Speaker 1: Watch up and welcome back to another episode and No
Speaker 1: Sillers Podcast with your host now funk that with your
Speaker 1: low classes, Malone. Something was bothering me specifically, specifically right,
Speaker 1: And I was talking to one of my homies, right,
Speaker 1: and we were talking about the Kindrick album, and in
Speaker 1: the Kindrick album, somehow we got into a debate about
Speaker 1: gang banging and they literally accused me of being like
Speaker 1: some kind of gang activists, of like promoting gangs in
Speaker 1: a positive light. And I noticed it was another conversation
Speaker 1: that was Charlotte Magne and Van Lathan and they feel like,
Speaker 1: I have this weird outlook on gangs because their outlook
Speaker 1: is rooted in like negativity, and um, their their outlook
Speaker 1: is rooted in negativity based off ignorance, like they don't
Speaker 1: have any experience, any understanding, feel me. So I noticed
Speaker 1: that there's this this expression that goes along with any
Speaker 1: time communities class, right, anytime these poor communities class. There's
Speaker 1: this expression that I've always seen us and normally it's
Speaker 1: white people, Pete who uses it like newspeople, and they'll
Speaker 1: be like, oh, senseless violence, and that's their line, like,
Speaker 1: oh senseless violence. And I could know the situation right,
Speaker 1: being in the streets, Like you know, I got the
Speaker 1: street I'm subscribed to the street newspaper, so all of
Speaker 1: the street news is gonna come right to my phone.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be able to decipher all information. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: know what happened to a T. So it's weird to me, right,
Speaker 1: And I understand why a news anchor will call it
Speaker 1: sense lists they they say anything about that with violence
Speaker 1: particularly that's like gun related. I don't always right now,
Speaker 1: they cover the Russian Ukraine War and I've never heard
Speaker 1: them reference it as senseless violence, right, So that's also military.
Speaker 1: There's never any senseless military action ever ever, which is
Speaker 1: my point. But so I give the news people a
Speaker 1: past because they are not informed on the actual conflict.
Speaker 1: So then they just referenced it as senseless. Right, when
Speaker 1: they have no information on the conflict, the natural thing
Speaker 1: to do is referenced as senseless. M hm. I am informed.
Speaker 1: I brought my buddy Alex Alonso on here, somebody who's
Speaker 1: I've always consulted on gain anything community culture related, and
Speaker 1: just as much as I'm vested in it, he studies it. Yes,
Speaker 1: or So it's weird to me to always hear that, right,
Speaker 1: But I understand those news anchors have no idea what's
Speaker 1: going on. They are avoided and they have no idea
Speaker 1: of the facts. My issue is when people within the
Speaker 1: community when we birth success, well we birth successful people
Speaker 1: and then they become successful, and then they go and
Speaker 1: get with the same news people or ignorant people and
Speaker 1: promote the violence as senseless versus making sense out of
Speaker 1: it for people to get information, you know what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: So maybe they can help with the conflict. Yeah, In general,
Speaker 1: I think that the truth is halfway between your perspective
Speaker 1: and like Charlemagne advanced perspective where they're not hands on,
Speaker 1: first person involved, but you're so personally involved that you
Speaker 1: can't it the forest for the tree is, so to speak.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't know, because how is it senseless?
Speaker 1: Like okay, because because there's not productive big picture, but again,
Speaker 1: productive big pictures all like perspective base right, that's all
Speaker 1: based and and that's what I was getting at. But
Speaker 1: I don't know if that makes it wrong to say
Speaker 1: somebody's world doesn't matter because your world is of what
Speaker 1: you feel is a grander scale. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: that's just pretty much discriminating on the value of somebody's life,
Speaker 1: like you reduce at that point, these people lives don't matter,
Speaker 1: right at that point, then if if it's just if
Speaker 1: you can make sense out of World War two and
Speaker 1: you can't make sense out of the sixty versus the
Speaker 1: eight Trades, if you can make sense out of you know,
Speaker 1: nine eleven and the war between al Quainta, but you
Speaker 1: can't make sense out of the sixties and the trades.
Speaker 1: I think at some place you're just being you're being ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It's an ignorant like, Okay, it's different if you don't
Speaker 1: have any information, right and you just see some nig
Speaker 1: is killing each other, right, you just see some black people,
Speaker 1: poor black people killing each other. That's all it looks
Speaker 1: like to you. Oh, they're just killing each other. But
Speaker 1: if you have details on the fact of someone loved
Speaker 1: one getting killed, you know, a thousand different things, then
Speaker 1: it starts to make sense. Hey, if we think of
Speaker 1: this as as ah on a geographic scale. I studied
Speaker 1: geography for a long time. And what Peter is talking about,
Speaker 1: which which he used the term big production or production
Speaker 1: big picture, that's macro level conflict. But what glasses is
Speaker 1: talking about crips and bloods, essays North Daniel Sudaniels. In geography,
Speaker 1: we call that micro level conflict, and you can take
Speaker 1: the same rules and apply that to macro level as
Speaker 1: you can to the micro level, to where there's almost
Speaker 1: no difference between what's causing the conflict on these two
Speaker 1: different levels, because there is big picture or production big
Speaker 1: production on the micro level. Their families, there are kids,
Speaker 1: there are parents. Uh, there are street rules. The street
Speaker 1: rules run large urban cities, and the street rules that
Speaker 1: get violated end up in micro level conflict. So I
Speaker 1: look at it as all the same, and the rules
Speaker 1: exists to keep peace. Like the rules are not just
Speaker 1: there to cause conflict. There no different than laws. It's
Speaker 1: there to keep peace. Yea, I didn't mean it in
Speaker 1: a scale of physical space. I mean it in a
Speaker 1: scale of like chronological time. More so, I thought you
Speaker 1: was meaning it in the scale of financial value, like
Speaker 1: that there is more money in the war in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: there is in the war between the sixties and a trades,
Speaker 1: but the values of the lives are the same. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mentioned in the sense that like there's not a
Speaker 1: big picture end game of time for like a defined
Speaker 1: outcome with consideration of the local ancillary costs that are
Speaker 1: caused by the conflict, like within the neighborhood over a
Speaker 1: twenty to thirty year scale. I'm not going to disagree
Speaker 1: with that, but but I also think that makes the
Speaker 1: intentions pure. Whose intentions the intentions of the war itself?
Speaker 1: The fight is well, yeah, for sure, it's not done
Speaker 1: for because what you said in so many words is
Speaker 1: it wasn't done because you know, they took somebody life.
Speaker 1: It was done with a with an underlying issue. Even
Speaker 1: if to us they promoted the lives loss of nine
Speaker 1: eleven was the reason they decided to start this war
Speaker 1: on al Qaida, we both know there's an underlying, you know,
Speaker 1: cunning thing below it that that's the real reason. But
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's worth more or just you
Speaker 1: just a bigger piece of ship. Yeah, Like they're like,
Speaker 1: there's more immediate integrity to an organic, you know, war
Speaker 1: between two neighborhoods. But but there's also more. If you
Speaker 1: look at in a square mile, there's what fifty people
Speaker 1: in population in a square mile in South l a ballpark,
Speaker 1: but what four percent maybe gang bang maybe one percent?
Speaker 1: So there's an ancillary negative cost to the other x
Speaker 1: percent of people that aren't involved in the conflict who
Speaker 1: have to endure, you know, some sort of an l
Speaker 1: as a result of its existence. Civilion. But isn't that
Speaker 1: like all wars at that, like like, and this is
Speaker 1: the tricky part, right because growing up in the community. Right, So, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's only so many participating people in the military side.
Speaker 1: But let me tell you something that's not really spoken
Speaker 1: of for some read First off, hold up, I'm tripping
Speaker 1: no seillers, g l my Man, Peter boss I got
Speaker 1: the big home me Alex Alonzo, Criminologists, you know, street culturists,
Speaker 1: you know, uh, understanding and study or of the fine
Speaker 1: arts when it comes to Los Angeles streets and everything surrounding.
Speaker 1: So the same thing happens in these big wars. I
Speaker 1: mean when you right now, it's a ton of innocent
Speaker 1: lives being lost in the war between Russia and Ukraine. Tons,
Speaker 1: probably way more, right, But this is the tricky thing
Speaker 1: about you know, the community, right, So yes, right, let's
Speaker 1: say on the seven since they built the one oh five, right,
Speaker 1: is it's only so many maybe it's a hundred participants
Speaker 1: in the military that's a hundred and seven streets it's
Speaker 1: only a hundred willing participants in the military, right, that's
Speaker 1: a hundred of seventeen street wats. But that don't mean
Speaker 1: the majority of the community are not the actual culture
Speaker 1: that is a hundred and sevent t street watch. They're
Speaker 1: just not active in the military. Most people that grow
Speaker 1: up in these communities, because they grow up with each other,
Speaker 1: are very much like community base. They just don't do
Speaker 1: the same things when it comes to crime, but they
Speaker 1: very much are family and and committed to the members
Speaker 1: of the community, if that makes sense. Like everybody in
Speaker 1: America is not, you know, in the military, but everybody
Speaker 1: supports the military. Does that make sense? Not everybody? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Now imagine I work with a lot of defense attorneys,
Speaker 1: and when we go on trial for murder, I have
Speaker 1: to convince this jury that the reasons that this conflict
Speaker 1: exists in the first place is basically for the same
Speaker 1: issues we're talking about here, that there is a greater
Speaker 1: reason why this is going on. There's an historical context
Speaker 1: of why this is going on and on, and sometimes
Speaker 1: there's actually a reason for a person A killing person
Speaker 1: B that could be rooted in um I felt my
Speaker 1: life was threatened, for example, or if I didn't do it,
Speaker 1: they were gonna do it. Um. For most of the time,
Speaker 1: jurors do not care about street violence. But once I
Speaker 1: put it in the context of macro level violence, and
Speaker 1: it's not too much different from the reason why the
Speaker 1: United States was in Afghanistan for twenty years, some jurors
Speaker 1: start to get it. Some jurors will say, Okay, they'll
Speaker 1: open up their mind and say, maybe I should look
Speaker 1: at this case, Maybe I should look at this conflict
Speaker 1: through different lenses. And it is a challenge. Man. We've
Speaker 1: got a jury that's you know, ten ten white folks,
Speaker 1: usually nine in ten white folks after the most part
Speaker 1: do not care about this stuff. And which is weird
Speaker 1: because that's the terminology when they say a jury of
Speaker 1: your peers, like based off where you live, the term
Speaker 1: peers changes, like every experience in Los Angeles is not
Speaker 1: the exact same, especially at economically, like that literally becomes
Speaker 1: tears of living, Like the whole thing changes depending on
Speaker 1: how much money you make where you live. That changes
Speaker 1: everything about the community, not even your race, right Pete
Speaker 1: is where you live. You can live in Beverly Hills
Speaker 1: and that experience is totally different being a black man
Speaker 1: in Beverly Hills and being a black man and watch
Speaker 1: night and day, night and day. So uh, and that's dope,
Speaker 1: that's a really important job. I'm glad I didn't. I
Speaker 1: didn't even know that's what you do, but I always
Speaker 1: assume that's something close to what you do. But I
Speaker 1: was saying that if if you literally can look at
Speaker 1: what's peers, what the word piers means, like, they would
Speaker 1: change jurors and they would fight for different kind of
Speaker 1: jurors based off of the community. It's a lot of
Speaker 1: things to work out, but it's really it really matters.
Speaker 1: Like if we go back to the origin right of
Speaker 1: one of the oldest you know, crep beefs, right, which
Speaker 1: is the sixties, and they trades, right, this is something
Speaker 1: in the seventies, late seventies, but love it, brother, Right,
Speaker 1: a minor was murdered right over a simple phistical, you
Speaker 1: know squabble. That's normal, normal business. There's normal amongst our communities,
Speaker 1: poor communities to fight to solve problems. You know, it's
Speaker 1: actually not crazy. It actually happens at the highest levels
Speaker 1: a lot of times. Right, But they decided to solve
Speaker 1: it with a physical altercation that we're gonna fight, and
Speaker 1: somebody went too far that wasn't familiar with the communities,
Speaker 1: those two communities relationships. One person made a decision that
Speaker 1: went too far. So then because they couldn't find resolution.
Speaker 1: There was one resolution asked for, and because they couldn't
Speaker 1: find it, it resulted in what we have today, which
Speaker 1: is you know award that's forty years old at this point, right,
Speaker 1: but it is very sensible. If you don't understand how
Speaker 1: somebody getting killed, right, how somebody getting killed and you
Speaker 1: feeling like another community is responsible and not doing things
Speaker 1: to provide a resolution, it could cause more lives. I've
Speaker 1: heard this a thousand times. When I explained it to then,
Speaker 1: you know, he tries his best to understand, but he's like, well,
Speaker 1: why they just didn't sit down and talk? And I
Speaker 1: would say to him, well, why when the Twin Towers
Speaker 1: got bombed, did in America go and sit down with
Speaker 1: al Qaeda's leadership and say, hey, we need to work
Speaker 1: this out so nobody else loses their life. Why is
Speaker 1: Russian not sitting there with Ukraine deciding to say whatever
Speaker 1: we're doing is for it's not worth people losing their lives,
Speaker 1: like what makes like what is a life worth? At
Speaker 1: that point? I think that brings up to like two
Speaker 1: small kind of contextual you know, schisms here a little
Speaker 1: bit like one of them, a like history would tell
Speaker 1: us at least it's view through the through the lens
Speaker 1: of there are you know, quote unquote good wars and
Speaker 1: bad wars or better wars than others you know, to
Speaker 1: be involved in. And there's a runce between rational and sensible,
Speaker 1: you know. And also I think a question or two
Speaker 1: that are worth asking for this conversation as far as
Speaker 1: like trying to bridge the gap between the two points,
Speaker 1: is what is the defined end game and what is
Speaker 1: the positive outcome for the non participants nearby? You know,
Speaker 1: Like if you were talking about we're gonna engage in
Speaker 1: a war two topple the Third Reich, we know what
Speaker 1: the end game is and we know who the beneficiaries
Speaker 1: are that aren't actually involved in the conflict but are nearby,
Speaker 1: Like what are like like those questions I feel like
Speaker 1: are not beautifully answered with regard to say six eight
Speaker 1: trays forty year long, But you is that really what
Speaker 1: happened in World War two? Like you know, in real time.
Speaker 1: That's not actually what happened. We didn't enter the war
Speaker 1: to topple the third right, I think I think once
Speaker 1: awhere the war, we entered the war to aid in
Speaker 1: that cause. That was effectively started the war because somebody
Speaker 1: brought the war to us. Like but before that, just
Speaker 1: like now, we were playing behind curtains and doing small,
Speaker 1: little kind of cheap fucked up things, right, supporting people,
Speaker 1: picking aside, but not actually participate. And it wasn't until right, uh,
Speaker 1: the war was brought to our soil that we decided
Speaker 1: to go full force. Because if that was a case,
Speaker 1: if it was all about topping the third right, the
Speaker 1: nuclear bonds went to the wrong place. Well you the
Speaker 1: Afghanistan and Iraq war as a better example. The the
Speaker 1: goal was to take down Osama bin Lading. Oh they
Speaker 1: took didn't Barack Obama killed or someone been lobbing in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eleven, So then while we were in
Speaker 1: the war for nine more years. So I think that
Speaker 1: when they articulate these end goals, it is a way
Speaker 1: to get the American public to say, Okay, we're with that,
Speaker 1: but then we forget about the end goal has been
Speaker 1: already been achieved. So why are you guys still fighting?
Speaker 1: Why is there still bloodshed? Why is there still conflict
Speaker 1: for another decade? Almost so, I don't you know those
Speaker 1: end goals that are presented at these press conferences by
Speaker 1: the media. I just think it's all smoking to get
Speaker 1: the American public to support it. It's great marketing for
Speaker 1: whatever reason. And and that's what and that's why initially
Speaker 1: said to you, p it is it's all about everybody's
Speaker 1: fighting for the same things. How you spend it to
Speaker 1: the general public is important. And what I like to
Speaker 1: believe with no seilings and what we do is we
Speaker 1: way behind the curtains. We're not even staring at the
Speaker 1: magic trick. No more so if we say, even in
Speaker 1: World War two, right, the goal was to to to
Speaker 1: counter the third right like well, the the actual nuclear
Speaker 1: bonds went to the wrong place. But again that's a
Speaker 1: time frame standpoint, you know, like the U S would
Speaker 1: have would have eventually gotten into Europe full throttle. It was,
Speaker 1: it was happening that way, and then Pearl Harbor happened
Speaker 1: in the process, like the Atlantic and Pacific theaters historically
Speaker 1: two very separate wars. But Peter, I got a question
Speaker 1: remember when the goal under Bush when they went into
Speaker 1: Iraq and Afghanistan was to find w m d s.
Speaker 1: When you have a goal of finding something that's never
Speaker 1: going to happen, then there is no end goal. Because
Speaker 1: here we are twenty years later, and I believe the
Speaker 1: consensus is Iraq never had w m d s. That's nonsense.
Speaker 1: They were in Syria, they were used, and we know
Speaker 1: they were used. They were never found in Iraq. They
Speaker 1: never Yeah, but there's there's there's evidence and intelligence that
Speaker 1: suggests they were trucked into Syria from Iraq and giant
Speaker 1: in large military convoys. Is the tricky word. And again
Speaker 1: pet private journalists, not government. It's always governed me. They
Speaker 1: blamed the don who saying I'm participating in the w
Speaker 1: m D program, which they never they never proved. Saddam
Speaker 1: Hussein Interact was supposed to be involved in the w
Speaker 1: m D program. I understand that I'm I wasn't like
Speaker 1: I'm pro Iraq intervention war, but but the idea that
Speaker 1: in a real time he wasn't stone walling and searches
Speaker 1: while transporting that stuff to Syria that was then actually
Speaker 1: used in Syria that we know about that they didn't
Speaker 1: have a create on their own or trade for that's
Speaker 1: all real, like that literally happened, like you can like
Speaker 1: Syrian make that stuff and they weren't shipped it. That's
Speaker 1: how they got it. More than then then my question
Speaker 1: is we know countries that actually have in Iran has
Speaker 1: been involved in w m D programs. How many bombs
Speaker 1: have we dropped the wounds the last time we invaded Iran?
Speaker 1: That ain't gonna happen, you know, So all of these
Speaker 1: like justifications to war, man, it's all it's you gott
Speaker 1: admit it's a lot of propaganda behind these explanations and
Speaker 1: justifications to a lot of this macro level conflicts. There's
Speaker 1: there's certainly in the US government like speaking, there's two
Speaker 1: tiers of wars. I mean, like and it's even easy
Speaker 1: if you could point to in most cases, like there's
Speaker 1: that line the sand where there was Congress declaring war
Speaker 1: and then there was these quote unquote military conflicts that
Speaker 1: go on for a hundred years because it's convenient, you know,
Speaker 1: and those are not the same thing all like like
Speaker 1: that would be Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. Even though Ukraine thing
Speaker 1: there was an opportunity for Ukraine and Russia to settle that.
Speaker 1: In April, international interests had raised a hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: in funding for this thing, and they said, no, we're
Speaker 1: not going to settle. And now it's gonna cost probably
Speaker 1: seventy five thousand Ukrainian lives at least for that cause.
Speaker 1: But but they want a squabble. Yeah, and and sometimes
Speaker 1: people want to squabble, and and and it's not really
Speaker 1: a crazy thought. I've watched people. But they are both senseless,
Speaker 1: you could say, but they will never reference it the
Speaker 1: national But well, it depends. I mean, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of people who say that the second Iraq and Afghanistan
Speaker 1: wars worse, senseless, who want to call George W. Bush
Speaker 1: o war criminal. That is true, but at that point
Speaker 1: it becomes perspective versus an overall label. Like if media
Speaker 1: finds the narrative, the media defines that narrative that way,
Speaker 1: By and large, it depends on who is the narrative,
Speaker 1: not not not Vietnam, yes, but not that one. Vietnam
Speaker 1: for sure gets a horrible title. But but again that's
Speaker 1: my point, like where maybe we're like, like we don't
Speaker 1: have the information, so we're giving it based off the
Speaker 1: information we have. But to say that somebody's reason of
Speaker 1: fighting is system is because you can't make sense out
Speaker 1: of it, I don't know, man, I just I don't
Speaker 1: think that's really the good question, Like, well, okay, it
Speaker 1: is the question I'm trying to Like, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of hats, you know, at the table, Like there's there's
Speaker 1: the local media perspective, there's the Charlemagne Van perspective, and
Speaker 1: there's your perspective, and there's a lot of pronouns floating
Speaker 1: around that are kind of confusing the situation at least
Speaker 1: a little bit. To me, I'm less concerned with the
Speaker 1: NBC Local news perspective personally, which again, that's just me.
Speaker 1: I'm only one of the three people sitting here. Um.
Speaker 1: I think, for like Charlemagne and Van, their ultimate underlying
Speaker 1: question at the end of the day, and I don't
Speaker 1: know if they ask it blatantly or not, but it
Speaker 1: sounds like they're pointing in that direction. Is the community
Speaker 1: in general? But when points A, B, C, and D
Speaker 1: better or worse for having gang violent gang conflicts within
Speaker 1: it or A posted it, that my point so that
Speaker 1: that's where it gets tricky. I don't think none of these.
Speaker 1: I don't think Germany is a better place that what
Speaker 1: then than it was before because of World War Two?
Speaker 1: I don't think. I don't think America is a better
Speaker 1: place because of it. It's all the perspective of what
Speaker 1: you think could happen. Are you trying to prevent what
Speaker 1: you think can happen? Or you reacting to what has happened?
Speaker 1: M Um does every time? Does when? Every time when
Speaker 1: a hundred and seventeen street watch crypt goes towards does
Speaker 1: everybody in the community sign on? Hell? No? But when
Speaker 1: has everybody in which country? The only time I can
Speaker 1: remember America everybody signing on was at the nine eleven.
Speaker 1: America was not a better place after going to war
Speaker 1: right with with the with the Taliban, like what you know,
Speaker 1: being present in the Middle East right there, it wasn't
Speaker 1: a better place. It's not a better place now. Ship
Speaker 1: still happening right now? Or I think the question is
Speaker 1: has to just be revenged. Are these other places better
Speaker 1: places that the US is better? Is Afghanistan better? Yeah?
Speaker 1: They destroyed Aliban lands better? I think we'd all say
Speaker 1: probably not. They have destroyed these places. So when is
Speaker 1: when is? And that's what I'm saying Pete like even
Speaker 1: from Vanish Charlotte Mage level, When is there a proper
Speaker 1: reason to fight? When is there a reason to fight?
Speaker 1: When is there is there a reason to kill? Is
Speaker 1: there a reason to fight? These are really the questions
Speaker 1: This reminds me of when I was studying native tribes
Speaker 1: that we're living here and what we call the U
Speaker 1: S and the eighteen hundreds, their land was completely invaded
Speaker 1: by US and Spanish governments. But then when they retaliated
Speaker 1: against the U S and Spanish presence, they were considered
Speaker 1: the bad people. They were considered um, the assailants, and
Speaker 1: and a lot of American people by that rhetoric. You know,
Speaker 1: the Apache Indians running through uh An area where Americans live,
Speaker 1: killing them all off um is considered bad. But the
Speaker 1: United States killed a whole bunch of Apaches to occupy
Speaker 1: that space. And we could call that type of conflict
Speaker 1: micro level because in the eighteen hundreds, you know, the
Speaker 1: governments were small, and these tribal and are really small.
Speaker 1: But there's always a justification to explain why one side
Speaker 1: is having conflict with the other side, And we could
Speaker 1: call all of that senseless. Why couldn't we just leave
Speaker 1: these native tribes alone, let them occupy their space and
Speaker 1: respect their land. Mm hmm. Yeah. The Seminole Indians, they
Speaker 1: went through treacherous wars with the United States government, the
Speaker 1: Spanish government, and every time they retaliated to kill they
Speaker 1: were considered the villains. Even to this day, we considered
Speaker 1: a lot of of the native tribes on US soil
Speaker 1: of the villains. All they were doing was reacting and
Speaker 1: defending and they get savages. That's that's that's crazy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we call them savages. Wait a minute, you're right, you're right, right,
Speaker 1: But but you know what, they engaged in savage behavior
Speaker 1: quote unquote to defend themselves and defend their land, and
Speaker 1: of course it was some people call it all senseless.
Speaker 1: Or how about this Nat Turner decides, I don't want
Speaker 1: to lead uh anti slave revolt. That's gonna kill fifty
Speaker 1: white folks. Now, history treats Nat tap Turner in different ways.
Speaker 1: Some say he's a hero, Others say he didn't need
Speaker 1: to kill he didn't need to kill fifty white folks.
Speaker 1: But what he did thirty or forty years before emancipation
Speaker 1: certainly opened up that conversation to where we have in
Speaker 1: the eighteen sixty five, the Emancipation Proclamation. We have of
Speaker 1: the slavery being abolished in the US, we have people
Speaker 1: becoming free. So so how do we judge that Turner
Speaker 1: for doing what he did? Decide I'm gonna rise against
Speaker 1: the slave owner. I'm gonna rise against the white man,
Speaker 1: and these next couple of days, I'm gonna kill fifty
Speaker 1: of them. Game him for that or do we understand?
Speaker 1: Does that make sense? My question is does this person
Speaker 1: understand an Turner perspective? All the examples you just gave,
Speaker 1: without exception, have an end game imaginable? What is the
Speaker 1: end game in the conflict between They all have an
Speaker 1: end game. I don't think that he was going to
Speaker 1: get away with it. The ultimate golf for an uprising
Speaker 1: is to liberate. I don't want to. I don't think
Speaker 1: he thought to himself that he was going to pull
Speaker 1: it off. Sometimes some people think they're the spark to
Speaker 1: pulling something off. But there's something to pull off. Yeah,
Speaker 1: But but at that point it all starts with one
Speaker 1: simple thing, right, So, like, all I'm asking is what's
Speaker 1: the something to pull off the game? Right? Yes, Well,
Speaker 1: if if if there's a group of guys that's serving
Speaker 1: dope on my on a corner that's two blocks away
Speaker 1: from me, and that's a little too close to our hood.
Speaker 1: The end game is to push those dudes back about
Speaker 1: two or three blocks back into their space because I
Speaker 1: don't do anything to If I don't have that end game,
Speaker 1: then they're gonna keep encroaching, keep encroaching, and and they're
Speaker 1: gonna be tapping into my funds. Sense that that can
Speaker 1: be considered an end game trade lines, trade sure, and
Speaker 1: economically trying to earn right, Okay, well, but that's the point.
Speaker 1: Like what's the end game per se of of going
Speaker 1: into the Middle East? You know, a rooted around nine
Speaker 1: eleven part end game after nine eleven? Or was it
Speaker 1: the fact that like very much Ronald Reagan, very much,
Speaker 1: uh Barack Obama who was not eleven President George George H. Jr.
Speaker 1: Um the second you know, or g W, I don't
Speaker 1: know what they call the end game was it was
Speaker 1: similar like now you can see like that similar Iran
Speaker 1: government hamas type of relationship where there's quote unquote non
Speaker 1: governmental military factions that are being provided safe haven to
Speaker 1: operate by local governments. So the goal ultimately would be
Speaker 1: We're going to displace this government who's providing safe haven
Speaker 1: for a non government military outfit. We're going to try
Speaker 1: to take down the non government military outfit and put
Speaker 1: somebody in charge of the country is not going to
Speaker 1: continue to provide safe haven and funding for an outfit
Speaker 1: that commits military actions against other parties without having a
Speaker 1: flag under which to fly. So that's a great point, right,
Speaker 1: But do you think that's what they marketed or do
Speaker 1: you think they marketed revenge? It was exactly it was revenge.
Speaker 1: How about this as an endgame marketable point was revenged?
Speaker 1: The United States can never allow any sort of government
Speaker 1: or quasi government to attack without there being a violent
Speaker 1: response to it. And in that sense, the end game
Speaker 1: is to say to the rest of the world, look
Speaker 1: what we're about to do to this quasi government or
Speaker 1: what they did to us. And that's what the end
Speaker 1: game is in almost every street conflict. You came and
Speaker 1: killed my homie, There's there's ten other hoods that saw that.
Speaker 1: We just lost one, and if we don't do anything,
Speaker 1: we're gonna look weak. So we have to re kind
Speaker 1: and N eleven. Yeah, you want to discourage other country
Speaker 1: slash communities from committing such atrocities, you know, on your
Speaker 1: on your citizens, or on your land. And that's what
Speaker 1: George Bush actually said that ron Reagan said when he
Speaker 1: was going to mash so, oh boy, they got locked
Speaker 1: off in North Africa. You know, he got knocked off
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago. Kadafi, like Ronald Reagan, said
Speaker 1: that if you think you're gonna do this to American people,
Speaker 1: it happened in another country that he had problems with,
Speaker 1: I mean, and they're trying to figure it out. And
Speaker 1: other people did it, but they say he funded or
Speaker 1: provided the weapons, and he spoke to him directly on
Speaker 1: TV in a tone of revenge. And that going at
Speaker 1: the most of court right from Americans. Because every human being,
Speaker 1: no matter the most sophisticated to the poorest person, understand
Speaker 1: the concept of revenge. We all say we don't deal
Speaker 1: in revenge because it's an endless trail of blood, right,
Speaker 1: it will keep going and going and going. So that's
Speaker 1: why we established laws and justice and all that. But
Speaker 1: we still at the top level, at the military level,
Speaker 1: operate out of revenge. Mostly every war or every atrocity
Speaker 1: we have done as a country has been out of revenge.
Speaker 1: Like I agree with you. Right when we was looking
Speaker 1: at World War Two, we wasn't really in it. We
Speaker 1: were supporting, you know, just like right now we're sanctions
Speaker 1: certain things we were doing to to to aside with
Speaker 1: the people that we agree with their policies, Right, is
Speaker 1: that fair to say? Yeah, you could say World War
Speaker 1: two was also revenge because the United States are involved
Speaker 1: in that war until they dropped the bomb on Pearl
Speaker 1: Harbor and twelve hundred U S soldiers died. But but
Speaker 1: that the Atlantic theater was imminent. That was going to
Speaker 1: happen without that. But what what would have happened without
Speaker 1: that is imperials are pan would would effectively have owned
Speaker 1: from a definite period of time half the Pacific rim
Speaker 1: at least. Listen, that's but that's my point. I don't
Speaker 1: think that the U S would have even cared. But
Speaker 1: but but my point is, Pete, they were literally this
Speaker 1: is what happens in the streets. Everybody takes sides, right,
Speaker 1: so they take sides, depending on how loud you want
Speaker 1: everybody to know you takeing sides and where you're gonna participate.
Speaker 1: It's for a reason, right, they're taking sides right there, identifying.
Speaker 1: We have the same superpower structure right to some degree.
Speaker 1: At one time in Compton, just like the the access powers,
Speaker 1: you had gangs clicking up, communities clicking up, right, you
Speaker 1: had Nutty South Atlantic, you had a Cajun town forms,
Speaker 1: you have Front Palmer Tana. Yet all of these communities
Speaker 1: right forming these access power clicks to deal with conflict
Speaker 1: or just define togetherness, you know, within communities, just like
Speaker 1: World War Two, Like it literally happened, just like that.
Speaker 1: So why I do agree with you the Atlantic theater
Speaker 1: would have happened, But the reality is it was different
Speaker 1: when they came and fucked over Hawaii. That turned into
Speaker 1: a different savage on the whole world's front. Here's like
Speaker 1: a baseline question for this, because this whole entire conversation
Speaker 1: is basically somebody said that what we're doing is not right.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, well look at what they're doing, because I'm
Speaker 1: no worse than that guy. No, No, that's what it
Speaker 1: sounds like. You know what it is is people from
Speaker 1: the culture, right, people from the culture can make sense
Speaker 1: of the violence. Now, whether they agree with the sense
Speaker 1: is different, but they can make sense of it. So
Speaker 1: my point is, how can you make sense of certain violence,
Speaker 1: but you can't make sense of other violence. That's I'm
Speaker 1: happy you said it that way. I wonder if that's
Speaker 1: the point I'm trying to semi devils advocate and speak
Speaker 1: on behalf of opinions that aren't present. So there's a
Speaker 1: a line between I can make sense and rationalize this
Speaker 1: violence versus I can endorse or attempt to speak out
Speaker 1: against this violence. You know, like those are kind of
Speaker 1: separate conversations. Yeah, but I don't. I don't think this
Speaker 1: is and this is where I'm going, And not not
Speaker 1: specifically those two brothers, but brothers in general. I'm just
Speaker 1: using their but exosolate them brothers and make it just them,
Speaker 1: not either. I just yeah, you know, but at this
Speaker 1: point I'm about to me, right, is there's a value
Speaker 1: in it? That's the problem. There's a value in it.
Speaker 1: There's a financial value in speaking out against the community.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not saying those two guys are because they
Speaker 1: don't get paid for ship like this, but there is
Speaker 1: a lot of people that really benefits from acting like
Speaker 1: they have no idea, from citing a certain way, right,
Speaker 1: just like in a real war, there's a value in
Speaker 1: speaking out against it with some people, and there's a
Speaker 1: value of speaking out for it for some people. You
Speaker 1: know what I mean? Is it really they're determining factor.
Speaker 1: I'm not getting into why the reality is. The one
Speaker 1: point I'm upset about is when people from the community
Speaker 1: that are informed can't make sense out of it. That's
Speaker 1: that's my only point. And I'm saying, when is war sensible?
Speaker 1: At which level is war sensible? Because of nine eleven?
Speaker 1: Does that make sense? Then? How don't you understand what
Speaker 1: happens nine times out of ten and these micro you know,
Speaker 1: level conflict? Is there a space and if so, what
Speaker 1: does it look like where a person who fits that
Speaker 1: description could say, I understand why you did that, but
Speaker 1: I disagree with the decision to have done that, Like
Speaker 1: what what does that look like and its presentation and
Speaker 1: its application? It's kind of maybe like my question, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess, I guess you can be you know,
Speaker 1: you can be a hippie, like, you know, hippies don't
Speaker 1: agree with no wars right right? Theoretic, Yeah, but I
Speaker 1: don't know if they If hippies are like, oh, I
Speaker 1: totally get why you did that, but I'm principally opposed,
Speaker 1: Like they're they're more just like I principate post and
Speaker 1: I don't understand anything because I'm a freking idiot hippie.
Speaker 1: Well I don't. I don't quite know. Again, that's like
Speaker 1: setting a border to why people understand war, Like what's that?
Speaker 1: That's the point I was asking what is worth going
Speaker 1: to war over that? That's the same question if you say,
Speaker 1: I see what happened, but I don't agree. Is the
Speaker 1: equivalent of say, and you know there's some reason to
Speaker 1: go to war, and there's some reason that aren't. And
Speaker 1: I'm asking you if nine eleven right or World War two? Right?
Speaker 1: When when the when the Japanese came Obama Hawaii? Was
Speaker 1: it Pearl Harbor? Right? When when that happens? Those are
Speaker 1: the two most Those are the two greatest moments that
Speaker 1: I remember in history, you know, as far as like
Speaker 1: study history and anything, where they had the America's they
Speaker 1: had America's vote of confidence, as far as the approval
Speaker 1: there you go, they had the approval of the American
Speaker 1: public to go to war. Those two reasons that are
Speaker 1: rooted in revenge. So if you don't understand revenge as
Speaker 1: a main motive, listen Vietnam we could. That probably was
Speaker 1: the lowest rated American war is probably worse. Now, I
Speaker 1: don't know, I haven't looked it up. That's probably some ales, No,
Speaker 1: but Vietnam is one of the worst. And and Vietnam
Speaker 1: can make perfect sense, but it's one of the worst.
Speaker 1: It is because you didn't have the simple thing that
Speaker 1: human beings thrive on revenge most of the time. It's
Speaker 1: not about justice, is about revenge, you know, And those
Speaker 1: two words are really you know, it's a slippery slept
Speaker 1: between those two words because a lot of people go
Speaker 1: to court. They're not searching for justice, whether they know
Speaker 1: it or not. Even if somebody gets life in prison,
Speaker 1: they're not searching for justice. They're searching for revenge. This
Speaker 1: is the closest that they can get to revenge. So
Speaker 1: I'll take it. So you're asking me, you know, if
Speaker 1: there's a space that exists where people to me, No,
Speaker 1: there's no space that can exist where you can understand
Speaker 1: some war and then other wars unless you say, these
Speaker 1: are the basic guidelines for war. So now if you
Speaker 1: want to say, hey, glasses, this is the basic guidelines.
Speaker 1: Ten people have to get killed, well, then that becomes
Speaker 1: a conversation of how many people were talking about per capital?
Speaker 1: What's the percentage? How serious does it need to be?
Speaker 1: Are there some wars in the streets I don't agree with? Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: I look at some streets. The sixties and their trades
Speaker 1: is not one of them. I totally understand how it
Speaker 1: happened top to bottom. Do I wish the brothers could
Speaker 1: find out another solution? Sure? Do? I understand why? Shi
Speaker 1: it is that bad? Hell? Yeah, you kill my motherfucking
Speaker 1: brother is gonna be some ship about it. I may
Speaker 1: not want America to solve the problem. I may not
Speaker 1: want a jury of not my peers to solve the
Speaker 1: problem or try to get justice for me, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean? I may not want that. So if if, if,
Speaker 1: if you're killing my brother right, or you infringing on
Speaker 1: my tory economically, right, are not reasons to literally, you know,
Speaker 1: create a war. Then there's never been a reason in
Speaker 1: human existence to create a war. Everything about war, for
Speaker 1: the most part, is either you know, revenge or prevented
Speaker 1: itve Like, even right now, when you say the weapons
Speaker 1: of mass destruction blah blah blah, Syria, it ain't your
Speaker 1: motherfucking business about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,
Speaker 1: and let as you think they might use them on
Speaker 1: you or somebody you care about, or you decide who
Speaker 1: has weapons of mass destruction or not. It's all the time.
Speaker 1: It's preventative to some reason. And I can understand. That's
Speaker 1: why if you think about the gang bankers would make
Speaker 1: the best politicians, because it's somewhere that you really understand
Speaker 1: it's just politics. It's all the same mind state. How
Speaker 1: the funk do you gonna tell somebody else they can
Speaker 1: have goods are okay? That is for sure some gang bangership.
Speaker 1: And also let me point out there's so many diplomatic
Speaker 1: conversations and talks in Los Angeles amongst different gangs to
Speaker 1: try to bring a truce, to try to bring peace
Speaker 1: that are pretty similar the way international nations do it.
Speaker 1: You know, we don't have in Bastad. Technically we do
Speaker 1: have in bass We're gonna send such and such to
Speaker 1: the to the table to have a meeting at the
Speaker 1: Youth Justice Coalition because these other guys are gonna come.
Speaker 1: And in the last five years there have been so
Speaker 1: many truces and so many peace treaties, you know, signed
Speaker 1: in a literal sense, um so it is almost the
Speaker 1: same as as nation building, you know, on on the
Speaker 1: level of of nation states, when you have crips and
Speaker 1: bloods and pyrous and Southsiders coming to the table to
Speaker 1: iron off their differences to see if there's a possible
Speaker 1: solution to end a particular conflict. And I got a
Speaker 1: shout out the Florences and the East Coast is that's huge.
Speaker 1: That was a twenty year beef. That beef flashed just
Speaker 1: as long as the Afghanistan US war, UM, and in
Speaker 1: they came to the table and ended it and in
Speaker 1: the last three years, UM, it's still maintaining. So there's
Speaker 1: also these different yes, Florencias, Mexicans, Yeah, correct, south Siders,
Speaker 1: And I think those diplomatic talks that we don't never
Speaker 1: mention that are happening behind the scenes. It's just another
Speaker 1: example as how close this is to international conflict. I think,
Speaker 1: like on the media sense, like if you look at
Speaker 1: like it happens like there's you know, been issues like
Speaker 1: in Hollywood where you'll see guy from Stones, guy from
Speaker 1: forties outside of the nightclub then just for being there
Speaker 1: or whatever, like there's an existing conflict that plays out
Speaker 1: over there. And that's six hundred feet from the news network,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, And they're looking out the window,
Speaker 1: going two guys living a nightclub, one of them the
Speaker 1: shot the other one doesn't make any sense, you know,
Speaker 1: and they don't tie it down to its original geographic
Speaker 1: location in origin. And that's my point when when they
Speaker 1: reduce it down. So I again, like I said initially
Speaker 1: at the beginning of this conversation, I get why they
Speaker 1: think that they aren't totally ignorant. They have no idea.
Speaker 1: They need to have a specialist like alex On there
Speaker 1: to explain such conflicts so they could be like, okay,
Speaker 1: then they can relate, right, But my issue is more
Speaker 1: people that the culture that come from the culture per se, right,
Speaker 1: they come from it, and they get there they're like, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know why people. I don't know why people.
Speaker 1: Yes you do, Yes, you fucking do. Yes, you do
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying. And it's all a part of
Speaker 1: the same poverty and oppression. This is normal in all
Speaker 1: poor communities. This is normal. I mean, it's normal across
Speaker 1: the globe, but it's normally in a poor communities right here,
Speaker 1: where conflicts are solved primitively, you know, it's It's not
Speaker 1: a ton of things to look forward to, you know.
Speaker 1: It's all a part of the same oppression, you know,
Speaker 1: a lack of opportunities. You're fighting over the minimal. It
Speaker 1: ain't like you fighting over the street and you got
Speaker 1: a thousand streets where you're making all this money. This
Speaker 1: is very little area to earn in this community, and
Speaker 1: you are impeding on this territory that we marked as ours.
Speaker 1: You know, what's an interesting random thought. Where you go
Speaker 1: when you are brought in with charges against you, you
Speaker 1: are afforded the right to counsel, you know, in the
Speaker 1: criminal sphere, but you aren't in the civil sphere. If
Speaker 1: you had to write to counsel and then you have
Speaker 1: to sell your house to sue somebody down there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I like that, like that. It just it just it
Speaker 1: just it's weird to me. And I'm just tired of
Speaker 1: seeing the term like senseless violence. It's like, bro, try
Speaker 1: to make sense of it. Taking effort, taking extra effort
Speaker 1: as a human being to understand somebody else's life outside
Speaker 1: of yours, you know what I mean, Like if if
Speaker 1: that was happening, the human experience would be so much greater,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean that that we talked about it before. Right,
Speaker 1: the the verb of being human is humane, like, right,
Speaker 1: that's very much just being mindful and and thoughtful for others.
Speaker 1: So if you just took that extra moment to understand
Speaker 1: the conflict, you may have a way to help, you know,
Speaker 1: resolve the conflict. Like me and me and Alex talked
Speaker 1: about this before. It's like when you go to court,
Speaker 1: Like if I go to court, like if I'm from
Speaker 1: a hundred and seventy street, whether or not I'm participating
Speaker 1: in the crime, there's somebody that could want to take
Speaker 1: my life because that's my community. I may have not
Speaker 1: done nothing to nobody, but because somebody else did something
Speaker 1: to somebody, no different as Americans, you know you'd be
Speaker 1: arrested with Britney grinder. Something simple can be escalated to
Speaker 1: the first point because right now your homies is helping
Speaker 1: somebody we're not dealing with. Right, So when you go
Speaker 1: to court, it's I've said this a thousand times, like
Speaker 1: it's almost harder for us because you're fighting against two
Speaker 1: like ideas. Right, you have a law in the streets,
Speaker 1: and then you have a law that you have to
Speaker 1: abide by as a government figure. Right, But imagine if
Speaker 1: that same system cared about the life of poor people,
Speaker 1: and when they got people of your peers, they got
Speaker 1: people that are from the community to understand, because people
Speaker 1: from the community, like when the kid get killed, you
Speaker 1: think people from the community. But that's how go Hell no,
Speaker 1: if you'll keep missing, it will be problems for you.
Speaker 1: The community fixes its own ship. It, don't just let
Speaker 1: it linger around. If you're a rapist from the community
Speaker 1: and niggas know, no, you get your hat brought to you.
Speaker 1: This will cut your fucking head off. If you're a child,
Speaker 1: a pedophile, they will do something to you. If you're
Speaker 1: breaking in all the houses in the community and and
Speaker 1: people know they will do something to you, they will
Speaker 1: bring your ass to court immediately. So if if it
Speaker 1: was thought up for us, it would be much greater
Speaker 1: if we cared about what poor people was going through.
Speaker 1: I just sat in on the on the Eric Holder
Speaker 1: trial to do that killed Nipsey Hustle, and and this
Speaker 1: exact issue was front and center in the trial. On
Speaker 1: one side, the prosecution saying Eric Holder killed Nipsey Hustle senselessly,
Speaker 1: senselessly for no reason, while the defense is saying, hold
Speaker 1: up jury, there was a reason why my client did this,
Speaker 1: and the whole trial is trying to convince the jury
Speaker 1: that either it was senseless, find this man guilty for
Speaker 1: the max, or the other side of saying, there's a reason,
Speaker 1: find him guilty for a lesser offense. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: these things play out in our our trials almost every day,
Speaker 1: every day. Quick question, what the essential cause of that was?
Speaker 1: Nipsey accused him of being a snitch, He retaliated, It's
Speaker 1: it's a layered nutshell, really in a nutshell, in a nutshell,
Speaker 1: but it gets a little deeper than I said. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're obviously, but that could be a whole another we're
Speaker 1: in a minute forty ee like like no key, that
Speaker 1: probably is like an investigative journalist piece, like you would
Speaker 1: probably need a couple series to understand that that dynamic.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to know if it was true or not,
Speaker 1: if it is it out there that he's on paper,
Speaker 1: see in the trial, it didn't even matter if it
Speaker 1: was true or not, because it's about Eric Holder's state
Speaker 1: of mind at that moment. I was just curious. It
Speaker 1: never well, that didn't in the trial, never came up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's a great point. And and you know, people
Speaker 1: ask me about that. But the thing about these community
Speaker 1: incidents and and being my man, they're layered. Really you
Speaker 1: almost would have to do like investigative journalists like deep,
Speaker 1: you're like so deep to find out because it's not
Speaker 1: as simple as one incident, you know, based off of
Speaker 1: the conversations. It's a lot of went on in this
Speaker 1: and so. But but the point Alex is making it
Speaker 1: it was it didn't matter at all because it was
Speaker 1: no way possible the jury could even relate to why
Speaker 1: they could. It's a legit self defense claim in reality,
Speaker 1: but in jurisprudence, there's no there's no space the claim
Speaker 1: to try to get a man slaughter a man slaughter
Speaker 1: basically saying that he was triggered at the heat of
Speaker 1: the moment by that conversation to kill and that and
Speaker 1: that was a bad defense, and the trigger being that
Speaker 1: that puts his safety at risk. No, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: the thought of the defense works for you, Pete, because
Speaker 1: you have some street sense. But the glasses. I think
Speaker 1: if they had a street jury, they might have understood
Speaker 1: that and gave him a conversation. Yeah, I think it's
Speaker 1: very likely first degree. So one of the issues with
Speaker 1: like Los Angeles annexing so much freaking land in the
Speaker 1: early part of the twentieth century, because if that happens
Speaker 1: in Compton, you're getting a Compton jury. If it happens
Speaker 1: in l A, you're getting You're getting the Palms, you're
Speaker 1: getting Woodland Hills, you're getting downtown Korea Town, and you're
Speaker 1: getting east Side south Central. It doesn't you known Watts,
Speaker 1: You know, Watts used to be its own city and
Speaker 1: Los Angeles annexed it and diluted the black population. To
Speaker 1: thought though, because Compton has a superior court. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: that's ain't going It's a different anything important thought for
Speaker 1: like a black attorney to like move trials to where
Speaker 1: because you have to get closer to oh yeah, like
Speaker 1: emotioned to like you have to closer to somebody who
Speaker 1: could understand the actual life in these poor places completely.
Speaker 1: Because if you ask somebody for Brent Wood, you know,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't shoot somebody over still in my car. They
Speaker 1: just stole my car. You don't understand that the cases
Speaker 1: of niggas will keep still in your car. You're not
Speaker 1: one of the funniest jury selection I've ever heard of.
Speaker 1: Somebody stole my car called the insurance company. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: like you remember, there's a guy who's uh tailback coach
Speaker 1: for USC. When Reggie Bush was there, he sued the
Speaker 1: n C double. It took like ten years to get
Speaker 1: the court three cards. The way through the trial, one
Speaker 1: of the jurors asked to be dismissed because she didn't
Speaker 1: speak enough English to understand the nature of the case.
Speaker 1: It's important and look, guys like, this is a techno lawsuit.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't broke to go for this. Lawsuits that serious though,
Speaker 1: But that but that's a point, that's a real serious
Speaker 1: point and a lot of times and that's what I
Speaker 1: So the point, I guess where I'm coming to is
Speaker 1: that's why I always go out of my way to
Speaker 1: speak on gang culture right with Charlotte maagne Van and
Speaker 1: try to get them to understand. So you can't view
Speaker 1: us as Native American savages. It's not just savagery. There
Speaker 1: is very much sensible things happening. But they're past these points.
Speaker 1: At times I would agree that they are primitive. But
Speaker 1: you also talking about a bunch of people who've been oppressed.
Speaker 1: You talk about a bunch of people that the opportunities
Speaker 1: are limited. It it's not by it's by design that
Speaker 1: they feel this way about their life. It's not just
Speaker 1: randomly that black people don't feel like this way. They
Speaker 1: live in brent Wood. That's the question for the both
Speaker 1: of you guys to answer. What would be like a
Speaker 1: presentable way to package for a person like that, you know,
Speaker 1: who's like to degree from the community, who's successful it
Speaker 1: has a platform two effectively kind of advocate maybe against
Speaker 1: that if if they happen to believe that it's not
Speaker 1: the best route with while also not you know, discrediting
Speaker 1: the reality the situation of you know, maybe ten thousand
Speaker 1: people in your city, Like, how would that sound? I
Speaker 1: would say, listen to this conversation and go back and
Speaker 1: replay this conversation because the more more dialogue and conversation
Speaker 1: we have about it, I think people will open up
Speaker 1: their minds a little bit more to understand. You know,
Speaker 1: gang members um and gangs are like many nations, They're
Speaker 1: like many governments. They're like small little entities. In fact
Speaker 1: that the city of l A when they decide to
Speaker 1: do injunctions, they call the gangs an unincorporated association. And
Speaker 1: in these groups and entities. They act in similar ways
Speaker 1: that nation states do, and and they decide to use violence,
Speaker 1: um when they see fit. I would also say that violence,
Speaker 1: even though gangs do commit violence, it's still pretty rare.
Speaker 1: It's it's not that gangs do every day. It's not
Speaker 1: you know, dudes don't say we're gonna go kill every day.
Speaker 1: You know. I've heard people talk about gangs in the
Speaker 1: most salacious ways, like they go kill every day. We
Speaker 1: have about five gangs in l A, about forty gang
Speaker 1: members within those four or five gangs, and we might
Speaker 1: have about a hundred and fifty gang murders a year. Um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: some some people say that's a lot. But when you
Speaker 1: do the numbers are murder rate is pretty it's at
Speaker 1: below average for the whole nation. Um. So that that
Speaker 1: kind of should open up the eyes. We got the
Speaker 1: most gangs, we got the most bloods and most cripts,
Speaker 1: but our murder rate is an acceptable quote unquote an
Speaker 1: acceptable number for a large urban city. You have the
Speaker 1: most order and the most structure. There's no power vacuums. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there is a lot of structure here. You go to
Speaker 1: other cities, there's a lot Like Chicago right now is um,
Speaker 1: I would, you know, I don't want to speak for Chicago,
Speaker 1: but it definitely does not mimic the Los Angeles structure. Detroit, Newark, Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Los Angeles has a unique structure, and I
Speaker 1: think that it's it's something that should be talked about
Speaker 1: more in the sense of an entity and organization or
Speaker 1: small nation state. That's a great point. Um. My answer
Speaker 1: would be people like Alex, like the news or the
Speaker 1: media caring about it, and having people like Alex to
Speaker 1: come in and actually explain more about what's going on,
Speaker 1: like translation, I mean translating what's going on, so the
Speaker 1: average American public can you know, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: resources that can actually help. And I think that I
Speaker 1: don't think it's on purpose. Like, don't get me wrong.
Speaker 1: I think at one time in this country the goal
Speaker 1: was too to be an asshole to the black community
Speaker 1: and keep people down. But I don't think that's the
Speaker 1: mass idea now, which is almost unbelievable that I'm saying
Speaker 1: that that I don't think that's the mass idea now.
Speaker 1: I think at one time that was the mass idea,
Speaker 1: but I don't think that's the mass idea now. I
Speaker 1: think today more people are ignorant. That's why I'm really
Speaker 1: harsh on brothers that come from the community and what
Speaker 1: they say about the community to other people. I'm really
Speaker 1: I'm listening in really deeply, Like if you start like
Speaker 1: if a lot of the conversations, like I'm hearing about
Speaker 1: middle class and wealthy black people speaking on you know, therapy, Like, yes,
Speaker 1: it's cool to have therapy when you out of the smoke,
Speaker 1: but it's different to try to have therapy while you
Speaker 1: gotta exist here tomorrow. These same things, these traumas, are
Speaker 1: also the things that keep us alive in this environment,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, they're they're the things that that
Speaker 1: we use to to to They're the tools we use
Speaker 1: in the worst moments to survive, you know. And then
Speaker 1: once you once you are not in those environments, it's
Speaker 1: fine to share the tools, but like I always tell
Speaker 1: Charlotte Magne, it is not going to You're not gonna
Speaker 1: raise a generation of people, you know, that don't have
Speaker 1: these tools, and then they're going to exist in these environments.
Speaker 1: What I'm saying, like it won't work together. Like you,
Speaker 1: like a deer, like a gazelle has to know it's
Speaker 1: a gazelle when it's in the jungle. Now, when it's
Speaker 1: in the gazelle park or a gazelle zoo with a
Speaker 1: bunch of gazellees, it doesn't have to be as leary
Speaker 1: as it is in the wild wines and bears and ship,
Speaker 1: it's different, feel me. So it's easy to talk ship
Speaker 1: about a traumatized gaze l right, and and then this
Speaker 1: gazelle will get therapy when it's in the in the
Speaker 1: gazelle zoo where everything is fine, right, But it's another
Speaker 1: thing to try to give this gazelle, you know, therapy
Speaker 1: about that. Nobody you know, blah blah blah. Feel me
Speaker 1: in lines is around this motherfucker because you will get
Speaker 1: eight and that. And that's my point. People like Alex
Speaker 1: you know, who have dedicated their lives, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying to understanding this thing that we call, you know,
Speaker 1: nation building on the micro level, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: and has the ability and the the information and education
Speaker 1: to translate it to on a macro level. That's the
Speaker 1: most important part. Good looking out for tuning into the
Speaker 1: No Sellers podcast. Please do us a favorite, subscribe, rate, comment,
Speaker 1: and share. This episode was recorded right here on the
Speaker 1: West coast of the USA and produced by my homeboy
Speaker 1: A King for the Black Effect Podcast network and not
Speaker 1: Heart Radio. Yeah.