Sometimes people don't want help. Ask people from the projects whether they want more cops in the neighborhood. Let me know what you find out.

It's hard to change, and the medicine of justice and order is difficult to accept once you become unaccustomed to it. Disorder, chaos, drama becomes familiar.

Kind of like how an overweight person has difficulty getting into an exercise routine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean? Do you mean if Sidwell students were killed there would be more police presence? what exactly are you asking?

Have no idea how the original post was confusing if you had any historical knowledge of the city. In the 1990s, when DC was recording 300+ and sometimes 400+ murders a year, was it racist to not extend federal support? Do you think federal support would have been extended if rich white kids were being murdered at the same staggering volume?

It is confusing because 1. children were not being murdered at that rate walking home from school 2. What is "federal support"... troops? jobs? addiction counseling? jobs programs?

The question was based on a false premise then used non-specific language like "federal support".

that is why it is confusing.

We can simplify it. It 400+ UMC and rich white men and children, mostly in WOTP neighborhoods, were being murdered per year in DC from 1989 to 1996, what do you think the federal response would have been?

Is that clear enough?

It’s still based on a false premise that 400+ people were being murdered per year.

But, yes, if white people were dying at a high rate, we would provide them with jobs, healthcare, and counseling.

But when Black people are dying, we jail them taking fathers out of the home and leaving children and women in poverty.

We don’t have to ask with the response have been different. We already know from history that our response to the black community is to jail them and our response to the white community is to help them.

Since you seem to be have a sophomore understanding of these things, I would suggest educating yourself. A good start with be a documentary called the 13th.

On a brighter scale, your question is is their systematic racism.

Yes, of course there is systematic racism. When white people need help the federal government helps them… They do this by making soft laws (like bankruptcy laws), lowering interest rates, and sending them to college (GI bill).

I personally believe you wanted to send more cops in… that would’ve given the opposite result of helping.

The things that have lowered crime and murders in Baltimore and Boston our jobs, healthcare, teen summer programs, etc … not more cops

How would that stop people from being murdered tomorrow or this year? Those are long term solutions that wouldn’t solve the immediate problem. You know that if that many white people were being murdered in the 90s they would have sent in the National Guard 1,000%.

Stop being daft and obtuse.

Because you come from a racist viewpoint, you really don’t even understand.

It’s like me trying to explain graduate school material to a kindergarten.

The solution is always more services. The solution for farmers is to give them money. The solution for white addicts is to give them rehab.

You’re being daft and obtuse if you don’t understand that. Look at Baltimore. Reduce crime by 87% in one year through services like I mentioned.

You so badly want a police black bodies you can’t even see how racist you are. We literally would never do that to white people and that’s why people are up in arms that the National Guard is walking around safe neighborhoods.

Where are you getting these Baltimore crime stats from? Baltimore has seen only a 22% decrease in homicides in any official numbers I’ve seen:

https://www.baltimorepolice.org/news/baltimore-police-department-releases-2025-mid-year-crime-report-and-key-highlights

By comparison, DC has seen a more than a 100% decrease in the murder rate since the National Guard showed up. That means less Black men are dead. Doesn’t that matter to you?

We are discussing Sidwell students, right? So juvenile homicide rate is down 83% .. not 87% my bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean? Do you mean if Sidwell students were killed there would be more police presence? what exactly are you asking?

Have no idea how the original post was confusing if you had any historical knowledge of the city. In the 1990s, when DC was recording 300+ and sometimes 400+ murders a year, was it racist to not extend federal support? Do you think federal support would have been extended if rich white kids were being murdered at the same staggering volume?

It is confusing because 1. children were not being murdered at that rate walking home from school 2. What is "federal support"... troops? jobs? addiction counseling? jobs programs?

The question was based on a false premise then used non-specific language like "federal support".

that is why it is confusing.

We can simplify it. It 400+ UMC and rich white men and children, mostly in WOTP neighborhoods, were being murdered per year in DC from 1989 to 1996, what do you think the federal response would have been?

Is that clear enough?

It’s still based on a false premise that 400+ people were being murdered per year.

But, yes, if white people were dying at a high rate, we would provide them with jobs, healthcare, and counseling.

But when Black people are dying, we jail them taking fathers out of the home and leaving children and women in poverty.

We don’t have to ask with the response have been different. We already know from history that our response to the black community is to jail them and our response to the white community is to help them.

Since you seem to be have a sophomore understanding of these things, I would suggest educating yourself. A good start with be a documentary called the 13th.

On a brighter scale, your question is is their systematic racism.

Yes, of course there is systematic racism. When white people need help the federal government helps them… They do this by making soft laws (like bankruptcy laws), lowering interest rates, and sending them to college (GI bill).

I personally believe you wanted to send more cops in… that would’ve given the opposite result of helping.

The things that have lowered crime and murders in Baltimore and Boston our jobs, healthcare, teen summer programs, etc … not more cops

You seem to be delusional at best or arguing in bad faith at worst. There were 400+ murders in DC a year from 1989-1996. Look up the MPD report that was posted earlier in the thread.

To your second point, are you implying that Black people who murder other Black people shouldn’t be put in jail? I don’t even understand your point. Your post reads like someone who copied and pasted the content of some anti racist books without bothering to add their own thoughts or engage in the actual argument at hand.

I did write that quickly, but what I should’ve said is when a black father is found with a dime bag he has sent to jail, leaving a black child without money and sent into poverty, and that black child is more likely to be the one who grows up to kill.

Also, if that father is found with a dime bag 3× 3 strikes, you’re out and mandatory minimum send him to jail for an inordinate amount of time creating poverty. While a white guy found with cocaine is sent to rehab and his record is expunged.

It’s the laws that have created this mess, and the lack of services for children left behind.

And yes, Baltimore was able to turn it around in less than a year with services not cops.

No one said the disparity between crack and cocaine laws weren’t racist. At least I didn’t.

The point of the thread was to ask if not sending the National Guard in when 400+ Black people were getting murdered a year was racist. Would you agree that if 400+ white people were getting murdered by Black people during this same time period the federal response would have been a lot more aggressive or do you think the nation at the time valued Black lives as much as white lives?

You are too obtuse to connect crack laws and sending NG in to police ... more cops = not good. More services, jobs, healthcare, etc = good for the community...black, white, etc...

Why are you so against giving services to black communities and giving them to white communities.

Again, if your false claim of 400 people even happened which it didn't... let's make it 40,000... if 40,000 white people were dying in the 90's we would not have deployed NG, we would have given people money, jobs and healthcare.

Why didn't we deploy NG during COVID when people were dying in the parking lots of hospitals?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean? Do you mean if Sidwell students were killed there would be more police presence? what exactly are you asking?

Have no idea how the original post was confusing if you had any historical knowledge of the city. In the 1990s, when DC was recording 300+ and sometimes 400+ murders a year, was it racist to not extend federal support? Do you think federal support would have been extended if rich white kids were being murdered at the same staggering volume?

It is confusing because 1. children were not being murdered at that rate walking home from school 2. What is "federal support"... troops? jobs? addiction counseling? jobs programs?

The question was based on a false premise then used non-specific language like "federal support".

that is why it is confusing.

We can simplify it. It 400+ UMC and rich white men and children, mostly in WOTP neighborhoods, were being murdered per year in DC from 1989 to 1996, what do you think the federal response would have been?

Is that clear enough?

It’s still based on a false premise that 400+ people were being murdered per year.

But, yes, if white people were dying at a high rate, we would provide them with jobs, healthcare, and counseling.

But when Black people are dying, we jail them taking fathers out of the home and leaving children and women in poverty.

We don’t have to ask with the response have been different. We already know from history that our response to the black community is to jail them and our response to the white community is to help them.

Since you seem to be have a sophomore understanding of these things, I would suggest educating yourself. A good start with be a documentary called the 13th.

On a brighter scale, your question is is their systematic racism.

Yes, of course there is systematic racism. When white people need help the federal government helps them… They do this by making soft laws (like bankruptcy laws), lowering interest rates, and sending them to college (GI bill).

I personally believe you wanted to send more cops in… that would’ve given the opposite result of helping.

The things that have lowered crime and murders in Baltimore and Boston our jobs, healthcare, teen summer programs, etc … not more cops

You seem to be delusional at best or arguing in bad faith at worst. There were 400+ murders in DC a year from 1989-1996. Look up the MPD report that was posted earlier in the thread.

To your second point, are you implying that Black people who murder other Black people shouldn’t be put in jail? I don’t even understand your point. Your post reads like someone who copied and pasted the content of some anti racist books without bothering to add their own thoughts or engage in the actual argument at hand.

I did write that quickly, but what I should’ve said is when a black father is found with a dime bag he has sent to jail, leaving a black child without money and sent into poverty, and that black child is more likely to be the one who grows up to kill.

Also, if that father is found with a dime bag 3× 3 strikes, you’re out and mandatory minimum send him to jail for an inordinate amount of time creating poverty. While a white guy found with cocaine is sent to rehab and his record is expunged.

It’s the laws that have created this mess, and the lack of services for children left behind.

And yes, Baltimore was able to turn it around in less than a year with services not cops.

No one said the disparity between crack and cocaine laws weren’t racist. At least I didn’t.

The point of the thread was to ask if not sending the National Guard in when 400+ Black people were getting murdered a year was racist. Would you agree that if 400+ white people were getting murdered by Black people during this same time period the federal response would have been a lot more aggressive or do you think the nation at the time valued Black lives as much as white lives?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean? Do you mean if Sidwell students were killed there would be more police presence? what exactly are you asking?

Have no idea how the original post was confusing if you had any historical knowledge of the city. In the 1990s, when DC was recording 300+ and sometimes 400+ murders a year, was it racist to not extend federal support? Do you think federal support would have been extended if rich white kids were being murdered at the same staggering volume?

It is confusing because 1. children were not being murdered at that rate walking home from school 2. What is "federal support"... troops? jobs? addiction counseling? jobs programs?

The question was based on a false premise then used non-specific language like "federal support".

that is why it is confusing.

We can simplify it. It 400+ UMC and rich white men and children, mostly in WOTP neighborhoods, were being murdered per year in DC from 1989 to 1996, what do you think the federal response would have been?

Is that clear enough?

It’s still based on a false premise that 400+ people were being murdered per year.

But, yes, if white people were dying at a high rate, we would provide them with jobs, healthcare, and counseling.

But when Black people are dying, we jail them taking fathers out of the home and leaving children and women in poverty.

We don’t have to ask with the response have been different. We already know from history that our response to the black community is to jail them and our response to the white community is to help them.

Since you seem to be have a sophomore understanding of these things, I would suggest educating yourself. A good start with be a documentary called the 13th.

On a brighter scale, your question is is their systematic racism.

Yes, of course there is systematic racism. When white people need help the federal government helps them… They do this by making soft laws (like bankruptcy laws), lowering interest rates, and sending them to college (GI bill).

I personally believe you wanted to send more cops in… that would’ve given the opposite result of helping.

The things that have lowered crime and murders in Baltimore and Boston our jobs, healthcare, teen summer programs, etc … not more cops

How would that stop people from being murdered tomorrow or this year? Those are long term solutions that wouldn’t solve the immediate problem. You know that if that many white people were being murdered in the 90s they would have sent in the National Guard 1,000%.

Stop being daft and obtuse.

Because you come from a racist viewpoint, you really don’t even understand.

It’s like me trying to explain graduate school material to a kindergarten.

The solution is always more services. The solution for farmers is to give them money. The solution for white addicts is to give them rehab.

You’re being daft and obtuse if you don’t understand that. Look at Baltimore. Reduce crime by 87% in one year through services like I mentioned.

You so badly want a police black bodies you can’t even see how racist you are. We literally would never do that to white people and that’s why people are up in arms that the National Guard is walking around safe neighborhoods.

Where are you getting these Baltimore crime stats from? Baltimore has seen only a 22% decrease in homicides in any official numbers I’ve seen:

https://www.baltimorepolice.org/news/baltimore-police-department-releases-2025-mid-year-crime-report-and-key-highlights

By comparison, DC has seen a more than a 100% decrease in the murder rate since the National Guard showed up. That means less Black men are dead. Doesn’t that matter to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean? Do you mean if Sidwell students were killed there would be more police presence? what exactly are you asking?

Have no idea how the original post was confusing if you had any historical knowledge of the city. In the 1990s, when DC was recording 300+ and sometimes 400+ murders a year, was it racist to not extend federal support? Do you think federal support would have been extended if rich white kids were being murdered at the same staggering volume?

It is confusing because 1. children were not being murdered at that rate walking home from school 2. What is "federal support"... troops? jobs? addiction counseling? jobs programs?

The question was based on a false premise then used non-specific language like "federal support".

that is why it is confusing.

We can simplify it. It 400+ UMC and rich white men and children, mostly in WOTP neighborhoods, were being murdered per year in DC from 1989 to 1996, what do you think the federal response would have been?

Is that clear enough?

It’s still based on a false premise that 400+ people were being murdered per year.

But, yes, if white people were dying at a high rate, we would provide them with jobs, healthcare, and counseling.

But when Black people are dying, we jail them taking fathers out of the home and leaving children and women in poverty.

We don’t have to ask with the response have been different. We already know from history that our response to the black community is to jail them and our response to the white community is to help them.

Since you seem to be have a sophomore understanding of these things, I would suggest educating yourself. A good start with be a documentary called the 13th.

On a brighter scale, your question is is their systematic racism.

Yes, of course there is systematic racism. When white people need help the federal government helps them… They do this by making soft laws (like bankruptcy laws), lowering interest rates, and sending them to college (GI bill).

I personally believe you wanted to send more cops in… that would’ve given the opposite result of helping.

The things that have lowered crime and murders in Baltimore and Boston our jobs, healthcare, teen summer programs, etc … not more cops

You seem to be delusional at best or arguing in bad faith at worst. There were 400+ murders in DC a year from 1989-1996. Look up the MPD report that was posted earlier in the thread.

To your second point, are you implying that Black people who murder other Black people shouldn’t be put in jail? I don’t even understand your point. Your post reads like someone who copied and pasted the content of some anti racist books without bothering to add their own thoughts or engage in the actual argument at hand.

I did write that quickly, but what I should’ve said is when a black father is found with a dime bag he has sent to jail, leaving a black child without money and sent into poverty, and that black child is more likely to be the one who grows up to kill.

Also, if that father is found with a dime bag 3× 3 strikes, you’re out and mandatory minimum send him to jail for an inordinate amount of time creating poverty. While a white guy found with cocaine is sent to rehab and his record is expunged.

It’s the laws that have created this mess, and the lack of services for children left behind.

And yes, Baltimore was able to turn it around in less than a year with services not cops.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean? Do you mean if Sidwell students were killed there would be more police presence? what exactly are you asking?

Have no idea how the original post was confusing if you had any historical knowledge of the city. In the 1990s, when DC was recording 300+ and sometimes 400+ murders a year, was it racist to not extend federal support? Do you think federal support would have been extended if rich white kids were being murdered at the same staggering volume?

It is confusing because 1. children were not being murdered at that rate walking home from school 2. What is "federal support"... troops? jobs? addiction counseling? jobs programs?

The question was based on a false premise then used non-specific language like "federal support".

that is why it is confusing.

We can simplify it. It 400+ UMC and rich white men and children, mostly in WOTP neighborhoods, were being murdered per year in DC from 1989 to 1996, what do you think the federal response would have been?

Is that clear enough?

It’s still based on a false premise that 400+ people were being murdered per year.

But, yes, if white people were dying at a high rate, we would provide them with jobs, healthcare, and counseling.

But when Black people are dying, we jail them taking fathers out of the home and leaving children and women in poverty.

We don’t have to ask with the response have been different. We already know from history that our response to the black community is to jail them and our response to the white community is to help them.

Since you seem to be have a sophomore understanding of these things, I would suggest educating yourself. A good start with be a documentary called the 13th.

On a brighter scale, your question is is their systematic racism.

Yes, of course there is systematic racism. When white people need help the federal government helps them… They do this by making soft laws (like bankruptcy laws), lowering interest rates, and sending them to college (GI bill).

I personally believe you wanted to send more cops in… that would’ve given the opposite result of helping.

The things that have lowered crime and murders in Baltimore and Boston our jobs, healthcare, teen summer programs, etc … not more cops

How would that stop people from being murdered tomorrow or this year? Those are long term solutions that wouldn’t solve the immediate problem. You know that if that many white people were being murdered in the 90s they would have sent in the National Guard 1,000%.

Stop being daft and obtuse.

Because you come from a racist viewpoint, you really don’t even understand.

It’s like me trying to explain graduate school material to a kindergarten.

The solution is always more services. The solution for farmers is to give them money. The solution for white addicts is to give them rehab.

You’re being daft and obtuse if you don’t understand that. Look at Baltimore. Reduce crime by 87% in one year through services like I mentioned.

You so badly want a police black bodies you can’t even see how racist you are. We literally would never do that to white people and that’s why people are up in arms that the National Guard is walking around safe neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean? Do you mean if Sidwell students were killed there would be more police presence? what exactly are you asking?

Have no idea how the original post was confusing if you had any historical knowledge of the city. In the 1990s, when DC was recording 300+ and sometimes 400+ murders a year, was it racist to not extend federal support? Do you think federal support would have been extended if rich white kids were being murdered at the same staggering volume?

It is confusing because 1. children were not being murdered at that rate walking home from school 2. What is "federal support"... troops? jobs? addiction counseling? jobs programs?

The question was based on a false premise then used non-specific language like "federal support".

that is why it is confusing.

We can simplify it. It 400+ UMC and rich white men and children, mostly in WOTP neighborhoods, were being murdered per year in DC from 1989 to 1996, what do you think the federal response would have been?

Is that clear enough?

It’s still based on a false premise that 400+ people were being murdered per year.

But, yes, if white people were dying at a high rate, we would provide them with jobs, healthcare, and counseling.

But when Black people are dying, we jail them taking fathers out of the home and leaving children and women in poverty.

We don’t have to ask with the response have been different. We already know from history that our response to the black community is to jail them and our response to the white community is to help them.

Since you seem to be have a sophomore understanding of these things, I would suggest educating yourself. A good start with be a documentary called the 13th.

On a brighter scale, your question is is their systematic racism.

Yes, of course there is systematic racism. When white people need help the federal government helps them… They do this by making soft laws (like bankruptcy laws), lowering interest rates, and sending them to college (GI bill).

I personally believe you wanted to send more cops in… that would’ve given the opposite result of helping.

The things that have lowered crime and murders in Baltimore and Boston our jobs, healthcare, teen summer programs, etc … not more cops

You seem to be delusional at best or arguing in bad faith at worst. There were 400+ murders in DC a year from 1989-1996. Look up the MPD report that was posted earlier in the thread.

To your second point, are you implying that Black people who murder other Black people shouldn’t be put in jail? I don’t even understand your point. Your post reads like someone who copied and pasted the content of some anti racist books without bothering to add their own thoughts or engage in the actual argument at hand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean? Do you mean if Sidwell students were killed there would be more police presence? what exactly are you asking?

Have no idea how the original post was confusing if you had any historical knowledge of the city. In the 1990s, when DC was recording 300+ and sometimes 400+ murders a year, was it racist to not extend federal support? Do you think federal support would have been extended if rich white kids were being murdered at the same staggering volume?

It is confusing because 1. children were not being murdered at that rate walking home from school 2. What is "federal support"... troops? jobs? addiction counseling? jobs programs?

The question was based on a false premise then used non-specific language like "federal support".

that is why it is confusing.

We can simplify it. It 400+ UMC and rich white men and children, mostly in WOTP neighborhoods, were being murdered per year in DC from 1989 to 1996, what do you think the federal response would have been?

Is that clear enough?

It’s still based on a false premise that 400+ people were being murdered per year.

But, yes, if white people were dying at a high rate, we would provide them with jobs, healthcare, and counseling.

But when Black people are dying, we jail them taking fathers out of the home and leaving children and women in poverty.

We don’t have to ask with the response have been different. We already know from history that our response to the black community is to jail them and our response to the white community is to help them.

Since you seem to be have a sophomore understanding of these things, I would suggest educating yourself. A good start with be a documentary called the 13th.

On a brighter scale, your question is is their systematic racism.

Yes, of course there is systematic racism. When white people need help the federal government helps them… They do this by making soft laws (like bankruptcy laws), lowering interest rates, and sending them to college (GI bill).

I personally believe you wanted to send more cops in… that would’ve given the opposite result of helping.

The things that have lowered crime and murders in Baltimore and Boston our jobs, healthcare, teen summer programs, etc … not more cops

How would that stop people from being murdered tomorrow or this year? Those are long term solutions that wouldn’t solve the immediate problem. You know that if that many white people were being murdered in the 90s they would have sent in the National Guard 1,000%.

Stop being daft and obtuse.

Anonymous wrote:The lack of interest in seeing order in black neighborhoods is in fact racist.

Are you saying Black neighborhoods are less orderly than white neighborhoods? You know that's racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did 400 children get murdered in the 90's?

I don't think that number is even close to correct.

From 1989 to 1996 no fewer than 400 people were murdered per year in DC.
One year it was even 500+.

https://ocme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocme/publication/attachments/APPENDIX%20A%20-%2030%20year.pdf

These were mostly Black men and teenagers. Would the feds have been called in if this many white men and children had been murdered every year, specifically UMC and rich white men and teenagers west of the park.

I think we all know the answer.

There you go again with (deliberately?) confusing and misleading statistics.

The majority of people murdered in DC has ALWAYS been adult black men. It was that way in the 90s, and it's that way today. And it wasn't "mostly" teenagers back then or now and it's never, ever been a lot of children.

Let's take the worst year for murders involving victims under 20: 1993. In that year, there were 120. 113 of them were 15-19 years old. Only 7 were under 15. The total number of victims was 494, meaning that the large majority of victims were adults over 20.

So, again, the fact is that murder in DC is now much lower only in term of gross numbers but not in kind. The demographics of the victims hasn't changed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is just trolling.

They might just learn something though if they are open to it.

Not trolling. Do you think the federal response would have been as nonexistent if UMC and rich white men and children (that is, teenagers) were being murdered?

It’s a simple yes or no question.

I understand in your sophomore brain. It seems like a yes or no question and it also sounds simple but because you lack basic understanding, it’s not simple. It’s complex and I did provide you an answer in the other post.

I really think you need to watch the documentary the 13th so that you can at least least have an elementary understanding so that you could actually have an educated conversation about this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean? Do you mean if Sidwell students were killed there would be more police presence? what exactly are you asking?

Have no idea how the original post was confusing if you had any historical knowledge of the city. In the 1990s, when DC was recording 300+ and sometimes 400+ murders a year, was it racist to not extend federal support? Do you think federal support would have been extended if rich white kids were being murdered at the same staggering volume?

It is confusing because 1. children were not being murdered at that rate walking home from school 2. What is "federal support"... troops? jobs? addiction counseling? jobs programs?

The question was based on a false premise then used non-specific language like "federal support".

that is why it is confusing.

We can simplify it. It 400+ UMC and rich white men and children, mostly in WOTP neighborhoods, were being murdered per year in DC from 1989 to 1996, what do you think the federal response would have been?

Is that clear enough?

It’s still based on a false premise that 400+ people were being murdered per year.

But, yes, if white people were dying at a high rate, we would provide them with jobs, healthcare, and counseling.

But when Black people are dying, we jail them taking fathers out of the home and leaving children and women in poverty.

We don’t have to ask with the response have been different. We already know from history that our response to the black community is to jail them and our response to the white community is to help them.

Since you seem to be have a sophomore understanding of these things, I would suggest educating yourself. A good start with be a documentary called the 13th.

On a brighter scale, your question is is their systematic racism.

Yes, of course there is systematic racism. When white people need help the federal government helps them… They do this by making soft laws (like bankruptcy laws), lowering interest rates, and sending them to college (GI bill).

I personally believe you wanted to send more cops in… that would’ve given the opposite result of helping.

The things that have lowered crime and murders in Baltimore and Boston our jobs, healthcare, teen summer programs, etc … not more cops

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is just trolling.

They might just learn something though if they are open to it.

Not trolling. Do you think the federal response would have been as nonexistent if UMC and rich white men and children (that is, teenagers) were being murdered?

It’s a simple yes or no question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you mean? Do you mean if Sidwell students were killed there would be more police presence? what exactly are you asking?

Have no idea how the original post was confusing if you had any historical knowledge of the city. In the 1990s, when DC was recording 300+ and sometimes 400+ murders a year, was it racist to not extend federal support? Do you think federal support would have been extended if rich white kids were being murdered at the same staggering volume?

It is confusing because 1. children were not being murdered at that rate walking home from school 2. What is "federal support"... troops? jobs? addiction counseling? jobs programs?

The question was based on a false premise then used non-specific language like "federal support".

that is why it is confusing.

We can simplify it. It 400+ UMC and rich white men and children, mostly in WOTP neighborhoods, were being murdered per year in DC from 1989 to 1996, what do you think the federal response would have been?

Is that clear enough?