Empowering the "Victim" classes. Double standards? [Archive]

Divinus Arma

01-16-2007, 23:52

I have heard some discussion, in part because of MLKjr day, about the empowerment of so-called victims in United States culture. While there are many examples of this with the Handicapped and females, I would like to just discuss balck America at the moment.

Consider: Black Americans demand equality and cry racism at every opportunity, but yet we have "Black Entertainment Television", "Black Power", the "United Negro College Fund", the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People", and "Equal Opportunity".

Didn't Martin Luther King Jr. envision an equal society where black Americans were an equal race, not a favored race?

Didn't Martin Luther King Jr. seek to erase divisions between us? So why do we see the self-selected "Black Leadership" creating divisions?

I believe that the existence of a "victim class" is essential to Democrat strategy in the United States. The Democrat agenda requires the existence of an underclass for the government to support, so should black Americans achieve the dream of MLKjr, the Democrats would be severely impacted.

Consider the relationship between Black leadership, Hollywood, and the Democrat elite:

Balck America today is portrayed as "tough", "strong", and "athletic". Hollywood perpetuates this myth with (a) movies and (b) music. The promotion of these mediums of entertaiment for blacks in the United States are a celebration of anti-social behavior and success through aggressive behavior (be that behavior legal or not).

Black youth in American culture views its opportunities for success as limited to athleticism, rap music, or gang violence. When black youth attempts to escape these boundaries and attain an education, they are broken down by their peer as a betrayal of the race. In other words, blacks who pursue a route other than that glorified by hollywood become ostricized as "trying to be white".

The "Black leadership" contributes to this by reinforcing the notion that blacks in America are oppressed and treated as inferiors. The truth is that "black leadership" would become irrelevant if blacks were allowed to realize their potential in this country. The argument that minorities require special representation is false. The argument that minorities are discriminated against based on skin color is also false. After all, where is the "Asian Leadership"? Asians as a minority in this country were forced into terrible servitude in the 1800s. They were virtually trapped by low pay and racial discrimination. But they had no MLKjr, and today Asians are renowned in the United states for their productivity and talent.

The success of Black Americans are discouraged unless that success came at some cost to the white majority. Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Thomas Clarence: All were hugely successfully but each receieved the scorn of the "balck leadership" and the Democratic Party. Not because they were Republicans, but because they were Black Americans who succeeded on their own without taking something away from the white majority.

The fact is that the Democratic Party requires a "victim class" and the liberal royalty uses its media influence and political spin to artificially and permanently perpetuate one.

Vuk

01-16-2007, 23:56

We are infected with a new form of racism today. One that favors minorities, women, and handicapped.

In an effort to find equality, we have slipped far into the opposite direction.

BDC

01-17-2007, 00:38

Although of course on average white people still do better...

Goofball

01-17-2007, 00:45

We are infected with a new form of racism today. One that favors minorities, women, and handicapped.

You know what? You may be right. But since that statement can only possibly be applied to the last few decades at most, it doesn't really bother me.

The pendulum has finally (after thousands of years of human history) swung the other way, and the previously downtrodden are getting a bit of a leg up.

Good for them.

In an effort to find equality, we have slipped far into the opposite direction.

As is always the case when a pendulum backswings, it's going to swing too far on the first pass, but what inevitably happens is the extreme on either end starts to narrow and it eventually settles comfortably in the middle.

Nothing to worry about, just sit back and relax.

PanzerJaeger

01-17-2007, 00:54

EDIT: Racism is not allowed. BG

JimBob

01-17-2007, 00:55

It has nothing to do with party. The Republicans have as much of a victim class as the Democrats. Rural whites who are often being forced to sell the farm and change jobs and/or move to the city. The Republicans then play to their fears of slipping American values. Just like the Democrats play to the fears of their victims. The whole thing is about profit. I'd take a guess that most of the elite on the respective sides of the aisle really don't hate each other. They pretend to because they get votes, they get votes they get to be Senators and raise their own pay.

So why does the Black Leadership do what it does. Power, money. People donate to their charitable organizations. They work for those organizations and get to pay themselves from those coffers.
Why does the Christian Leadership do what it does. Power, money. People donate to their churches. They work for those churches and get to pay themselves.

It all comes down to money and power. The guys at the top are all the same. And all of us at the bottom eat it up and believe we are really that different. I think of myself as a leftist. What do I want in a politician? A responsible government that spends what needs to be spent and no more. Does its work efficiently. Is not oppressive. Reacts to the electorate. Is committed to the nation and its people.

scooter_the_shooter

01-17-2007, 00:56

Ok...lets not get in a debate about wether this favoring the "weaker" party is right or wrong.

but.... for those of us who thinks all the feminazi and black pride stuff is getting ridiculous what is there to do about it besides complaining.

Scurvy

01-17-2007, 01:08

We are infected with a new form of racism today. One that favors minorities, women, and handicapped.

In an effort to find equality, we have slipped far into the opposite direction.

I actually agree with this :2thumbsup:

achieving complete equality is close to impossible, but as Goofball says, after the momentum has swung either way a ferw times it should level up to about right..

Balck America today is portrayed as "tough", "strong", and "athletic". Hollywood perpetuates this myth with (a) movies and (b) music. The promotion of these mediums of entertaiment for blacks in the United States are a celebration of anti-social behavior and success through aggressive behavior (be that behavior legal or not).

I think this is true of a lot of cultures, not just black culture. "success through aggressive behaviour" and the "celebration of anti-social behviour" is common outside the black community.

Black youth in American culture views its opportunities for success as limited to athleticism, rap music, or gang violence. When black youth attempts to escape these boundaries and attain an education, they are broken down by their peer as a betrayal of the race. In other words, blacks who pursue a route other than that glorified by hollywood become ostricized as "trying to be white".

generally i think this is right, but again the escaping of boundaries being seen as a betrayal of race seems a bit much, a betrayal of freinds etc maybe, but i think your putting too much emphasis on the white/black divide. blacks who persue a route other than hollywood may well be seen as ostricized, a product of jelousy which comes with such things (common through all cultures) - but i dont think it is because of "trying to be white" as such.

The argument that minorities require special representation is false. The argument that minorities are discriminated against based on skin color is also false. After all, where is the "Asian Leadership"? Asians as a minority in this country were forced into terrible servitude in the 1800s. They were virtually trapped by low pay and racial discrimination. But they had no MLKjr, and today Asians are renowned in the United states for their productivity and talent.

racism still exists, it may be that the black leadership over-emphasizes this, and people are definately descriminated over skin colour (although increasingly less so) minorities need representation, the problem is that they are over-represented. The asian minority is slightly different because of both its reputation as productive and talented, and its generally higher educated group.

I dont know enough about american polotics to comment of the democrat party needing a victim class, although is does sound plausible,

Divinus Arma

01-17-2007, 01:21

Try this one on for size:

http://www.racematters.org/mcwhorter.htm

Strike For The South

01-17-2007, 01:47

Many minorites have a problem with taking responsibilty for there own actions. This is why despite more whites being in poverty more minorites are in prison. It isnt becuase they lack oppurtuinity its becuase they excepect everything to be handed to them. That unfortunatly isnt American

Del Arroyo

01-17-2007, 01:50

I'm not sure I can take the same view on this, Divinus Arma. The expression of black culture does seem to have taken a turn for the worse over the past decade or two, but I am not so sure I see a top-down conspiracy here.

I even think it is possible that the decadence in the black movement in some ways parallels the decadence in American society in general.

I think we both agree though, that further steps towards integration will require more from the black side. I also think it's rather evident that the national black "leadership" is a sham, and that it is not in their interest to find real solutions.

Ice

01-17-2007, 03:55

America should have done what Abraham Lincoln wanted and sent them all back to Africa. :yes:

They are here now, so all we can do is support Condaleeza in '08! :2thumbsup:

How about we just deport all the racists?

:yes:

Divinus Arma

01-17-2007, 04:28

How about we just deport all the racists?

:yes:

Sadly, that would all include half of Black America. I have encountered more black racists than white racists by far.

Strike For The South

01-17-2007, 04:50

Sadly, that would all include half of Black America. I have encountered more black racists than white racists by far.

Its becuase there tuaght whites are evil and are the reason they cant succeed. Its quite luaghable when they still act like they under some sort of oppersion.

Cowhead418

01-17-2007, 05:26

CrossLOPER

01-17-2007, 06:04

Its becuase there tuaght whites are evil and are the reason they cant succeed. Its quite luaghable when they still act like they under some sort of oppersion.
Amazing. You win the thread.

Strike For The South

01-17-2007, 06:24

Amazing. You win the thread.

What its true. In America today whites are tuaght to be ashamed and blacks are tuaght that we are evil and our mission in life is to keep them down. Racism is often an excuse for failure in our day and age.

Cowhead418

01-17-2007, 06:28

What its true. In America today whites are tuaght to be ashamed and blacks are tuaght that we are evil and our mission in life is to keep them down. Racism is often an excuse for failure in our day and age.I think he was referring to your use of *ahem* grammar.:beam:

Sasaki Kojiro

01-17-2007, 06:39

What its true. In America today whites are tuaght to be ashamed and blacks are tuaght that we are evil and our mission in life is to keep them down. Racism is often an excuse for failure in our day and age.

I've never been taught to be ashamed and don't know anyone who has.

caravel

01-17-2007, 10:28

I've never been taught to be ashamed and don't know anyone who has.
I think what SFTS is trying to say is that we are constantly reminded through television, media, education etc, that whites, particularly the British and Americans are responsible for slavery and persecution in the past. The "nanny state" constantly reminds us that e.g. a black man committed a crime because he felt excluded from (white) society, black boys are not doing well at school because their needs are not being addressed by the (white) education system, asian youths are turning to extremism due to their being discriminated against (by whites).

There is alot of this "blame culture" going on, and the blame always seems to sit squarely on the shoulders of the whites, it's always ok to blame them, and doing so isn't racist. They are the intolerant bigots that need to change, whereas the minorities are simply "misunderstood". It isn't people from ethnic minorities doing this, it's the politically correct loons that are actually widening the racial divide. This is generating resentment against whites among the black and asian muslim community in particular, which is coming full circle and increasing racist sentiment against these minorities overall. While minorities are perceived as a favoured group by the white working classes racism will be on the rise. This is simply undeniable. Unless this cycle is broken, and these PC lunatics are packed off to do some real work, the future as far as race relations are concerned, is pretty bleak.

doc_bean

01-17-2007, 11:26

We have an expression here: "the tallest wheat gets cut first". It's normal that people who succeed expose themselves to criticism, it might be harder for people of a 'poor' minority to accept because not only will they be moving social 'class' their circle of 'friends' will change colour. Understandable that they sometimes question if they are true to their roots. Understandable, though perhaps unforgivable, is that they are accused by others of betraying those roots.

Perhaps it's still a bit of African culture that has remained, success should be shared with the tribe, and not kept for the individual, perhaps this view (subconsciously) persist in black America ? Still, roots are important, consider all those threads here asking people for their ethnicity. many Americans seem to still consider themselves italian, Irish or whatever other country their ancestors lived in. Blacks, certainly those descendant from slaves can hardily do that, their culture is purely American, black American even.

I wouldn't change this in a partisan issue though. Sure the democrats might appeal more to black America, but that's probably because they are a 'city' party far more than the republicans. More black people in the cities, ergo the Democrats should appeal to them more, simply since they are part of the main target group.

Honestly the only thing that will ever solve this imo is mass interracial breeding. It's time we get over this whole 'race' thing and move on.

Scurvy

01-17-2007, 11:32

Its becuase there tuaght whites are evil and are the reason they cant succeed. Its quite luaghable when they still act like they under some sort of oppersion.

how do you know thats what they're taught? --> i take it your not black :2thumbsup:

all minorities act as if they are under oppression... its kind of an echo of the mindset attained through years of being oppressed, i think (and hope) it will change over time, especially as more black people achieve in predominantly white areas (ie. politics etc.)

I wouldn't change this in a partisan issue though. Sure the democrats might appeal more to black America, but that's probably because they are a 'city' party far more than the republicans. More black people in the cities, ergo the Democrats should appeal to them more, simply since they are part of the main target group.

Agreed.

There is alot of this "blame culture" going on, and the blame always seems to sit squarely on the shoulders of the whites, it's always ok to blame them, and doing so isn't racist. They are the intolerant bigots that need to change, whereas the minorities are simply "misunderstood". It isn't people from ethnic minorities doing this, it's the politically correct loons that are actually widening the racial divide. This is generating resentment against whites among the black and asian muslim community in particular, which is coming full circle and increasing racist sentiment against these minorities overall. While minorities are perceived as a favoured group by the white working classes racism will be on the rise. This is simply undeniable. Unless this cycle is broken, and these PC lunatics are packed off to do some real work, the future as far as race relations are concerned, is pretty bleak.

This makes a lot of good sense.... :2thumbsup:

BDC

01-17-2007, 12:27

How about we just deport all the racists?

:yes:
We don't want them back...

AntiochusIII

01-17-2007, 15:11

We don't want them back...Australia can have it. :yes:

I'm enjoying this thread, by the way. It's a good start for a good day of white-bashing and self-victimization. :2thumbsup:

Evilz whyt opres0rs lolol.

InsaneApache

01-17-2007, 15:59

While it's often the case that some blacks in the USA have chips on there shoulders, who can blame them? It's not been that long since they had to sit on certain park benches and ride on blacks only busses.

As most of the regulars here know my dad married an African American and some of the things that she has told me that goes on, has made me feel ashamed to belong to the Anglo-Saxon race.

One of the reasons that they do not live in the (southern) USA is her real concerns about my dads welfare.

One thing she did relate to me that I found interesting was how she perceived Africans. They walk completely differently apparently. Something to do with self-confidence and self-belief.

BTW she used to vote Republican until Shrub 43.

Goofball

01-17-2007, 18:34

You know what? You may be right. But since that statement can only possibly be applied to the last few decades at most, it doesn't really bother me.

The pendulum has finally (after thousands of years of human history) swung the other way, and the previously downtrodden are getting a bit of a leg up.

Good for them.

As is always the case when a pendulum backswings, it's going to swing too far on the first pass, but what inevitably happens is the extreme on either end starts to narrow and it eventually settles comfortably in the middle.

Nothing to worry about, just sit back and relax.I'll never understand this argument, it is completely absurd. I really hate it. It's like saying that whites should be slaves to blacks for past injustices. Why should I, as a white male living today, have to pay for what happened years before I was born? I personally did not commit any crime, so why should I be punished? Similarly, the women and blacks living today did not live back then either, so why should they get special privileges and rights? Your argument reeks of sexism and racism, but I guess that's ok, right? After all, only whites can be racist and only men can be sexist. Silly me. Hooray for double standards! ~:rolleyes:

I'm sorry if you think my argument reeks of sexism and racism. I don't see it that way. I see the whole process now as a series of growing pains. Minorities now have a sense of newfound power that they never had before. It's only natural that they try to flex that muscle a bit and test the limits of it. And when those limits are reached, that's what will naturally cause the pendulum to swing back in the other direction, as I believe we can see happening right now.

It's not a question of justice or revenge.

And it's certainly not a question of whites being slaves. I didn't say that, and that can not possibly even be inferred from my statement.

Minorities have been oppressed for thousands of years. Finally, over the past few decades, the powered classes have realized that this should be corrected and have made attempts to rectify the situation. Some of the measures have been imperfect (and even divisive), such as affirmative action. Others have been just plain common sense, like making wheelchair access mandatory in buildings, or forcing employers to hold womens' jobs while they are on maternity leave.

But the key point is that these measures were not designed to punish anybody for past injustices. They were only meant to level the playing field.

And I have to laugh at you trying to compare your current "paying" to what blacks have gone through for the last few hundred years in North America.

It's like holding a birthday candle beside a oil well fire.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-17-2007, 18:51

I'll never understand this argument, it is completely absurd. I really hate it. It's like saying that whites should be slaves to blacks for past injustices. Why should I, as a white male living today, have to pay for what happened years before I was born? I personally did not commit any crime, so why should I be punished? Similarly, the women and blacks living today did not live back then either, so why should they get special privileges and rights? Your argument reeks of sexism and racism, but I guess that's ok, right? After all, only whites can be racist and only men can be sexist. Silly me. Hooray for double standards! ~:rolleyes:

What its true. In America today whites are tuaght to be ashamed and blacks are tuaght that we are evil and our mission in life is to keep them down. Racism is often an excuse for failure in our day and age.

I think what SFTS is trying to say is that we are constantly reminded through television, media, education etc, that whites, particularly the British and Americans are responsible for slavery and persecution in the past. The "nanny state" constantly reminds us that e.g. a black man committed a crime because he felt excluded from (white) society, black boys are not doing well at school because their needs are not being addressed by the (white) education system, asian youths are turning to extremism due to their being discriminated against (by whites).

There is alot of this "blame culture" going on, and the blame always seems to sit squarely on the shoulders of the whites, it's always ok to blame them, and doing so isn't racist. They are the intolerant bigots that need to change, whereas the minorities are simply "misunderstood". It isn't people from ethnic minorities doing this, it's the politically correct loons that are actually widening the racial divide. This is generating resentment against whites among the black and asian muslim community in particular, which is coming full circle and increasing racist sentiment against these minorities overall. While minorities are perceived as a favoured group by the white working classes racism will be on the rise. This is simply undeniable. Unless this cycle is broken, and these PC lunatics are packed off to do some real work, the future as far as race relations are concerned, is pretty bleak.

I think it's evident a lot of whites see themselves as victims :laugh4:

Strike For The South

01-17-2007, 19:13

Vuk

01-17-2007, 19:19

I'm sorry if you think my argument reeks of sexism and racism. I don't see it that way. I see the whole process now as a series of growing pains. Minorities now have a sense of newfound power that they never had before. It's only natural that they try to flex that muscle a bit and test the limits of it. And when those limits are reached, that's what will naturally cause the pendulum to swing back in the other direction, as I believe we can see happening right now.

It's not a question of justice or revenge.

And it's certainly not a question of whites being slaves. I didn't say that, and that can not possibly even be inferred from my statement.

Minorities have been oppressed for thousands of years. Finally, over the past few decades, the powered classes have realized that this should be corrected and have made attempts to rectify the situation. Some of the measures have been imperfect (and even divisive), such as affirmative action. Others have been just plain common sense, like making wheelchair access mandatory in buildings, or forcing employers to hold womens' jobs while they are on maternity leave.

But the key point is that these measures were not designed to punish anybody for past injustices. They were only meant to level the playing field.

And I have to laugh at you trying to compare your current "paying" to what blacks have gone through for the last few hundred years in North America.

It's like holding a birthday candle beside a oil well fire.

"Others have been just plain common sense, like making wheelchair access mandatory in buildings, or forcing employers to hold womens' jobs while they are on maternity leave."
That is not empowering any one or giving anyone special treatment. That is acknowledging that there is a difference in sexes and that each has special needs - something that a lot say is sexist. People think it is wrong to differentiate or discriminate, when it is totally necesarry. (I considered not using the word 'discriminate' because of the bad rep the media has given it, but when you think of it, there is nothing wrong with discrimination. When you pick out eggs at the supermarket and choose one carton over the other because of the quality, you are discriminating. When you walk into a room and try to find someone of the opposite sex to talk to, and pass one over for one better built or looking, you are discriminating. etc etc Discrimination doesn't have to be giving one person a job over another because of their skin colour...just wanted to clear that up...)

Now let's talk common sense vs. PC BS.

PC BS: Blacks were slaves for a few hundred years so now all blacks get special treatment over whites.

Sounds fair right? Now let's try throwing a little common sense in and see what happens.

Common Sense:
FACT: 99% of slave traders were black and well before whites bought slaves from them they had been enslaving other blacks. That is, blacks held more black slaves than whites, and for longer than whites. Also, blacks starved, tortured, mutilated, and even ate their slaves - in the south where slaves were a valuable commodity, they were treated extremely well for the most part. (Which isn't to say there wasn't a lot of abuse - there was. That is where the "for the most part" comes in...)
FACT: A white slave trade was going on at the same time and there were more white slaves in America than black slaves. Also, the black slaves were treated fairly well for slaves, while the white slaves were worked to death and put into brothels.

Ok, Common sense threw out its facts, now let's see it argument.

Common Sense's argument: It is ridiculous to give people special treatment for wrongs done to their ancestors. I am part Irish and the Irish got treated a lot worse than the blacks - should I be raised on a pedastal? Anyone can did up some horrendous wrong done to their ancestors for a long amount of time, and we could go on forever with everyone sucking up to everyone. What matters is the NOW! It is too late to right past wrongs, and giving things to modern people completely undeserving of them isn't going to help those who suffered and died. What we can do now is make sure that every on IS (not was as that is to late) treated equally! Giving special treatment to a certain race or sex will only cause racial and sexual discourse. We will only complicate the situation more and more if we don't stop with the PC BS and use a little common sense. What ever did happen to that golden vision odf equality? "I have a dream!"

I don't know about you, but it seemed to me that Common sense whooped the pants of PC BS!

InsaneApache

01-17-2007, 19:33

What concerns. Did she think he would be harrassed becuase he married a black woman?

Yes.

Goofball

01-17-2007, 19:49

"Others have been just plain common sense, like making wheelchair access mandatory in buildings, or forcing employers to hold womens' jobs while they are on maternity leave."
That is not empowering any one or giving anyone special treatment. That is acknowledging that there is a difference in sexes and that each has special needs - something that a lot say is sexist. People think it is wrong to differentiate or discriminate, when it is totally necesarry. (I considered not using the word 'discriminate' because of the bad rep the media has given it, but when you think of it, there is nothing wrong with discrimination. When you pick out eggs at the supermarket and choose one carton over the other because of the quality, you are discriminating. When you walk into a room and try to find someone of the opposite sex to talk to, and pass one over for one better built or looking, you are discriminating. etc etc Discrimination doesn't have to be giving one person a job over another because of their skin colour...just wanted to clear that up...)

Now let's talk common sense vs. PC BS.

PC BS: Blacks were slaves for a few hundred years so now all blacks get special treatment over whites.

Sounds fair right? Now let's try throwing a little common sense in and see what happens.

First of all, I don't buy into the fact that all blacks get special treatment over whites. Second, you are missing the point. Measures we are taking (such as affirmative action, which I admit is a very imperfect policy) now are not meant as "payback" for past offenses against blacks. They are meant to offer more equal opportunity in an environment that still discriminates against minorities.

You can argue that that is not what the measures are actually achieving, but that was their intent.

Common Sense:
FACT: 99% of slave traders were black and well before whites bought slaves from them they had been enslaving other blacks. That is, blacks held more black slaves than whites, and for longer than whites. Also, blacks starved, tortured, mutilated, and even ate their slaves - in the south where slaves were a valuable commodity, they were treated extremely well for the most part. (Which isn't to say there wasn't a lot of abuse - there was. That is where the "for the most part" comes in...)

They were not treated "extremely well." You need a serious dose of reality. The simple fact that they were considered to be property precludes the use of the phrase "extremely well" when describing how slaves were treated in America.

FACT: A white slave trade was going on at the same time and there were more white slaves in America than black slaves. Also, the black slaves were treated fairly well for slaves, while the white slaves were worked to death and put into brothels.

Ok, Common sense threw out its facts, now let's see it argument.

You're going to have to provide some sources that don't come from white sepremist websites before I can buy any of that.

Common Sense's argument: It is ridiculous to give people special treatment for wrongs done to their ancestors. I am part Irish and the Irish got treated a lot worse than the blacks - should I be raised on a pedastal? Anyone can did up some horrendous wrong done to their ancestors for a long amount of time, and we could go on forever with everyone sucking up to everyone. What matters is the NOW! It is too late to right past wrongs, and giving things to modern people completely undeserving of them isn't going to help those who suffered and died. What we can do now is make sure that every on IS (not was as that is to late) treated equally! Giving special treatment to a certain race or sex will only cause racial and sexual discourse. We will only complicate the situation more and more if we don't stop with the PC BS and use a little common sense. What ever did happen to that golden vision odf equality? "I have a dream!"

1) The Irish Americans were in no way treated worse than the slaves.

2) You're still missing the point. Current measures aimed at equalization are not meant as punishments for whites or gifts for blacks because of the past. They are meant as levellers for the present.

I don't know about you, but it seemed to me that Common sense whooped the pants of PC BS!

Sure it did.

If, by "common sense" you mean "a bunch of stuff you just made up."

:beam:

Sasaki Kojiro

01-17-2007, 20:06

Sure it did.

If, by "common sense" you mean "a bunch of stuff you just made up."

:beam:

:laugh4:

I think he's taking "indentured servants" as slaves.

Scurvy

01-17-2007, 20:18

It is ridiculous to give people special treatment for wrongs done to their ancestors. I am part Irish and the Irish got treated a lot worse than the blacks -

not true...

We will only complicate the situation more and more if we don't stop with the PC BS and use a little common sense.

this makes more sense, the very PC media coverage etc has to be stopped...common sense tells me some counter-discrimination is needed until equality is achieved....

black slaves were treated fairly well for slaves

so actually very very badly, just like all slaves are treated very very badly....

PC BS: Blacks were slaves for a few hundred years so now all blacks get special treatment over whites.

this isnt PC or BS, infact its completely incorrect, not all blacks get special treatment, and its because of the descrimination they suffer now, not from the past that the measures are in place... it might be that the past slavery put them in the position they are now, but thats not the reason for the treatment's existance... :2thumbsup:

:2thumbsup:

AntiochusIII

01-17-2007, 20:19

Like I said, this thread makes me happy. :2thumbsup:

It's nice to know we of the not-so-white skin are now viewed as oppressors and evilz freedom-robbers. I like being oppressive and I hate freedom. Freedom makes me sick.

With my oppressive part expressed, my victimized part congratulates all these people here who find it in themselves the newfound joy of self-victimization; they didn't know what they missed. Playing victim is so very much fun, as the people in question no doubt agrees. :yes:

Lemur

01-17-2007, 21:49

Sigh. Let's slog through this one. I see DA has stayed "on message."

I will agree that there's nobody more dangerous than a person who is convinced that he/she is a victim. For someone with that mentality, there is no morality, no restraint, since the victimhood justifies all. Dangerous stuff.

That said, I hear a lot more we-are-the-victims coming from white Republicans than I do from anyone else.

Consider: Black Americans demand equality and cry racism at every opportunity, but yet we have "Black Entertainment Television", "Black Power", the "United Negro College Fund", the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People", and "Equal Opportunity".
BET is privately funded. Are you opposed to people spending their money however they wish? Likewise, the UNCF is supported by individual and corporate donations. You have a particular beef with them? It's not your tax dollars at work, after all. NAACP is a shadow of its former self, and I don't see that they're any sort of major player on the national stage. So let's get to the real meat of your offendedness:

Equal opportunity. Are you objecting to the EEOC? To private usage? Aren't "activist judges" striking down racial quotas at universities all over the nation? What exactly are you fulminating against? We'll scroll on through your screed, looking for more detail.

Didn't Martin Luther King Jr. envision an equal society where black Americans were an equal race, not a favored race?

Didn't Martin Luther King Jr. seek to erase divisions between us? So why do we see the self-selected "Black Leadership" creating divisions?
The answer to the former paragraph is yes. The answer to the latter paragraph is, why would you act surprised? Any person who finds a lever for power will use it to maintain power. It's up to the "followers" to figure out that the leader is full of B.S., using divisions and hatred to push an unrelated agenda.

I believe that the existence of a "victim class" is essential to Democrat strategy in the United States. The Democrat agenda requires the existence of an underclass for the government to support, so should black Americans achieve the dream of MLKjr, the Democrats would be severely impacted.
That's both a broad and detailed assertion, with little to back it up. Are you suggesting that if no group of people felt victimized, there would be no Democratic party? Do you have anything factual to back that up? Are you asserting that the Democrats created, encouraged and/or maintain the "victim class"?

Consider the relationship between Black leadership, Hollywood, and the Democrat elite:

Balck America today is portrayed as "tough", "strong", and "athletic". Hollywood perpetuates this myth with (a) movies and (b) music. The promotion of these mediums of entertaiment for blacks in the United States are a celebration of anti-social behavior and success through aggressive behavior (be that behavior legal or not).
That's strange—I thought the black guy always died in the action film. Especially if he was best buddies with the white guy. And doesn't the black guy usually get killed in horror films? Or are you conflating rap videos with all of Hollywood?

Black youth in American culture views its opportunities for success as limited to athleticism, rap music, or gang violence. When black youth attempts to escape these boundaries and attain an education, they are broken down by their peer as a betrayal of the race. In other words, blacks who pursue a route other than that glorified by hollywood become ostricized as "trying to be white".
There's a real problem within black culture, but you're not doing anything useful by taking these broad swipes. And I don't get the impression that healing inner-city black culture is really a burning item on your "to-do" list. Fatherlessness is probably the single biggest issue, and I don't see it popping up anywhere in your post.

The "Black leadership" contributes to this by reinforcing the notion that blacks in America are oppressed and treated as inferiors. The truth is that "black leadership" would become irrelevant if blacks were allowed to realize their potential in this country.
See my earlier response to the shorter version of this trope.

The argument that minorities require special representation is false. The argument that minorities are discriminated against based on skin color is also false. After all, where is the "Asian Leadership"? Asians as a minority in this country were forced into terrible servitude in the 1800s. They were virtually trapped by low pay and racial discrimination. But they had no MLKjr, and today Asians are renowned in the United states for their productivity and talent.
The biggest obstacle facing inner-city black Americans has to do with family structure. Hundreds of years of deliberate destruction of family bonds has a retarding effect on a group. That, more than anything, explains why black Americans have not prospered as quickly as Irish, Asian or Hispanic immigrants. I also seriously doubt that there's anything the government or white boys like you and me can do about it. It will heal, I have no doubt, but in its own time.

The success of Black Americans are discouraged unless that success came at some cost to the white majority. Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Thomas Clarence: All were hugely successfully but each receieved the scorn of the "balck leadership" and the Democratic Party. Not because they were Republicans, but because they were Black Americans who succeeded on their own without taking something away from the white majority.
You know, if you had it in you to discuss this issue without making it into yet another Liberals Are The Source of All Badness in the World thread, I think we could get somewhere interesting. As it stands, well, you and Dinesh D'Souza (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011200082.html) have a lot to talk about.

The fact is that the Democratic Party requires a "victim class" and the liberal royalty uses its media influence and political spin to artificially and permanently perpetuate one.
You've made this supposition countless times across dozens of threads. Back it up with some real data, or go sit in the Monomaniacal Theory part of the bus.

yesdachi

01-17-2007, 22:03

Nicely written first post DA. :bow:

I think it has been mentioned here before but Michigan ditched affirmative action this past election (despite some protest the courts found in favor of the peoples vote and support the elimination of AA). I think the sooner we eliminate all the programs that are in place to segregate us the better.

It was gimmicky but the BlackWhite show last year on FX was interesting in the way they explored the “thru their eyes” perspective of the 2 races. There were no genuine revelations but just seeing the differences was fun. ~D

Politically, I think the Dems play to the blacks and once elected don’t do anything to make good on their campaign promises. I think the prominent black leaders are as racist and close minded as any KKK member and perpetuate discord in order to maintain their popularity. It is easier to rally the masses by telling them that their troubles are because of “society”, i.e. Whitey, rather than their own poor choices.

I really don’t think there are as many “racists” as the talking heads would like you to think, IMO more people are just prejudice against certain kinds of people. I definitely have a prejudice against “urban gangsta” people regardless of their race. Thinking about it, I have a prejudice against lots of kinds of people (shudders at the thought of clowns, old people, priests, cyclists, etc.).

I don’t see any quick fix for the racial tensions that exists other than time and common sense. Look how much different blacks (and women) are treated today vs. 25 yrs ago vs. 50 years ago vs. 100 yrs ago. The world, encouraged by the west, has come a long way in a relatively short time. In our “microwave” world of immediate gratification it is frustrating to encounter something that we can’t just make better by flipping a switch or taking a pill, but equality is something that will only become better with time, IMO it gets better with each generation, and generations are not created with the flip of a switch.

I personally find it annoying to encounter a black person (it happened more often when I was in college) that acts like they are owed something by whitey. Hello, Michigan is in the north and filled with people descended from the people that fought to free the slaves. If all the white people wanted to keep slavery it surely would still be in place but there were white people that opposed it and risked their lives to free slaves, heck the town I grew up in was one of the most active stops along the underground railroad. But that’s ok; we don’t need a black leader to propose a “thank whitey” day, :wink: But a little less ignorance about the history of the blacks transition from slave to freedom would be nice.

Cowhead418

01-17-2007, 22:18

Strike For The South

01-17-2007, 22:24

Yes.

Well thats an old and dated worry. They could move to Texas Alabama Mississippi or any southern state and face no pursecution.

Cowhead418

01-17-2007, 22:49

I think it's evident a lot of whites see themselves as victims :laugh4:I've noticed a common theme here. Caravel, SFTS, and myself have all commented on the guilt shaming tactics that have been employed on us, and we are all in our teens. I don't know what school was like for you years ago, but you'd be surprised at some of the stuff I hear from my fellow students and teachers in school today. I agree with Caravel that all this is doing is driving a wedge between the two races, and is definately worsening the already sensitive racial relations.

Goofball

01-17-2007, 22:55

I'm sorry if you think my argument reeks of sexism and racism. I don't see it that way. I see the whole process now as a series of growing pains. Minorities now have a sense of newfound power that they never had before. It's only natural that they try to flex that muscle a bit and test the limits of it. And when those limits are reached, that's what will naturally cause the pendulum to swing back in the other direction, as I believe we can see happening right now.

It's not a question of justice or revenge.

And it's certainly not a question of whites being slaves. I didn't say that, and that can not possibly even be inferred from my statement.

Minorities have been oppressed for thousands of years. Finally, over the past few decades, the powered classes have realized that this should be corrected and have made attempts to rectify the situation. Some of the measures have been imperfect (and even divisive), such as affirmative action. Others have been just plain common sense, like making wheelchair access mandatory in buildings, or forcing employers to hold womens' jobs while they are on maternity leave.

But the key point is that these measures were not designed to punish anybody for past injustices. They were only meant to level the playing field.

And I have to laugh at you trying to compare your current "paying" to what blacks have gone through for the last few hundred years in North America.

It's like holding a birthday candle beside a oil well fire.
I'm not comparing my current situation to the past. Where did I say that?

You're right. I reread your post and you didn't make a direct comparison.

You asked why you should have to "pay" today for what happened to blacks in the past, drawing a parallel or connection between the two experiences. My point was that any possible swing of the pendalum against whites has still caused nowhere near the pain and suffering that North American blacks have been going through for the past few hundred years, and can't be compared.

I wasn't aware that the minorities today were alive thousands of years ago. How do they get the sense of this "newfound power" when they weren't alive while they were being denied it - so the thousands of years argument doesn't fly with me.

I could make the argument that minorities are still experiencing oppression today, but I have a feeling that you would dismiss that out of hand, so how about a little middle ground we can agree on.

Would you agree with me that blacks were still being oppressed in North America as recently as the 1960's?

If yes, would you further agree that some of those blacks who were alive in the 1960's are still alive today?

There. You've answered your own question.

:idea2:

I'm not acting like whites are victims, I'm just sick of racism and sexism being used as excuses for failures.

Your original post would indicate that you are acting like a victim. You ranted about having to pay for past injustices that had nothing to do with you.

A person who is blamed and punished for something they didn't do can very rightly be called a victim.

So, which way do you want it? Are you a victim or not?

People today are a hell of a lot less willing to take responsibilities for their actions, and I'm sick of their BS.

I agree, it makes me sick too. Like the guy (there's one in every office) that gets one beer into him then starts with "I'm not a racist, but two black guys walk into a bar...."

The joke always turns out to be extremely racist, but he thinks its funny and takes no responsibility for the effects of his role in perpetuating negative racial stereotypes.

I'm also sick to death of the argument that "we deserve the backlash" (maybe that isn't what you're saying but I've heard it plenty of times) Deserve it why? I wasn't aware that I was a slaveholder and denying women the right to vote.

I've read the thread through again and find no instances of anybody making that argument. I have tried to stay away from the use of this word as much as possible lately in the Backroom, but you are making such blatant use of the tactic (and I don't even think you realize that you are doing it) that I feel I have to say it:

Strawman.

Yuck.

There, I've said it.

I feel a bit dirty now.

I hope you're happy.

:shame:

I'm not in any way even saying that whites have it bad, and I don't have much problem with the arrangements today, I'm just tired of the people that make me try to feel guilty for what I didn't do. It's just one of my pet peeves./endrant

Fair comment. As I've said before, trying to help minorities should not be about punishing whites. And that means it should not be about guilt. Any action undertaken only out of a sense of guilt is tainted right from the get-go.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-17-2007, 23:10

I've noticed a common theme here. Caravel, SFTS, and myself have all commented on the guilt shaming tactics that have been employed on us, and we are all in our teens. I don't know what school was like for you years ago, but you'd be surprised at some of the stuff I hear from my fellow students and teachers in school today. I agree with Caravel that all this is doing is driving a wedge between the two races, and is definately worsening the already sensitive racial relations.

I'm 20 :yes:

How diverse is your school?

Cowhead418

01-17-2007, 23:24

You're right. I reread your post and you didn't make a direct comparison.

You asked why you should have to "pay" today for what happened to blacks in the past, drawing a parallel or connection between the two experiences. My point was that any possible swing of the pendalum against whites has still caused nowhere near the pain and suffering that North American blacks have been going through for the past few hundred years, and can't be compared.Fair enough. I agree 100% with you here.

I could make the argument that minorities are still experiencing oppression today, but I have a feeling that you would dismiss that out of hand, so how about a little middle ground we can agree on.

Would you agree with me that blacks were still being oppressed in North America as recently as the 1960's?

If yes, would you further agree that some of those blacks who were alive in the 1960's are still alive today?

There. You've answered your own question.

:idea2:No, I wouldn't dismiss it. I agree with you that blacks do have it worse today. My problem is with the people who have played the racism card on minor issues, to get sympathy, or to justify their wrongdoings. Also, I do agree that blacks living in the 1960s were treated unfairly and that many of them live today. My point was about them feeling their newfound power after thousands of years.

Your original post would indicate that you are acting like a victim. You ranted about having to pay for past injustices that had nothing to do with you.

A person who is blamed and punished for something they didn't do can very rightly be called a victim.

So, which way do you want it? Are you a victim or not?I apologize for blowing my top in my first post. I completely overreacted. I don't actually believe I'm being 'punished' for anything, I just have problems with people who believe I should be punished. I'm not saying that you are one of those people, I'm just saying that I've encountered many of them.

I agree, it makes me sick too. Like the guy (there's one in every office) that gets one beer into him then starts with "I'm not a racist, but two black guys walk into a bar...."

The joke always turns out to be extremely racist, but he thinks its funny and takes no responsibility for the effects of his role in perpetuating negative racial stereotypes.I agree. The whole "gangster" stereotype is still doing lots of damage to Black America today.

I've read the thread through again and find no instances of anybody making that argument. I have tried to stay away from the use of this word as much as possible lately in the Backroom, but you are making such blatant use of the tactic (and I don't even think you realize that you are doing it) that I feel I have to say it:

Strawman.

Yuck.

There, I've said it.

I feel a bit dirty now.

I hope you're happy.

:shame: I'm sorry again, I did not direct that comment at you. Once again, I'm saying that I've encountered several people who have made that argument (not here).:shame:

Fair comment. As I've said before, trying to help minorities should not be about punishing whites. And that means it should not be about guilt. Any action undertaken only out of a sense of guilt is tainted right from the get-go.I agree.

Goofball

01-17-2007, 23:39

Fair enough. I agree 100% with you here.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. I agree with you that blacks do have it worse today. My problem is with the people who have played the racism card on minor issues, to get sympathy, or to justify their wrongdoings. Also, I do agree that blacks living in the 1960s were treated unfairly and that many of them live today. My point was about them feeling their newfound power after thousands of years.

I apologize for blowing my top in my first post. I completely overreacted. I don't actually believe I'm being 'punished' for anything, I just have problems with people who believe I should be punished. I'm not saying that you are one of those people, I'm just saying that I've encountered many of them.

I agree. The whole "gangster" stereotype is still doing lots of damage to Black America today.

I'm sorry again, I did not direct that comment at you. Once again, I'm saying that I've encountered several people who have made that argument (not here).:shame:

I agree.

Darn.

You made a post that I find to be very reasonable and well considered.

I guess there's no point in arguing with you any further.

Now, what the hell am I supposed to do for the rest of the afternoon?

I might actually have to do some work.

:embarassed:

Cowhead418

01-17-2007, 23:40

I'm 20 :yes:

How diverse is your school?I know I'm about to lose all my credibility here, but I guess I have to come clean now. When I saw this topic, I agreed with it in terms of gender issues, and not really race issues. But when I saw everyone making it into racial issue, I thought I wouldn't be able to be taken seriously with my point of view unless I jumped on board. In reality, I believe racism is still a big problem (not so much politically, but socially). I still have the same problems with people who use the race card in the ways I explained earlier, but I still mostly don't have issues with the methods used to "correct the balance." If you want to know, my school is mostly Asian, and white, and only about 5% black. The shaming tactics I refer to are not really directed at whites, but at men. In my English and US History classes, I can't tell you how many times I've been told by my feminist teachers and classmates that I "owe" women something for what happened in the past. Some of the double standards they promote and the things they say are appalling, and their sense of entitlement is sickening. Note: I'm not trying to start a "who has it worse" debate (I loathe those kinds of discussions), but count me as one of those who is tired of the bitching from feminazis, especially about the mythological "Patriarchy."

Alright, I've got my coat and I'm out the door. I know I've probably confused everyone with my sudden change in position, so I apologize. I'll go back to being a stupid, ignorant teenager now.:2thumbsup: :beam: :yes:

Strike For The South

01-18-2007, 01:03

White, non-Hispanic 67%
Hispanic 23%
Asian/Pacific Islander 6%
Black 4%
American Indian/Alaskan Native <1%

Marshal Murat

01-18-2007, 01:22

My point was about them feeling their newfound power after thousands of years.

Well, thousands of years is kinda long, especially since the use of slaves as plantation workers has only been around since probably 1500's or so. Slavery isn't just a black issue. Gauls, Germans, Brits, Angles, Franks, Saxons, Moors and more have been slaves. Its just that it was so long ago, I can't sue anyone in Rome for enslaving my Gallic great-infinite grandfather, since he was forced to work on Caesar's latifundia.

I have to say that the Irish were exploited, either pay to get out of the draft, or forced into the army, and while hard labor is never the same as risking your life for the country that didn't give you the choice, I understand.

The Chinese were also terribly exploited, forced to work on the railroads, and then when they worked for less than average wage they were hated and despised. They threatened the local economies and it wasn't cool to be a 'China man' in San Francisco. Have you heard about their civil rights activities?
I think that African-Americans have exploited some white regret for slavery. They started out like many of the yeomanry after the American Civil War. Poor, without a job. The African-Americans could work for a lower wage, and that threatened the yeomanry and their jobs. The pre-exisiting racial problems were exploded.

Just for example, Barrack Obama. A white mother, black Kenyan father. He lived with both parents, and has been fostered in a culture that promotes success. How has he done? Pretty darn good, Senator if I am correct.
It's the atmosphere that you live in, the social influences and pressures that are exerted on you. Barrack Obama started with a Kenyan father and has a darker skin tone, but was fostered to be successful. He is. The Kenyan father in Chicago with his white wife is going to be looked upon in a different way. The social stereotypes, pressures, and ideas about who you are affects who you become. How you are raised is what you become.

I have to say the feminist have the best of both worlds. They can vote, own property, and still be able to pull 'ladies first'.

Del Arroyo

01-18-2007, 02:44

There are a couple of points I would like to interject here. First of all, "minorities", as in minority populations of the United States of America, have not been oppressed for thousands of years. The US has only existed as an independent republic for a little over two hundred years.

If you are attempting to extend this statement backwards in time, arguing that the genetic or political predecessors of "the oppressors" have been oppressing the genetic or political predecessors of "the oppressed", then you are patently and quite totally mistaken. If you look at human history as a whole, or even fairly recent human history, what you see is a whole bunch of people oppressing a whole bunch of other people, without very much discrimination on the basis of religion, race or creed.

Or, to put it in more accurate, neutral terms, you see all sorts of vibrant personal interaction, with a great variety of power relationships between the parties involved.

As far as gender issues are concern, men have historically been affected by society-imposed gender roles just as much as have women. Men were expected to be physically brave and strong, and serve the family by hunting, building, and exploring, things which most men enjoyed. Women were expected to be nurturing and loyal, serving the family by making homes, creating families, and caring for small children-- things which most women enjoyed.

..

The real story here is that economic change always outpaces social change, thus creating imbalances. Whenever there is an imbalance there will be pressure to correct it, and history has shown us that usually this pressure wins out in the end. Economic change marches on, rinse and repeat.

Watchman

01-18-2007, 13:37

Men were expected to be physically brave and strong, and serve the family by hunting, building, and exploring, things which most men enjoyed. Women were expected to be nurturing and loyal, serving the family by making homes, creating families, and caring for small children-- things which most women enjoyed....and did either actually have much choice in the matter ? Social pressures can be pretty overwhelming in tight-knit communities...
Nevermind now the curious longstanding idea that women were inherently incapable of doing anything else, which sentiment still
interestingly enough keeps popping up in one form or another every now and then. It just tends to be covered by the tiniest fig leaves of technical jargon.

Del Arroyo

01-18-2007, 13:47

...and did either actually have much choice in the matter ? Social pressures can be pretty overwhelming in tight-knit communities...
Nevermind now the curious longstanding idea that women were inherently incapable of doing anything else, which sentiment still
interestingly enough keeps popping up in one form or another every now and then. It just tends to be covered by the tiniest fig leaves of technical jargon.

All service involves sacrifice.

Watchman

01-18-2007, 14:06

You lost me there.

Sasaki Kojiro

01-18-2007, 16:59

You lost me there.

A penny saved is a penny earned

Major Robert Dump

01-18-2007, 17:46

I was wondereing if anyone, anyone please, can point out examples of credible blacks treating Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell as Uncle toms due just to the fact that they are blacks working for whitey. Note my words credible and due just to the fact.

Don't get me wrong, I may very well be the most racially insensitive person on the planet. But this is just another gay liberals-got-pwnt thread.

The degredation of black culture has just as much to do with washington-style politics, conservatives and the blacks themselves as it does liberalism. nice try though.

BDC

01-18-2007, 18:04

My ancestors were oppressed for nearly a thousand years by Norman overlords.

Now I'm ruled over by a couple of Scots.

*shrug*

Tribesman

01-18-2007, 20:34

I can't tell you how many times I've been told by my feminist teachers and classmates that I "owe" women something for what happened in the past.
Well you could offer to give them a portion .
They generally feel very happy and content after they have recieved a good one .

InsaneApache

01-18-2007, 21:21

Well thats an old and dated worry. They could move to Texas Alabama Mississippi or any southern state and face no pursecution.

That's not what she says.

Vuk

01-19-2007, 01:37

First of all, I don't buy into the fact that all blacks get special treatment over whites. Second, you are missing the point. Measures we are taking (such as affirmative action, which I admit is a very imperfect policy) now are not meant as "payback" for past offenses against blacks. They are meant to offer more equal opportunity in an environment that still discriminates against minorities.

No, giving equal opportunities is giving equal opportunities - giving special treatment or elevated status isn't. And don't tell me that women and minorities don't get both. I've lived long enough to see that. I think it is horrible that they shouldn't get equal opportunities, but I think it is equally horrible to see them getting special treatment. If you say it is horrible that one sect of society or culture got special treament, but not that it is horrible that another sect got equal treatment, you are saying that one is better than the other, and that is the essence of the negativity given to the word: discrimination. Saying women are better than men is JUST as sexist as saying men are better than women. Saying blacks are better than whites is JUST as racist as saying whites are better than blacks. You guys are being just as sexist and racist as the guys we just worked so hard to get rid of!!

You can argue that that is not what the measures are actually achieving, but that was their intent.

I beg to differ.

They were not treated "extremely well." You need a serious dose of reality. The simple fact that they were considered to be property precludes the use of the phrase "extremely well" when describing how slaves were treated in America.

You really need to read posts before responding to them. I said COMPARED to other slaves.

You're going to have to provide some sources that don't come from white sepremist websites before I can buy any of that.

Once again, we have a reading related problem. Before you respond to a post like this, may I suggest you read up on the subject.

P.S. I am afraid I don't know of any white supremist sites, perhaps I'll check one out after I check your GBBS website out...

1) The Irish Americans were in no way treated worse than the slaves.

2) You're still missing the point. Current measures aimed at equalization are not meant as punishments for whites or gifts for blacks because of the past. They are meant as levellers for the present.

MAN! You have to read more!! The Irish Americans were not given jobs and nearly all initial settlers died! They were persecuted, starved, beaten, put in brothels, etc.
The few boys who did get jobs got jobs in factories operating poor machinery, that should never have been put into use, or became chimney sweeper. Meanwhile rich WHITE women would sit in their parlors with their warm fire thinking of how to free the poor black slaves...while a little white boy was on the roof suffocating from their fires that they refused to extinguish while the chimney was swept.
Most whites considered the Irish worse than animals and thought nothing of their pain, misery, or lives. They thought less of the Irish than dirt under their feet, but at the same time deluded themselves with notions of their humanity by thinking of way to free the poor blacks.

There were sign that said things like: "Dogs, Jews, and Irish stay of grass", and "Such and such job, Irishmen need not apply."

Sure it did.

If, by "common sense" you mean "a bunch of stuff you just made up."

:beam:[/QUOTE]

:laugh4:

I think he's taking "indentured servants" as slaves.

No, I am talking of both...

not true...

Maybe if you and GB spend more time reading and less time jumping to attack things you know nothing of you'd be worth me talking to... meant in a friendly way of course...

this makes more sense, the very PC media coverage etc has to be stopped...common sense tells me some counter-discrimination is needed until equality is achieved....

You mean discrimination. Discriminating against a sect of society because old members of that sect committed discrimination is discrimination...and completely retarded....

so actually very very badly, just like all slaves are treated very very badly....

Not as badly as most think, though there were cases. The point is, not as bad as a lot of whites. So if blacks get special treatment, shouldn't those whites?

this isnt PC or BS, infact its completely incorrect, not all blacks get special treatment, and its because of the descrimination they suffer now, not from the past that the measures are in place... it might be that the past slavery put them in the position they are now, but thats not the reason for the treatment's existance...

Wrong. People always treat blacks with kid gloves because they are afraid they will say or do something one may consider racist. Also, the government gives them special treatment. Don't tell me it isn't true, as I said above I've lived long enough to know it is.
Whites think they should feel guilty about something they didn't even do, it is quite pathetic.
Sorry I have not been on, my financial aid was dropped and I have to get a third job. I have been very busy. One of best friends (who has never done or attempted to do a days work in his life, is getting his college and living paid for by taxpayers because he is black. He is getting grades much lower than mine also.

Marshal Murat

01-19-2007, 01:51

You know Vaudeville? The one where the white men paint themselves black and dress in white and red suits, with the hats. Strumming on the banjo, harmonica, all that old south stuff.
That was begun by the Irish because they shared more in common with the free blacks than with the New York people.
Another mark against the Irish was because they were Papist. As far out as it sounds that John Paul II could command so many people, alot of 1890s Americans were afraid of Catholics and despised them.

Crazed Rabbit

01-19-2007, 02:00

I was wondereing if anyone, anyone please, can point out examples of credible blacks treating Condolezza Rice and Colin Powell as Uncle toms due just to the fact that they are blacks working for whitey. Note my words credible and due just to the fact.

There's the black Republican Senator candidate in Maryland who was pelted with oreos, presumably for being a republican.

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

01-19-2007, 02:03

MAN! You have to read more!! The Irish Americans were not given jobs and nearly all initial settlers died! They were persecuted, starved, beaten, put in brothels, etc.
The few boys who did get jobs got jobs in factories operating shitty machinery, that should never have been put into use, or became chimney sweeper. Meanwhile rich WHITE women would sit in their parlors with their warm fire thinking of how to free the poor black slaves...while a little white boy was on the roof suffocating from their fires that they refused to extinguish while the chimney was swept.
Most whites considered the Irish worse than animals and thought nothing of their pain, misery, or lives. They thought less of the Irish than dirt under their feet, but at the same time deluded themselves with notions of their humanity by thinking of way to free the poor blacks.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What a classic piece of crap , is that some sort of huge narrowback victim complex you have there ?:yes:
What about all the poor Russian French Dutch German Greek Polish Italian ........settlers eh ?

Tell you what Vuk if you want to be sooooo really concerned about existing populations attitudes to recent immigrants then try and remember this episode next time you moan about all the Latinos .

Watchman

01-19-2007, 02:05

No, giving equal opportunities is giving equal opportunities - giving special treatment or elevated status isn't. And don't tell me that women and minorities don't get both. I've lived long enough to see that. I think it is horrible that they shouldn't get equal opportunities, but I think it is equally horrible to see them getting special treatment. If you say it is horrible that one sect of society or culture got special treament, but not that it is horrible that another sect got equal treatment, you are saying that one is better than the other, and that is the essence of the negativity given to the word: discrimination. Saying women are better than men is JUST as sexist as saying men are better than women. Saying blacks are better than whites is JUST as racist as saying whites are better than blacks. You guys are being just as sexist and racist as the guys we just worked so hard to get rid of!!You seem to be working hard to miss the point. Nobody ever said "women are better than men" (although one does wonder if this really isn't so every now and then...) or "blacks are better than whites", or in any case outside the loony fringe anyway. And nobody in their right minds takes those sorts seriously.

Strawmen get fed to lions in this ranch. :rtwno:

The basic idea behind "positive discrimination" is to first of all negate the handicap the discriminated get from the discrimination (well, duh). And fixing the damage done. One aspect is then quite bluntly taking the equality principle and force-feeding it to the recalcitrants in order to make the matter a fait accompli; this has the effect of making the previously abhorrent idea - say, married women working - an undeniable reality and kind of tends to debunk the sorts of arguments used to justify the discrimination by proving them invalid.

In short, forcing the "general public" to recognize the equality and live with it, so over time they will come to regard it as the natural state of affairs. Then we can start talking about dumping the positively discriminating legislation; but as long as the negative discrimination hangs around - and believe you me it does - this is not an option, because removing the legislation will just allow it to become dominant again.

And you wouldn't believe the difficulties our state church has getting some of the hardliners to believe female clergy is just as good as male... in spite of the former having been around for over two decades now.

It's also pretty painfully obvious US Blacks still had to fight for full civil rights and equality before law (which AFAIK still hasn't been realized by the by; darker skin apparently tends to net you heavier sentences than for example "whites" get for same crimes...) as late as the Sixties. And what's with that repugnant taboo about Black men and White women again...?

Of course there always will be some unscrupulous people who exploit "positive discrimination" legislation to their own advantage; in the field of politics this is known as "political enterpreneurship" and populism. But them's the breaks when dealing with people.

Watchman

01-19-2007, 02:10

Marshal Murat

01-19-2007, 04:08

Most of these rants are about how Irish, or whatever other ethnic group was discriminated against, hasn't recieved any sort of reparations for such...
-Poor working standards
-Negative bias due to their religion and culture

While St.Patricks day is great, why haven't we gotten any sort of reparations?
Because no-one is there to pay for it.
The African-American society has an identifiable source of all their problems, and that has been exploited. No white man could ever claim injustice in America because it's so out of the stereotype, and you can't identify "Bob of New York who exploited my great-grandfather."
African-Americans can identify through some dubious but just as scholarly slave records who forced their ancestors to work. However, why haven't they pursued it to Portugal, Spain, Britain, France, Senegal, Ghana, Congo, etc. etc.? That is what I ask, why have they stopped in America. There has to be some records of the slave trade. Why are the plantation owners more responsible for this and not the slave traders who profited from this trade?

Like has been said before, why are Asians valued and respected people in society. Why are they thought of as intelligent, responsible people when we fought the Japanese in 1940's, and the Chinese are taking our jobs, both in the 1800's and in the modern era? :dizzy2:

Its a double standard for the African-Americans. Its because of deep-rooted racial discrimination, but no-one can identify why. Is there a widespread Aryan movement in Georgia? No. Its because of the depiction of African-Americans in society. Many rappers who speak of gang violence, movies that depict a gangster man. Not all movies depict black people as gangsters, but coming from an American, as much as I try, its prevalent, especially at my high school. Wearing baggy black pants, big dollar bills on their shirts, athletic. Its social pressures that are forcing African-Americans to fit this stereotype.
Don't think that it's the 'white man' thats forcing all these social pressures. Like the football coach said a couple years ago, it went something like 'African Americans can run.' This sparked outrage at the implication. I just want to ask, how many American Football running backs are white? How many recievers? In basketball, who are the highest scorers? For the football players, what percent of players are African-American.
Do African-Americans have any good role models?
They have MLK, W.E.B.Dubois, and a slew of people. Whites have everything from Adams to Washington. It's not their fault, but then it kinda is.
Some are willing to break out of the caste of the ghetto, and I admire them. Others fall into the stereotype. Some middle their way through, and that's okay.
So why haven't the African-Americans played up Barack Obama, Colin Powell, Condi Rice? These are the people you can be!

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Watchman

01-19-2007, 05:12

Like has been said before, why are Asians valued and respected people in society. Why are they thought of as intelligent, responsible people when we fought the Japanese in 1940's, and the Chinese are taking our jobs, both in the 1800's and in the modern era? :dizzy2:The bit about centuries of chattel slavery being quasi-legitimized with some pretty ugly racial dogmas might of have something to do with it.

Whatever else they may have been regarded as, the Asians weren't property and little short of subhuman helots.

Major Robert Dump

01-19-2007, 05:53

There's the black Republican Senator candidate in Maryland who was pelted with oreos, presumably for being a republican.

Crazed Rabbit

As stated before, note the word credible. Some buffoons pelting a black republican with oreos is supposed to represent the entire left. Right. Golly, JC Watts lives right down the street from me, and he's a grade-A douchbag, I guess all this time I should have been burning crosses in his front yard.

Redleg

01-19-2007, 09:50

How long have governments been empowering a "victim" class? Did not the romans hold games to appease the masses, to focus them on other things then their own existance.

"Give them Cake"

Banquo's Ghost

01-19-2007, 09:54

Gentlemen,

This thread is beginning to heat up and skirt close to what is permitted when expressing concerns about racial groups.

Please be more temperate in your characterisations and rhetoric or the Four Horsemen of Moderation* may have to ride out.

:beam:

* Yes, I'm aware is deson't have the same ring as the Apocalypse, but you have to work with me here.

Watchman

01-19-2007, 10:30

How long have governments been empowering a "victim" class? Did not the romans hold games to appease the masses, to focus them on other things then their own existance.

"Give them Cake"You've got your parallels screwed up here. The Romans kind of had to do the whole panem et circenses thing in Rome at least to A) keep the staggering number of idle hands away from excessive mischief B) prevent food riots. (The latter, as an aside, remained a very pressing concern of cities in general and the Mediterranean ones in particular due to the inherent unpredictability of harvest and other matters of food production until well after the Middle Ages.)

The connection to the topic of discussion evades my perception, all the more so as the common Roman by that point had extremely little say in anything except through the implicit threat of civil disturbance.

"Let them eat cake", attributed to Marie Antoinette on the eve of the French Revolution, is most likely an anecdote of how totally the French royalty and courtiers were insulated from the very acute worries of the common folk - namely in this case, soaring bread prices due to assorted unsolved issues of which the feudal privileges of the aristocracy weren't the least.

The relevance is again difficult to decipher, unless one wishes to refer to the specific lack of empowerement among the lower orders of late 1700s French society...

Redleg

01-19-2007, 14:41

The relevance is again difficult to decipher, unless one wishes to refer to the specific lack of empowerement among the lower orders of late 1700s French society...

Your getting close.

Think about the political games that governments play to appease the masses to remain in power. Empowering a "victim" class is just another way of doing so. What does this empowering of a "victim" class do? Does affirmative action programs really empower the group that has suffered social injustices, or is it something that the government does to appease specific groups? Does affirmative action programs ease the burdern or does it create a burdern? Does it provide any real correction or is it just a system that allows some to believe that the government is actually doing something? Does affirmative action really correct the injustice of social ills, especially given that it does not educate the society on the root cause of that social injustice?

Now ponder upon that and your statement of The Romans kind of had to do the whole panem et circenses thing in Rome at least to A) keep the staggering number of idle hands away from excessive mischief B) prevent food riots

Marshal Murat

01-19-2007, 21:46

I think the reparations deal is a little crazy, since your forcing everyone after the slave trade ended to pay for your grand-parents mistakes. Talk about repercussions.
I don't know if anyone really owes African-Americans anything for their previous history. Like I said before, why aren't I targeting the Romans for enslaving my great-great-great-great-great-great grandparents. Are the British paying for the Irish plantations?

Anyway...

The empowering of the victim class is a standard political play, even if they aren't the minority.
Hitler did it with the Germans and the Jewish bankers, making them out to be evil burghers who cast poor Aryan Germans into the street. Poor victims of Jewish money pinching.

If you think your a victim, you feel entitled to something, and this sort of petty revenge is just silly. While slavery was a bad thing, does that mean we should be allowing your children to have opportunities that allow them to get a leg up on the competition?

1)If this sounds fair, then why shouldn't we consider race for promotion, if your African American, then why not promote you over your white counterparts! Sounds fair!
2)If it doesn't then your capitalistic and racist, and hate people of other races.

Watchman

01-19-2007, 22:28

Your getting close.

Think about the political games that governments play to appease the masses to remain in power. Empowering a "victim" class is just another way of doing so. What does this empowering of a "victim" class do? Does affirmative action programs really empower the group that has suffered social injustices, or is it something that the government does to appease specific groups? Does affirmative action programs ease the burdern or does it create a burdern? Does it provide any real correction or is it just a system that allows some to believe that the government is actually doing something? Does affirmative action really correct the injustice of social ills, especially given that it does not educate the society on the root cause of that social injustice?

Now ponder upon that and your statement of The Romans kind of had to do the whole panem et circenses thing in Rome at least to A) keep the staggering number of idle hands away from excessive mischief B) prevent food riotsThe Roman citizenry weren't exactly a minority discriminated against by the majority. Neither did they have big-ass historical baggage dragging them down.

Find a better angle, please. The around only things Rome has in common with modern societies are the main structural parts that allow both to be identified as societies in the exact meaning.

Redleg

01-19-2007, 23:18

The Roman citizenry weren't exactly a minority discriminated against by the majority. Neither did they have big-ass historical baggage dragging them down.

What of the large subset of people in Rome who where not citizens of the Republic? It seems to me that the Christians were once victims of the Romans and then became the leaders of the Romans. Did not large groups of people were captured to feed the requirement for slaves for the Roman Republic, were these slaves not part of the society? Were these individuals not "victims" of the majority?

Is it because you wish to believe the use of people to prop up the government is not an age old institution of government?

Find a better angle, please. The around only things Rome has in common with modern societies are the main structural parts that allow both to be identified as societies in the exact meaning.

Ah its not a perfect angle, but it is a valid one in my opinion. There was a whole subset of people who were abused by the Romans because of their difference of being. Various "victims" have been used to justify numerous types of actions by the government. The latest being to empower them over others, but what function does it really serve? Is a social injustice truely being addressed by the government, or is the government using the "victim" to continue its existance.

The point is that different forms of governments have been using a "victim" class in one form or another for about as long as history has been recorded.

Goofball

01-19-2007, 23:37

First of all, I don't buy into the fact that all blacks get special treatment over whites. Second, you are missing the point. Measures we are taking (such as affirmative action, which I admit is a very imperfect policy) now are not meant as "payback" for past offenses against blacks. They are meant to offer more equal opportunity in an environment that still discriminates against minorities.No, giving equal opportunities is giving equal opportunities - giving special treatment or elevated status isn't. And don't tell me that women and minorities don't get both. I've lived long enough to see that. I think it is horrible that they shouldn't get equal opportunities, but I think it is equally horrible to see them getting special treatment. If you say it is horrible that one sect of society or culture got special treament, but not that it is horrible that another sect got equal treatment, you are saying that one is better than the other, and that is the essence of the negativity given to the word: discrimination. Saying women are better than men is JUST as sexist as saying men are better than women. Saying blacks are better than whites is JUST as racist as saying whites are better than blacks. You guys are being just as sexist and racist as the guys we just worked so hard to get rid of!!

When equal treatment began to be legislated or forced by the courts, it was a time when you could be not hired for a job, or not allowed to attend a school, or not permitted to play golf, or not allowed to drink out of a water fountain because of the color of your skin.

Legislating the abandonment of these practices was not "giving elevated status," it was giving equality.

You can certainly argue that legislation is no longer needed to enforce these things, but the legislation was necessary when it took place.

You can argue that that is not what the measures are actually achieving, but that was their intent.I beg to differ.

Simply because it has the virtue of at least being succinct, that is probably the best argument you have made in this thread.

They were not treated "extremely well." You need a serious dose of reality. The simple fact that they were considered to be property precludes the use of the phrase "extremely well" when describing how slaves were treated in America.You really need to read posts before responding to them. I said COMPARED to other slaves.

What you said, and what I was responding to was this:

FACT: 99% of slave traders were black and well before whites bought slaves from them they had been enslaving other blacks. That is, blacks held more black slaves than whites, and for longer than whites. Also, blacks starved, tortured, mutilated, and even ate their slaves - in the south where slaves were a valuable commodity, they were treated extremely well for the most part. (Which isn't to say there wasn't a lot of abuse - there was. That is where the "for the most part" comes in...)

Read your own posts before you accuse others of not having done so.

FACT: A white slave trade was going on at the same time and there were more white slaves in America than black slaves. Also, the black slaves were treated fairly well for slaves, while the white slaves were worked to death and put into brothels.

Ok, Common sense threw out its facts, now let's see it argument.

You're going to have to provide some sources that don't come from white sepremist websites before I can buy any of that.Once again, we have a reading related problem. Before you respond to a post like this, may I suggest you read up on the subject.

P.S. I am afraid I don't know of any white supremist sites, perhaps I'll check one out after I check your GBBS website out...

That's not how it works. If you present a piece of information as fact, you must be prepared to back it up with reliable sources. Otherwise people have no way of knowing whether is is really a fact, or something you invented. You don't just tell the other person to "read up." You are the one who claimed to be presenting a fact. Cite your own research, I'm not going to do it for you.

1) The Irish Americans were in no way treated worse than the slaves.

2) You're still missing the point. Current measures aimed at equalization are not meant as punishments for whites or gifts for blacks because of the past. They are meant as levellers for the present.MAN! You have to read more!! The Irish Americans were not given jobs and nearly all initial settlers died! They were persecuted, starved, beaten, put in brothels, etc.
The few boys who did get jobs got jobs in factories operating poor machinery, that should never have been put into use, or became chimney sweeper. Meanwhile rich WHITE women would sit in their parlors with their warm fire thinking of how to free the poor black slaves...while a little white boy was on the roof suffocating from their fires that they refused to extinguish while the chimney was swept.
Most whites considered the Irish worse than animals and thought nothing of their pain, misery, or lives. They thought less of the Irish than dirt under their feet, but at the same time deluded themselves with notions of their humanity by thinking of way to free the poor blacks.

There were sign that said things like: "Dogs, Jews, and Irish stay of grass", and "Such and such job, Irishmen need not apply."

Okay. Now take everything you just said was done to the Irish, and add to it:

Were bought, sold, owned, lived and died as property.

That's what happened to the slaves (I could have made it more graphic, but it's not really necessary).

Nobody is saying bad things weren't done to the Irish.

But it doesn't hold a candle to what was done to the slaves.

Add to that the fact that discrimination against the Irish largely ended on its own (mainly due to the fact that they are white, and most bigots are too stupid to even realize whom they are "supposed" to be bigoted against unless they have a very visible clue to work from) in the mid to latter part of the 1900s, while discrimination against blacks was still going strong.

Edit: spelling

Redleg

01-20-2007, 00:29

On a related note to this issue

Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. – Angry black leaders called Thursday for a legislator to be censured for saying blacks should "get over" slavery.

"I think we ought to just kick up some hell," the Rev. J. Rayfield Vines Jr. said during a news conference organized by the Virginia National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

In a newspaper interview published Tuesday, Del. Frank D. Hargrove said slavery ended nearly 140 years ago with the Civil War and added that "our black citizens should get over it."

The 79-year-old Republican lawmaker also rhetorically asked whether Jews should also apologize for the crucifixion of Christ. He was opposing a pending House resolution expressing Virginia's apology for slavery.

The Rev. J. Rayfield Vines Jr. (right) of the NAACP confronts GOP lawmaker Del. Frank Hargrove in his Richmond, Va., Capitol office about his statement that black people "should get over" slavery.
In seething comments Thursday, state NAACP director King Salim Khalfani and four black religious leaders said nothing short of an apology by the Republican Party and a formal rebuke of Hargrove would satisfy them.

After the news conference, the group confronted Hargrove in his office. "We think that's very insensitive for you to say blacks should just get over it when you haven't walked in our shoes," Khalfani told Hargrove.

Khalfani said he will await lawmakers' action before deciding whether civil protests are warranted. But neither Republicans nor Democrats were ready to commit to censure on Thursday.

Even the black delegate who is sponsoring the House slavery apology measure was noncommittal.

"A censure is for someone who knows they've done something wrong. I'm not sure Delegate Hargrove appreciates how wrong what he said was," Del. A. Donald McEachin said.

Hosakawa Tito

01-20-2007, 00:36

Goofball

01-20-2007, 00:59

I believe Mr. Hargrove has committed the crime of being politically incorrect.

As far as reparations for discrimination against my Irish descendents go, I'll settle for a free beer and some good natured banter at the local club.~:cheers:

That implies that an Irishman actually does pay for a beer every now and then...

(Sorry, it's impossible for me to buy you a beer over the internet, so I had to limit myself to supplying the good natured banter...)

~;p

Vuk

01-20-2007, 01:06

You know, in the late 1800s when Finnish immigrants to the US began to be regarded as on par with the Irish - that is, dumb and prone to crime, alcoholism and violence but at least White if nothing else - that was a clear improvement in their status...

Sociologists speak of "the opening up of the White Male Franchise" around those times.

The Irish were violent because people were violent to them. They were no dumber than anyone else of their class. Unless you are saying that Irish people are dumb because they are Irish - that would be downright bigotted.

Now, may I make a point in this thread? GOOD!

1st: I have heard historical baggage being mentioned in this thread. There is no such thing. If people think of you as an individual in an equal way as everyine else then you are on par with everyone else and have no "baggage". If you are not treated equally, then you have a problem and it isn't baggage. Your problem isn't what people a hundred years ago thought about your great grandparents, but what people think of you know.
Please! Let's just cut the BS! Any problems currently affecting minorities are current problems affecting minorities and not problems affecting their ancestors.

2nd: Let's talk law. Laws were inforced to give minorities equal status, and that's ok. Now laws are being established that give them elevated status - that is not giving them equality! That is discrimination. People call it counter discrimination, it isn't. Just because other people are being discriminated against, doesn't make it not discrimination all of a sudden. Many sects of society have gone threw periods of abuse, it is ALL discrimination.
Let's call it what it is, eh?

3rd: Now let's talk reperations. It is best to approach this in an anological way as that is the only way to free ourselves of our many predjudices. If a guy kills a woman, should that guy be punished? Yes. Should his children be forced to pay her children "reperations" for all eternity? No. His children did not commit the crime and shouldn't feel in anyway guilty about. Now, let's apply this here. Should we feel in anyway guilty about what our ancestors did? No. We can think what we want of it, but it was not US doing it and we should not feel guilty. No, think of this. Do they deserve reperations? Maybe their ancestors did, but they are dead. Modern minorities have not been abused, enslaves, or anything else that would make them deserve reperations.

Now this thread is getting tiresome and I'm getting tired of repeating myself and defending my statement from people who like to twist them around. Facts are facts and discrimination is discrimination. No matter which way it goes.

Beating a cat without reason is animal abuse. So is beating a hamster.

doc_bean

01-20-2007, 01:09

Sure slavery might have ended over a 100years ago but that doesn't mean they've had equal rights for the last 100 or so years now does it.

So, a 79y old republican from Virginia, how long has he been politically active ? I wonder what his stance was on that annoying civil rights business back in the day...

Hosakawa Tito

01-20-2007, 01:19

That implies that an Irishman actually does pay for a beer every now and then...

(Sorry, it's impossible for me to buy you a beer over the internet, so I had to limit myself to supplying the good natured banter...)

~;p

It's just that free beer tastes better for some reason, but the good natured banter is always welcome.:laugh4:

AntiochusIII

01-20-2007, 01:27

Redleg: Some questions myself, if you don't mind. I'll give my answers first hopefully to contributing something to the discussion itself.

What exactly was meant of the resolution in question to achieve?

My instinctive assumption (of a traitorous, libelous, liberal, evil, conspiratorial, and blasphemous mind according to some around here) is that it either has to be a random meaningless another-day-at-work thing for Martin Luther King's Day or a statement intended to bring some sort of formal closure to a possible issue in Virginia. Either way no harm is done.

Also, what do you think of the comment of the legislator in question?

Again, my instinctive assumption is that he was out of line. Not the blacks should abandon their pasts behind part (now I've sugar-coated his statement for him - -") but the "it ended nearly 140 years ago!" part which, while technically correct, displays a certain insensitiveness and ignorance to the history of the United States after it. Then again, he could've been just quipping out of his mouth, like many of us do all the time.

And, lastly, do you think it befits the act of censure?

Personally, I don't think so.

Edit:

The Irish were violent because people were violent to them. They were no dumber than anyone else of their class. Unless you are saying that Irish people are dumb because they are Irish - that would be downright bigotted.Just a note: Watchman was saying that the People (aka the natives, the "superiors," in other words those who came before) back then viewed the Irish that way. He was not saying the Irish were that way. The distinction is crucial to his point.

Beating a cat without reason is animal abuse. So is beating a hamster.I wholly agree with the former, but the latter...

I beg to differ. :devil:

Marshal Murat

01-20-2007, 01:37

I have conflicting views.

1st-Its true, slavery has been gone for 200 years or so! I'm not seeing any war reperations from Germany or Japan because of their war with us!? Why do you think that slavery has given you the right to call in reparations on ancestors, or to oppress people with what their 'parents did' while many of us probably didn't own slaves.
2nd-He should be more careful about how he says it. Its suicidal to attempt to put down the African-American Civil Rights, especially someone from Virginia!

P.S. Robert E. Lee birthday today.

AntiochusIII

01-20-2007, 01:43

1st-Its true, slavery has been gone for 200 years or so! I'm not seeing any war reperations from Germany or Japan because of their war with us!? Why do you think that slavery has given you the right to call in reparations on ancestors, or to oppress people with what their 'parents did' while many of us probably didn't own slaves.200 years? It's not even 150. Regardless, the whole issue is that the "get-over-it" phrase is pretty rude once you consider how the Civil Rights Movement was as late as the 60's. Sure, they weren't slaves back then, but they were nonetheless second-class citizens greatly limited in their rights, opportunities, privileges, and were pretty badly treated all round. Even at the movement's height of success there was still much injustice in society still. "Get over it" is a little too early for that.

Redleg

01-20-2007, 01:43

Redleg: Some questions myself, if you don't mind. I'll give my answers first hopefully to contributing something to the discussion itself.

What exactly was meant of the resolution in question to achieve?

My instinctive assumption (of a traitorous, libelous, liberal, evil, conspiratorial, and blasphemous mind according to some around here) is that it either has to be a random meaningless another-day-at-work thing for Martin Luther King's Day or a statement intended to bring some sort of formal closure to a possible issue in Virginia. Either way no harm is done.

Does it serve any real purpose? That is a good question, and since I do not live in Virginia I don't know. I would suspect that you are however on the right track about the measure.

Also, what do you think of the comment of the legislator in question?

Again, my instinctive assumption is that he was out of line. Not the blacks should abandon their pasts behind part (now I've sugar-coated his statement for him - -") but the "it ended nearly 140 years ago!" part which, while technically correct, displays a certain insensitiveness and ignorance to the history of the United States after it. Then again, he could've been just quipping out of his mouth, like many of us do all the time.

Well I actually think he was being a knucklehead. It's really never a good idea to forget events in history, doing so normally condemns one to repeat the past.

And, lastly, do you think it befits the act of censure?

Personally, I don't think so.

Again I would have to agree, foot in mouth disease should not be censured, the voters can cure the disease in the next election very easily. I would have to ask the advocates of the censure exactly what benefit does the censure serve. Because unless there is a formal reprecussion of the censure, I don't see a purpose in it. The man's words will most likely come back to haunt him during the next election cycle, but then maybe not.

Edit: By the way I don't believe the government can remove bigoted views from society. Only the society can remove the bigotary from itself through education, communition and interaction. While affirmative action was an decent attempt at creating equality because of past events, it does not address the primary cause of that inequality.

Vuk

01-20-2007, 01:49

200 years? It's not even 150. Regardless, the whole issue is that the "get-over-it" phrase is pretty rude once you consider how the Civil Rights Movement was as late as the 60's. Sure, they weren't slaves back then, but they were nonetheless second-class citizens greatly limited in their rights, opportunities, privileges, and were pretty badly treated all round. Even at the movement's height of success there was still much injustice in society still. "Get over it" is a little too early for that.

WERE. That is the keyword here ;)

AntiochusIII

01-20-2007, 02:03

WERE. That is the keyword here ;)Quite frankly, in many places, they still are. The Los Angeles riot was in the 1990's, for example.

Moreover, the hostility has in fact taken a different turn, and even become convoluted with different attitudes from different reasons -- there are a lot of reasons to hate the gangstas stereotype, many of which valid and not racist in nature, but there are also quite a few people who hide their racism behind that protective gate.

Related to that, is my view of those who oppose the AA policy. In my opinion, there are three kinds: those by principle, those by pragmatic concerns, and those from racism.

By the way I don't believe the government can remove bigoted views from society. Only the society can remove the bigotary from itself through education, communition and interaction. While affirmative action was an decent attempt at creating equality because of past events, it does not address the primary cause of that inequality.I am actually quite interested in hearing what you think is (are?) the primary cause of that inequality.

Watchman

01-20-2007, 02:19

1st: I have heard historical baggage being mentioned in this thread. There is no such thing. If people think of you as an individual in an equal way as everyine else then you are on par with everyone else and have no "baggage". If you are not treated equally, then you have a problem and it isn't baggage. Your problem isn't what people a hundred years ago thought about your great grandparents, but what people think of you know.
Please! Let's just cut the BS! Any problems currently affecting minorities are current problems affecting minorities and not problems affecting their ancestors.Oh yes they are. Whatever the principles might say things like social class and and education level are surprisingly hereditary, since they greatly affect what kinds of "starting points" parents can provide their children. Especially if sufficient economic redistribution schemes - ie. true welfare state structures, which at least by Nordic standards the US never really had - are not present to give the poor kids a leg up in getting decent education and suchlike.

And those principles did not and do not apply equally to everyone regardless of skin colour, ethnic origin, sex or whatever either. Take the US Blacks (I dislike "African-American" as clumsy, so you'll have to excuse me here); only released from rank slavery some 150 years ago; vast majority then had to make do from total economical and social rock bottom; still didn't have full and equal rights in all States a hundred years later; and to this day subjected to considerable negative bias in altogether too many perfectly everyday circumstances (and no, by what I know of it the law doesn't quite treat them fairly either as far as punishements go), not a little of which can doubtless be traced right back to the racial propaganda used to justify treating human beings as property before the abolition of slavery.

Now you tell me where that isn't a lot of negative historical baggage getting in the way (atop everything else) of young Blacks trying to make something out of themselves ?

Social structures and dynamics do not exist in a void. They have and are the product of their histories.

Vuk

01-20-2007, 02:26

Quite frankly, in many places, they still are. The Los Angeles riot was in the 1990's, for example.

Moreover, the hostility has in fact taken a different turn, and even become convoluted with different attitudes from different reasons -- there are a lot of reasons to hate the gangstas stereotype, many of which valid and not racist in nature, but there are also quite a few people who hide their racism behind that protective gate.

Related to that, is my view of those who oppose the AA policy. In my opinion, there are three kinds: those by principle, those by pragmatic concerns, and those from racism.

Those are current problems, not past.
You cannot change peoples opinions with laws. You can only ensure that people are treated equally. Time and good role models will change peoples opinions.

Vuk

01-20-2007, 02:35

Oh yes they are. Whatever the principles might say things like social class and and education level are surprisingly hereditary, since they greatly affect what kinds of "starting points" parents can provide their children. Especially if sufficient economic redistribution schemes - ie. true welfare state structures, which at least by Nordic standards the US never really had - are not present to give the poor kids a leg up in getting decent education and suchlike.

And those principles did not and do not apply equally to everyone regardless of skin colour, ethnic origin, sex or whatever either. Take the US Blacks (I dislike "African-American" as clumsy, so you'll have to excuse me here); only released from rank slavery some 150 years ago; vast majority then had to make do from total economical and social rock bottom; still didn't have full and equal rights in all States a hundred years later; and to this day subjected to considerable negative bias in altogether too many perfectly everyday circumstances (and no, by what I know of it the law doesn't quite treat them fairly either as far as punishements go), not a little of which can doubtless be traced right back to the racial propaganda used to justify treating human beings as property before the abolition of slavery.

Now you tell me where that isn't a lot of negative historical baggage getting in the way (atop everything else) of young Blacks trying to make something out of themselves ?

Social structures and dynamics do not exist in a void. They have and are the product of their histories.

Again, all you are saying is that they were treated badly in the past. Just as many or more whites were on the same or lowers economic rungs when blacks got full rights and had to fend fore themselves. Blacks have more than equal opportunities and if they want can do just about anything. My older brother and I grew up without a father, working for everything we got. He is now a successful teacher. I have went through 4 years of college and am going back for more. I guess I chose a proffession that wasn't for me. We came from the very bottom, or darn near the very bottom of the economic ladder, but worked and are going to give our children a good life. Blacks are given more opportunities and when they choose can really make something out of themselves. There are a lot of succsessfull blacks that worked for what they have, and then there are the ones (just as there are whites like so), who don't work and try to improve themselves. There are very few who are actually stuck where they are, and by no means more than there are white people. That is a question of helping the poor, not helping minorities.

Watchman

01-20-2007, 02:39

:wall:
Christ.

Redleg

01-20-2007, 02:46

I am actually quite interested in hearing what you think is (are?) the primary cause of that inequality.

Well its more complex then the simple statement I am going to state. But most of it comes from the idiocy of people and the inability of society as a whole to to evaluate others based upon their individual behavior versus some other trait.

Once it starts it takes several generations to remove the idiocy from both groups. From the end of the civil war how many generations did it take for some to realize for all to be equal, all must be treated equal? Then one must look at how many generations since the Civil Rights movement took hold?

My guess is that the effects of slavery will be felt in the United States for at least two to three more generations before the issue can be discussed in a purely historical manner. Where blacks might begin to feel that they are indeed equal in all things to any other grouping of people in the nation. And even then there will be hold-outs that believe race makes a determination about an individuals potential and worth.

Marshal Murat

01-20-2007, 02:53

Vuk

01-20-2007, 03:09

I have an interesting idea.

We stop teaching about the slave trade, especially in America
Many of you will have already hit the Reply button by now, but I will continue.

I'm just as versed in the idea of 'history repeats itself', but here is the basis for my argument.
1.You teach students that disciminating on the basis of race is a bad thing, that all men are created equal. If you see someone attacking (physically or verbally) due to skin color, confront the person.

2.Don't teach about slavery in the South. This associates a stigma with being white, or that blacks were at one point slaves. Talk about how they came to America to work hard and earn their keep. Everyone is equal.

Why wouldn't this work?

Because history is important and no one has the right to with hold it. You do and you will raise a generation of ignorant idiots who can't decide on their own future because they don't know their past. The past is there for us to learn from. The lesson we should learn about the slave trade is that discrimination is bad; any type of discrimination.

AntiochusIII

01-20-2007, 03:13

Well its more complex then the simple statement I am going to state. But most of it comes from the idiocy of people and the inability of society as a whole to to evaluate others based upon their individual behavior versus some other trait.

Once it starts it takes several generations to remove the idiocy from both groups. From the end of the civil war how many generations did it take for some to realize for all to be equal, all must be treated equal? Then one must look at how many generations since the Civil Rights movement took hold?That is an interesting thesis about the time scale in which such trends take hold, and the reason behind it. I do believe, however, that while AA as a policy is far, far from perfect, or even adequate, it does accelerate the process by artificially removing some of the crucial early hurdles that they face allowing the "liberation" to come closer to fact. I believe we wouldn't be as far in the progress today if the public was not forced to confront itself sometimes. At least the younger generation gets to grow up without the shackles and the lynchings still there, even if the mindset -- from both sides -- remains.

And it's rather better than the first time around, the "Reconstruction," where the federals did well nigh nothing to prevent the newly liberated ex-slaves from becoming de facto slaves again.

One could say I'm just naive to believe that we can try to balance gradualism with bursts of revolutionary jumps. :juggle2:

Why wouldn't this work?Because the kids will then grow up susceptible to racist propaganda instead of historical knowledge and soon we'll have a whole new generation of racists with progress back at square one?

That and preventing spread of information just because tends to make things pretty unpleasant in the long run.

Marshal Murat

01-20-2007, 03:20

Because the kids will then grow up susceptible to racist propaganda instead of historical knowledge and soon we'll have a whole new generation of racists with progress back at square one?

Doesn't the historical knowledge give us pre-concieved notions of racial ability. I could tell a child "You know about slavery? Thats because the Blacks were weak. See, look at all these years of slavery!" and that would make more sense. History isn't pure. Why would everyone revert to a racist, bigoted viewpoint if they think everyone is equal and that race doesn't matter?

Didn't Lenin say something about 'give me a generation and I will give you the world!'?

Lemur

01-20-2007, 07:30

Didn't Lenin say something about 'give me a generation and I will give you the world!'?
If he did say it, he was sadly mistaken. Turns out societies have looooong social memories, something a couple of generations of purges can't eliminate.

Tribesman

01-20-2007, 07:37

Didn't Lenin say something about 'give me a generation and I will give you the world!'?
damn , I thought that was Roger Daltrey .

doc_bean

01-20-2007, 12:50

Doesn't the historical knowledge give us pre-concieved notions of racial ability. I could tell a child "You know about slavery? Thats because the Blacks were weak. See, look at all these years of slavery!" and that would make more sense. History isn't pure. Why would everyone revert to a racist, bigoted viewpoint if they think everyone is equal and that race doesn't matter?

"Look at all those ********** in the ghetto, you know why they live there ? Because they are weak" . What's the difference ? At least the historical perspective gives you part of the reason why so much of the 'underclass' has a darker skintone.

Even without this 'practical' issue, society remembers. The 'friendly' banter between the Flemish and the Dutch runs back to a war a few hundred years ago. the UK-France are in a similar situation. Most people probably have only vaguely heard about these wars (some boring histroy class they had to take) yet the effects are still clear. History is important so we wouldn't forget the reasons. If you'd look at the difference in social status between blacks and whites today, you might be inclined to draw all kinds of conclusions without the histrorical perspective. Perhaps they're just not as intelligent ? Perhaps we (whites) are superior ? See where this is going ?

My older brother and I grew up without a father, working for everything we got.

So I take it you were raised in the ghetto, between drug dealers and junkies, avoiding gang territory on your way to a high school that had metal detectors, and actually needed those, got a scholarship to college or worked to pay for it ?

Because that's the real situation a lot of them face. I'm not saying you didn't do well for yourself, congratulations and all, but how bad did you really have it ? AND you never had to face racial prejudgice (sp ?) when applying for a job I assume.

Fragony

01-20-2007, 13:28

Even without this 'practical' issue, society remembers. The 'friendly' banter between the Flemish and the Dutch runs back to a war a few hundred years ago.

Not that mutual mia muca, we dutchies have nothing against the flemish, the other way around............ well :sweatdrop:

doc_bean

01-20-2007, 15:47

Not that mutual mia muca, we dutchies have nothing against the flemish, the other way around............ well :sweatdrop:

You're probably right that we tend to be the worst offenders in this particular fued :embarassed:

Vuk

01-20-2007, 18:37

If he did say it, he was sadly mistaken. Turns out societies have looooong social memories, something a couple of generations of purges can't eliminate.

People's memories are distorted with predjudice and tall tales. People believe what they are taught, and it is important to teach them the truth.

So I take it you were raised in the ghetto, between drug dealers and junkies, avoiding gang territory on your way to a high school that had metal detectors, and actually needed those, got a scholarship to college or worked to pay for it ?

Because that's the real situation a lot of them face. I'm not saying you didn't do well for yourself, congratulations and all, but how bad did you really have it ? AND you never had to face racial prejudgice (sp ?) when applying for a job I assume.

No, I didn't grow up with gangs, but neither was I stupid enough to join them. You forget that a lot of whites/hispanics/and others grow up in those types of situations also. Most have the chance to leave, but don't. You can cry all you like, but the truth is that very few people in the US are unable to better their standing and social situation.

I grew up in antarctic Wisconsin, and have went -40 days without boots before. I am not saying that a LOT of people don't have it harder than me, but I had it pretty hard - esp. since I came from a family of 8!

Yes, I have faced discrimination when applying for jobs, not so much racial (that I know) as sexual. One of my best friends (who I dated for a while) and was not nearly as qualified as me got a job over me because of her sex. That is just stupid. Company owners should be able to hire the best for their company, regardless of sex or race. It is funny, the best student in my graduation class was Hispanic, if people got jobs based on merit, he would have no trouble at all.

doc_bean

01-20-2007, 20:02

ther was I stupid enough to join them. You forget that a lot of whites/hispanics/and others grow up in those types of situations also. Most have the chance to leave, but don't. You can cry all you like, but the truth is that very few people in the US are unable to better their standing and social situation.

Perhaps true, and that's also what 'positive' discrimination is about. If people see more people 'like them' making it in the world, maybe they'll actually believe it's possible for them too. There are thousands of stories here about kids of immigrants not getting a decent education because the jobs just go to the whiter guys anyway. They give up, and some get angry at society and become criminals (I admit, JAG-like simplification of the situation).

Think about it, if you where black and every store owner, politician, company owner and whatnot was white, you get the opportunity to receive the best education possible, free of charges. Would you really believe you could make it in live ? No one else did. Won't you figure there must be a catch ?

These psychological barriers are real, and they CAN be overcome with time, and a little faster with some help (from the government).

Vuk

01-20-2007, 21:46

Perhaps true, and that's also what 'positive' discrimination is about. If people see more people 'like them' making it in the world, maybe they'll actually believe it's possible for them too. There are thousands of stories here about kids of immigrants not getting a decent education because the jobs just go to the whiter guys anyway. They give up, and some get angry at society and become criminals (I admit, JAG-like simplification of the situation).

Think about it, if you where black and every store owner, politician, company owner and whatnot was white, you get the opportunity to receive the best education possible, free of charges. Would you really believe you could make it in live ? No one else did. Won't you figure there must be a catch ?

These psychological barriers are real, and they CAN be overcome with time, and a little faster with some help (from the government).

First, you are wrong. Minorities are no longer discriminated against for jobs. It is true that some people still have predjudices, but they cannot be changed with laws. You can't force people to give people of a certain skin colour a job over someone of another skin colour. That is just as bad. The government should not let people get away with discrimination - not force them to discriminate!!
Not to cliche blacks at all, but one of the reasons for predjudice is that the blacks feel they are victims and don't have to work as hard as everyone else, which is doing a lot of bad for their race. They get this victim complex from laws like the ones we are speaking of.
The government has to squash racial discrimination - not force it!

EDIT: You said "positive discrimination". I must once again say: Discrimination is Discrimination. If you discriminate, then people are not equal, and as long as you discriminate, they never will be.

doc_bean

01-20-2007, 22:05

First, you are wrong. Minorities are no longer discriminated against for jobs. It is true that some people still have predjudices, but they cannot be changed with laws. You can't force people to give people of a certain skin colour a job over someone of another skin colour. That is just as bad. The government should not let people get away with discrimination - not force them to discriminate!!
Not to cliche blacks at all, but one of the reasons for predjudice is that the blacks feel they are victims and don't have to work as hard as everyone else, which is doing a lot of bad for their race. They get this victim complex from laws like the ones we are speaking of.
The government has to squash racial discrimination - not force it!

Well, you didn't adress my psychological barrier point. And that's one of the important things behind AA. It should become accepted that people of all clours and etnicities can have jobs in all layers of society, so that people can actually believe that they too stand a chance. That education and work is a way out of the misery.

I don't agree with your 'not having to work as everyone else' statement either. If they are mostly poor and white people are mostly middle class (broad generaliztion warning !) than it stands to reaosn that most of them do have to work harder (than the average person) to get anywhere in live.

There probably is a victim complex, which probably has a lot to due with important black leaders during the civil rights struggle getting assassinated. They did once try to keep the black man down. It's hard for some people (or a segment of society) to accept that things have changed that much by now.

Look at the Jews (not that I have got anything against them), some of them are still crying about the holocaust (which was indeed terrible) and that was much longer ago than the civil rights struggle (nearly twice as long ago).

Vuk

01-20-2007, 22:15

Well, you didn't adress my psychological barrier point. And that's one of the important things behind AA. It should become accepted that people of all clours and etnicities can have jobs in all layers of society, so that people can actually believe that they too stand a chance. That education and work is a way out of the misery.

I don't agree with your 'not having to work as everyone else' statement either. If they are mostly poor and white people are mostly middle class (broad generaliztion warning !) than it stands to reaosn that most of them do have to work harder (than the average person) to get anywhere in live.

There probably is a victim complex, which probably has a lot to due with important black leaders during the civil rights struggle getting assassinated. They did once try to keep the black man down. It's hard for some people (or a segment of society) to accept that things have changed that much by now.

Look at the Jews (not that I have got anything against them), some of them are still crying about the holocaust (which was indeed terrible) and that was much longer ago than the civil rights struggle (nearly twice as long ago).

I did address the "psychological barrier". I believe that it is caused by AA and "empowering victim policies". It makes them think that they need help, and are not good enough to do things themselves, thus a victim complex.
Not to generalize blacks, but a big reason blacks are stuck where they are is because they refuse to move. You have a lot of ambitious blacks that work hard and make things of themselves (with out needing help), but unfortunately, a lot of blacks are not willing to work and straighten up, content instead to keep recieving the bread that the government keeps handing them. And as long as the government keeps handing them bread, they are unlikely to get up and move. You see? It is your very policy of empowering th victim that is keeping them back. I have had a lot of experience with blacks and I know what I am talking about. Also, those policies breed hate of whites in blacks, and makes whites think very poorly of blacks.