use Infowars as a citation. I. Can't. Even.

I guess if you can't argue the data then you criticize the source.

Maybe you'll like these better. Same data, same conclusion, new source. If you don't like my source then Google "violent crime by race" for yourself and pick your source.

"It’s true that around 13 per cent of Americans are black, according to the latest estimates from the US Census Bureau.

And yes, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black offenders committed 52 per cent of homicides recorded in the data between 1980 and 2008. Only 45 per cent of the offenders were white. Homicide is a broader category than “murder” but let’s not split hairs."
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime/19439

"According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

"Giuliani responded by citing a statistic from a 2010 Bureau of Justice Statistics report which did, indeed, conclude that 93 percent of black homicide victims from 1980 through 2008 were killed by black offenders. The statement implied that intraracial violence in black communities is uniquely bad."
If "Black Lives Matter" then stop killing each other. Maybe this accounts for the high crime rates in the USVI.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/25/giulianis-claim-that-93-percent-of-blacks-are-killed-by-other-blacks/

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

http://www.aim.org/special-report/black-criminals-white-victims-and-white-guilt/

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime

There are many more sources.

So does this mean K. Mapp can't be governor - or does this mean your facts are wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Mapp

Neither. If you reread my post you will see that I said that they TRIED to pass this in the territorial constitution.

The territorial constitution must be approved by the US Congress. They rejected it. We have no constitution after 5 attempts.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/03/17/doj-recommends-changes-to-proposed-virgin-islands-constitution/

So, let's get back to this. Unbelievable. Maybe not racism but certainly us vs. them"ism." At the highest levels of decision making no less.

If monogram thinks transplants are rednecks .... got to go get a Schlitz.

Maybe not racism, but certainly bigotry. If you have any doubts go to the VI consortium facebook page and read some of the comments regarding the owners of Plaza West being arrested.

So, let's get back to this. Unbelievable. Maybe not racism but certainly us vs. them"ism." At the highest levels of decision making no less.

If monogram thinks transplants are rednecks .... got to go get a Schlitz.

The main reason that I refer to it as racism is because of the comments made during the constitutional convention, especially by Adelbert Bryan and friends. If you have any doubts about the racial justification for this class discrimination of certain citizens please read the statements by the delegates before the oversight committee. Especially Bert's.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg55534/html/CHRG-111hhrg55534.htm

http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/

http://www.aim.org/special-report/black-criminals-white-victims-and-white-guilt/

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime

There are many more sources.

Why does Rotorhead continue to cite "race realist," white supremacist sites to make his points? AmRen, aka American Renaissance, is a notorious neo-nazi site. It is run by Jared Taylor, a known white supremacist.

The Southern Poverty Law Center's profile of notorious white supremacist Jared Taylor can be found here:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/jared-taylor

Jared Taylor on blacks: "Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization — any kind of civilization — disappears."
— American Renaissance, 2005

I don't care to engage the merits of this debate anymore. Some issues are just beyond debate from a moral perspective. I am disappointed that certain transplants have come here with such views, though many locals would say that these views are widely-held.

Funny how our conservative friends might argue that Donald Trump's anti-immigrant views aren't racist because "immigrant" is a nonracial term, yet claim that local antipathy toward "transplants" (an obviously nonracial term) equals racism. Cant have it both ways!

Look- the anti-colonial, anti-transplant attitude is not grounded in racism (first, because colonial subjects cannot be "racist," and second because the traditional definition has not been satisfied).

Ever been to Guam? Try asking transplants to Guam what the locals think of them. Native Hawaiians just tried (unsuccessfully) to set up an election in which only natives could participate. These issues aren't new, nor are they racist. They exist in virtually every colony. It disappoints me that transplants like Rotorhead can come here and arrogantly try to apply American conceptions of race to the VI. It betrays a complete lack of understanding of VI history and displays the exact arrogance that (in part, at least) creates the very antipathy we speak of.

Why does Rotorhead continue to cite "race realist," white supremacist sites to make his points? AmRen, aka American Renaissance, is a notorious neo-nazi site. It is run by Jared Taylor, a known white supremacist.

...

I don't care to engage the merits of this debate anymore. Some issues are just beyond debate from a moral perspective. I am disappointed that certain transplants have come here with such views, though many locals would say that these views are widely-held.

Again, you attack a couple of the sources, but not all. You then use that as an excuse to avoid the actual data. I'll make it simple, all of the sites, the ones you don't like and the ones you don't mention come from the same source, The Bureau of Justice Statistics. The Department of Justice keeps track of the data. The following is from their report which you can find on page 11. Link below.

Trends by race

The rate has since fluctuated, increasing to 28.4 offenders per 100,000 in 2006 before falling again to 24.7 offenders per 100,000 in 2008.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

What is the moral perspective that keeps you from discussing statistical data from a government report? What views have I come here with that disappoint you? I point out statistical data that you don't like? Is the Justice Department a white supremacist organization?

Funny how our conservative friends might argue that Donald Trump's anti-immigrant views aren't racist because "immigrant" is a nonracial term, yet claim that local antipathy toward "transplants" (an obviously nonracial term) equals racism. Cant have it both ways!

Look- the anti-colonial, anti-transplant attitude is not grounded in racism (first, because colonial subjects cannot be "racist," and second because the traditional definition has not been satisfied).

Ever been to Guam? Try asking transplants to Guam what the locals think of them. Native Hawaiians just tried (unsuccessfully) to set up an election in which only natives could participate. These issues aren't new, nor are they racist. They exist in virtually every colony. It disappoints me that transplants like Rotorhead can come here and arrogantly try to apply American conceptions of race to the VI. It betrays a complete lack of understanding of VI history and displays the exact arrogance that (in part, at least) creates the very antipathy we speak of.

I am not a fan of Trump. He is a clown. A showman. Maybe a slight step above a politician.

I guess by your definition the only ones who can be racist are white males. I disagree with your definition. When someone demonstrates racial bias then I consider that racist. One of the dictionary definitions of racism is: Discrimination or prejudice based on race. If you look at the link to the oversight hearing and look at the statement by Adelbert Bryan you will see that much of his justification for special rights for his people is based on African heritage. That, to me, indicates a racial bias not an anti-transplant bias. But since every one here is a transplant, the constitutional committee had to invent a new definition of native.

It always amazes me when I hear Afro-Caribbean Virgin Islanders comparing themselves to Pacific Island Native peoples. The natives of the Virgin Islands were the Arawak's, Caribs, Tainos, etc. These tribes were conquered by the European Colonists. The Europeans later brought African slaves. So Ancestral Native Virgin Islanders are limited to the Amerindian Tribes which inhabited the area before European colonization.

The nice thing about living in the United States is that I can move to any state or territory and have the exact same rights as all of the other people living there. Just as you would if you moved to Georgia. And I am no more required to honor your heritage than you would be required to honor Southern/Confederate heritage if you moved to Atlanta.

I am sorry that you feel transplants aren't welcome if they don't agree with your view of things. I have my own opinions. I did not move here for the local culture. I do occasionally enjoy cultural exhibitions but I moved here for the weather, the water, the pace of life, etc. I have tried to contribute to the community when I can and have become part of the community. However, my view of the future of the Virgin Islands might be very different from yours.

Why does Rotorhead continue to cite "race realist," white supremacist sites to make his points? AmRen, aka American Renaissance, is a notorious neo-nazi site. It is run by Jared Taylor, a known white supremacist.

It is funny that you have a problem with me siting an article by Jared Taylor, "a known white supremacist", which he based on data from the DOJ. Yet you seem to have no problem with our government inviting Louis Farrakhan, "a known black supremacist" to speak at a public celebration. Twice! Maybe the Rotary will invite David Duke to speak.

Just so you know, I selectively blend cultures. Last night for dinner I had Southern pulled-pork with slaw on Johnny Cakes.

Funny how our conservative friends might argue that Donald Trump's anti-immigrant views aren't racist because "immigrant" is a nonracial term, yet claim that local antipathy toward "transplants" (an obviously nonracial term) equals racism. Cant have it both ways!

Look- the anti-colonial, anti-transplant attitude is not grounded in racism (first, because colonial subjects cannot be "racist," and second because the traditional definition has not been satisfied).

Ever been to Guam? Try asking transplants to Guam what the locals think of them. Native Hawaiians just tried (unsuccessfully) to set up an election in which only natives could participate. These issues aren't new, nor are they racist. They exist in virtually every colony. It disappoints me that transplants like Rotorhead can come here and arrogantly try to apply American conceptions of race to the VI. It betrays a complete lack of understanding of VI history and displays the exact arrogance that (in part, at least) creates the very antipathy we speak of.

The West Indian population of the Virgin Islands was transplanted as well, however cruelly. Not the same as Hawaiian or Guam indigenous populations subjugated by colonization. Everyone in the VI is from someplace else.

In this mixed up world of immigration, we're all transplants. But if we're US passport holders in the VI - born there or by choice - we're all US citizens as well.

As long as monogram and his ilk harp on referring to "transplants" in derogatory terms any divisiveness is perpetuated. I'm not a Virgin Islander by birth but have embraced the life here for over 30 years and the islands are my home. I'm proud to contribute to and be part of such a rich and diverse community. Hang the labels.

I think I just saw someone use Infowars as a citation. I. Can't. Even.

I guess if you can't argue the data then you criticize the source.

It's common for the drive-by intellectual to heavily lean on logical fallacy to secure their positions.

the one discussed here is the Genetic Fallacy:

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.

I think I just saw someone use Infowars as a citation. I. Can't. Even.

I guess if you can't argue the data then you criticize the source.

It's common for the drive-by intellectual to heavily lean on logical fallacy to secure their positions.

the one discussed here is the Genetic Fallacy:

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.

However, when one is directed to a site that is already claiming the San Bernardino terrorist attack is a socialist false flag, claimed earlier that the Charleston shooting was a socialist race false flag, told us that a presidential executive order “mandates the apprehension and detention of Americans who merely show signs of ‘respiratory illness." in its Ebola coverage, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, one gets a pass on this fallacy.

It's a sensationalist conspiracy clickbait rag, and has earned the distrust it gets. It ruined its own credibility and respectability. The facts cited may be true in this case, but I'm not about to go to the site and help raise its traffic rankings and support it with my clicks.

I think I just saw someone use Infowars as a citation. I. Can't. Even.

I guess if you can't argue the data then you criticize the source.

It's common for the drive-by intellectual to heavily lean on logical fallacy to secure their positions.

the one discussed here is the Genetic Fallacy:

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.

However, when one is directed to a site that is already claiming the San Bernardino terrorist attack is a socialist false flag, claimed earlier that the Charleston shooting was a socialist race false flag, told us that a presidential executive order “mandates the apprehension and detention of Americans who merely show signs of ‘respiratory illness." in its Ebola coverage, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, one gets a pass on this fallacy.

It's a sensationalist conspiracy clickbait rag, and has earned the distrust it gets. It ruined its own credibility and respectability. The facts cited may be true in this case, but I'm not about to go to the site and help raise its traffic rankings and support it with my clicks.

I would be mocked as well if I posted a link from thinkprogress or dailykos. They are all laughable.

However, when one is directed to a site that is already claiming the San Bernardino terrorist attack is a socialist false flag, claimed earlier that the Charleston shooting was a socialist race false flag, told us that a presidential executive order “mandates the apprehension and detention of Americans who merely show signs of ‘respiratory illness." in its Ebola coverage, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, one gets a pass on this fallacy.

You mean that you loose credibility when you claim something that has already been disproved or is outlandish.

It's kind of like claiming that the Benghazi attack was carried out by locals because of an Internet video long after on the scene sources made it clear that it was an organized attack.

We shouldn't trust anyone who would do that!

hi all,
so much great info on this site. my wife and i are thinking of moving to either st thomas or st croix in a year or so. i`ve read a few stories on line in the past few days about how bad the racism is on the islands. i`m just wondering if that is really a problem or people are just over blowing things? it was so bad for one lady she was moving from st thomas to the florida keys.. i`m hoping that this is just overblown. i`ve always herd the people in the usvi are very friendly. thanks for all the feed back.
dave

Wow...see what you started! 😎

Wow...see what you started! 😎

Really. Coconut forum tally ho! 😀

While sources may be irrelevant from a truth perspective, they are certainly relevant as to my determination to not engage. For example, I can certainly debate the merits of an issue like affirmative action where debaters engage from morally acceptable positions. I will not, however, debate affirmative action with a person whose views are grounded in racism. Likewise, I will not engage with someone who cites to white supremacist websites to support their positions. It's an issue of motive. Websites like AmRen don't attract the most honorable people.

I can't stand Farrakhan, or the bozos in the legislature who invited him. The difference, though, is that I wouldn't cite to his essays to make even the most uncontroversial point (for example, that racism exists in the world). Farrakhan's motives are impractical and unpure. My issue was with Rotorhead's fondness for AmRen, a notorious white supremacist site.

Transplant is not a derogatory term. Indeed, I have been a transplant at several points in my life. I can say, though, that views such as "I did not move here for the local culture. I ... moved here for the weather..." tend to lead to local antipathy toward transplants. Those views, combined with the memories of treatment by Southern transplants working at Hess, racists sailors, tourists, etc contribute toward antipathy. While the race card is easy to chuck, it is clear that the general dislike of transplants, newcomers, etc is not new or limited to the Virgin Islands. I have lived in several tourist destinations and observed the silent dislike of newcomers. Locals in my college town absolutely hated the college students. My friends in Paris can't stand the "fat American tourists." I've observed the antipathy on Martha's Vineyard between those who have vacationed there for some time versus the newcomers. Chucking the race card is cheap.

I've never said that racism is limited to white males. I merely asserted that colonial subjects cannot be racist in the traditional sense. For example, the Japanese, Koreans, etc. may certainly be racist toward whites. Whites may certainly face racism in Egypt. In those countries, the local population owns the societal private wealth, and may use that control to oppress whites. It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

so if a white person who lives in the states is called cracker or redneck by a black, thats not racist because the white population is dominate ?

not sure if thats your point or not

and if the info this site you seem to detest gets its info from a site you agree with, isnt it still the same info?