Victimhood: Rhetoric or reality?

Quote:

---

Victimhood: Rhetoric or reality?
Walter E. Williams (archive)

June 8, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Send

If you listened to the rhetoric of black politicians and civil rights leaders, dating back to the Reagan years, you would have been convinced that surely by now black Americans would be back on the plantation. According to them, President Reagan, and later Presidents Bush I and II, would turn back the clock on civil rights. They'd appoint "new racists" dressed in three-piece suits to act through the courts and administrative agencies to reverse black civil rights and economic gains. We can now recognize this rhetoric as the political equivalent of the "rope-a-dope."

As my colleague Tom Sowell pointed out in a recent column, "Liberals, Race and History," if the Democratic party's share of the black vote ever fell to even 70 percent, it's not likely that the Democrats would ever win the White House or Congress again. The strategy liberal Democrats have chosen, to prevent loss of the black vote, is to keep blacks paranoid and in a constant state of fear. But is it fear of racists, or being driven back to the plantation, that should be a top priority for blacks? Let's look at it.

Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school. Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It's also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation.

Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.

What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925, "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery -- a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.

Since black politicians and the civil rights establishment preach victimhood to blacks, I'd prefer that they be more explicit when they appear in public fora. Were they to be so, saying racists are responsible for black illegitimacy, blacks preying on other blacks and black family breakdown, their victimhood message would be revealed as idiotic. But being so explicit is not as far-fetched as one might think. In a campaign speech before a predominantly black audience, in reference to so many blacks in prison, presidential candidate John Kerry said, "That's unacceptable, but it's not their fault."

---

When will black america wake up to this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

When will black america wake up to this?

---

What makes them a single group that 'has to wake up' besides the colour of their skin ?


I'm not a fan of race-based statistics, except maybe if you can compare them to poverty-based statistics, and have a way to determine the correlation between both.

I'm not a fan of race-based statistics, except maybe if you can compare them to poverty-based statistics, and have a way to determine the correlation between both.
Or how about some statistics that show the rise in the amount of non black illegitimate children or the amount of non blacks who never get married .

But of course you wouldn't expect to see those sort of figures to make a comparrison for yourself from an author who thinks aparthied and colonialism are the way forward . :dizzy2:

Weeel, its inflamatory stuff but Big G may have a point on this one.

I can't speak for the US experience, but just recently the (black) head of the Commission for Racial Equality has been suggesting tha black boys should have soem separate education in the UK to address their chronic under acheivement. How do we know that under acheivement is not caused by poverty? because its not shared by black girls, who presumably share the same economic circumstances as their brothers.

There is clearly in my mind a victimhood industry, which serves the interests only of those who make money or have status out of "protecting" the victims. Its why you see so called left wing parties pursuing benefit policies designed to lock people into long term dependancy, why Cherie Blair will never say "You know what? I think we've cracked discrimination now" and so on.

We all bear the costs. Childcare experts will tell you that if you show a child you expect it to misbehave it will, yet no one considers the effects of telling ethnic minority children that society is racist or that white people invaded their (great great great great) grandparents countries. "self fulfilling prophesy" comes to mind.

The cocktail party socialists can laugh it up all they like, but my parents and grandparents were real working class and I can tell you its only the right of centre parties that really offer any opportunity for the poor. Its the difference between offerign an operation that makes you better and offering a painkiller that makes the illness more bearable.

(As an aside and by way of demonstrating my working class cred: My granddad was a shipwright in a naval dockyard. He was actually at the election hustings in the 1960's when Harold Wilson (Labour PM) famously paused in his speech to ask the rhetorical question "And WHY do I say we need to spend more money on new ships for the Royal Navy?"

Before he could answer himself a voice from the back replied "Because you are in Chatham Naval Dockyard" ...)

but just recently the (black) head of the Commission for Racial Equality has been suggesting tha black boys should have soem separate education in the UK to address their chronic under acheivement.
Wasnt that the suggestion that under achieving students should recieve extra lessons after their normal school day or during their break times .

If it's true, then it's true. If it's bad, then it should be made better. No amount of complaining about it being PC or polite will take away the sting.

Feed people excuses and they will use it, by blaiming society you create a climate of low expectations. Blacks aren't victims, they just like to think that because it's easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

If it's true, then it's true. If it's bad, then it should be made better. No amount of complaining about it being PC or polite will take away the sting.

---

It's not that it's not PC, it's just dumb to give statistics without a means for comparison.

But thinking that black people need special care because they are black is simply ridiculous. Why don't we have special classes for blonds then, they can use it too ~:joker:

Quote:

---

But of course you wouldn't expect to see those sort of figures to make a comparrison for yourself from an author who thinks aparthied and colonialism are the way forward .

---

He does?

http://www.townhall.com/graphics1/co.../wwilliams.gif

What a good article... But I thought that we already knew that scare tactics are used by left-handed folk (not that they aren't used by right-handed folk, because they are). Surely this isn't anything new?

And since when wasn't colonialism the way forward. How else can one expect there to be world peace without aliens coming in to be a common enemy? Apartheid may not be the way forward, but colonialism is not to be ruled out...

I just read that article twice, trying to see what the author is suggesting as a solution to the "problems" of black America. Unfortunately, it seems that the author was more interested in washing white hands of guilt and casting blame at blacks themselves for their own oppression.

A brief précis of the article, for those of you who don't want to waste too much of your time reading it:

"Blacks are in the position they are in today because they lack the moral fiber of whites, and they have nobody to blame but themselves. Correction: they can also blame liberals, because as we know, liberalism is to blame for everything."

That isn't what it says. It says that the liberals make black people think that they are still being severely oppressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I just read that article twice, trying to see what the author is suggesting as a solution to the "problems" of black America. Unfortunately, it seems that the author was more interested in washing white hands of guilt and casting blame at blacks themselves for their own oppression.

A brief précis of the article, for those of you who don't want to waste too much of your time reading it:

"Blacks are in the position they are in today because they lack the moral fiber of whites, and they have nobody to blame but themselves. Correction: they can also blame liberals, because as we know, liberalism is to blame for everything."

---

Well gosh, that's one way of looking at it. ~:rolleyes:

Maybe you should consider the fact that Sowell and Williams reference whites simply because they're the overwhelming majority of the US population and their behavior better represents what the 'average' American is up to. But Sowell and Williams primarily reference whites because their rabble rousing, left wing counterparts in the African American community only see matters in terms of black and white. The same US Census statistics that Sowell and Williams cite showing the disparities between whites and blacks also show Asians (specifically E & SE Asians) to have the lowest rates of illegitimacy and crime of any racial group in America. Asians may earn more and achieve more than any other group in the States but it would be a self defeating strategy if prominent left wing African Americans like Barack Obama or worse, Al Sharpton and his ilk were to incorporate Asian Americans (or even Hispanics who also outearn and surpass blacks in per capita income and academic achievement) into their arguments. If this happened then their charges of institutionalized racism on the part of whites would fall apart like a house of cards on a windy day. The black and white argument is basically the ONLY argument left wingers have on this issue because it allows them to cite this nation's track record on race prior to the Civil Rights movement. Regarding the last 40 odd years the argument of institutionalized racism simply doesn't hold up when taking into account the achievements of the non-white/non-black racial groups present in the United States.

Furthermore when you consider that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are African Americans then you are implying that these men are 'self-hating blacks' or 'Uncle Toms' which I seriously doubt. While you're at it why don't you lump other conservative black journalist/pundits like Ward Connerly, Niger Innis, Larry Elder and Star Parker who echo the same sentiments as Sowell and Williams into the same basket? When those individuals let fly the pro-conservative ideology I generally look at it as more of a "I did it and so can any other African American who applies him or herself." type of statement.

He does?
Yes he does , he writes a hell of a lot , check out the archives of Townhall or Jewish World Review , they carry all his recent articles . :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

He does?
Yes he does , he writes a hell of a lot , check out the archives of Townhall or Jewish World Review , they carry all his recent articles . :book:

---

So is he really 'pro-apartheid/pro-colonialism' or did he simply look past the blanket statements regarding those particular subjects and provide a particularly objective viewpoint (read as 'bitter pill') on their actual effects? Please provide a link along with a direct quote from Sowell that supports your accusation.

Great article. The paranoia in the United States has created counter-discrimination. In truth, the caucasian race is the most discriminated against group.

Who's to blame is political rhetoric. What is interesting for a social scientist like me, is the question what causes the problem. There must be a causal explanation and no, sorry, "they chose so" is not a causal explanation. The answer is probably far from being simple. It cannot be being a ethnic minority alone, because other minorities apparently don't have the same problem. But in that article the possiblity that it has to do with slavery and discrimination is ruled out prematurely. That at times when discrimination was stronger, these problems were not so apparent, doesn't mean it isn't the cause today, because the entire social climate in the US is different now.
As I said, it's a difficult problem, but simplifications don't help.

It can be hard to give people sympathy sometimes. E.g., a, black, family friend grew up in a poor family and he worked hard, and he got a good education for himself. He became a doctor, and now his family disowned him, because he "sold out to whitey" by being a doctor :dizzy2: I know that it may just be a sucess sorry, but whining will only get you so far in life; you have to put forward the effort to meet the solution to the problem halfway.

Quote:

---

Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925, "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery -- a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.

---

No, there is a good explanation for this. PBS did a documentary a couple of years ago that included a discussion of exactly what happened in black communities during the early to mid twentieth century.

Notice how Walter Williams cites studies from Northern urban areas in the late-nineteenth to early-twentieth century to suggest that the black family structure was stable in the good old days of segregation and Jim Crow.

Yes, black communities in places like urban Philadelphia, New York, and Chicago were fairly stable during that era.

The turning point was the "Great Migration" era, when Southern black sharecropper families began to move North to take advantage of industrial jobs in Northern cities...

Quote:

---

The Great Migration
The Great Migration was the migration of thousands of African-Americans from the South to the North. African Americans were looking to escape the problems of racism in the South and felt they could seek out better jobs and an overall better life in the North. It is estimated that over 1 million African-Americans participated in this mass movement.

The Great Migration created the first large, urban black communities in the North. The North saw its black population rise about 20 percent between 1910 and 1930. Cities such as Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Cleveland saw some of the biggest increases.

World War I and boll weevils were major factors in pulling blacks to the North. The war created a huge demand for labor in the North when it caused millions of men to leave their jobs to serve in the armed forces and forced immigration to slow down. In the South, a boll weevil infestation of the cotton crop that ruined harvests and threatened thousands of African Americans with starvation also caused people to head North.

Railroad companies were so desperate for help that they paid African Americans' travel expenses to the North. While northern labor agents traveled to the South to encourage blacks to leave and go find jobs in the North.

With black labor leaving the South in large numbers, southern planters tried to prevent the outflow, but were ultimately unsuccessful. The more progressive southern employers tried to promise better pay and improved treatment. Others tried to intimidate blacks, even going so far as to board northbound trains and to attack black men and women to try to force them into returning to the South.

Despite the jobs and housing available in the North, the challenges of living in an urban environment were daunting for many of the new migrants.

The stream of migrants continued apace, however, until the Great Depression and World War II caused northern demand for workers to slacken. LINK

---

Now, one of the effects of this migration was to change the character of black urban life. There was a 'black flight' as the better educated, well-to-do Northern blacks moved to escape from an influx of poorly educated working class blacks. The series documented this phenomenon in Chicago. What was left were large pockets of black folk who had just come from Jim Crow sharecropping and were thus completely unprepared for Northern urban life. They were also actively discrimated against in jobs and housing.

Of course, as we all know, the post war era saw white flight to the suburbs, a hollowing out of urban infrastructure and tax base, and the slow disappearance of urban manufacturing jobs. Those were the conditions that created the black urban underclass... not "welfare and the Great Society programs". Those programs were meant to address the problem of poverty in America in general, not just amongst the black community. Of course, you can argue that black urban families were 'held back' by becoming reliant on those social programs; but the reality is that a different dialect, inferior schooling, and credit and real estate discrimination made it hard for the mass of the black community to improve their economic condition.

Now this doesn't mean that a lot of black folk don't make really bad life choices, and it doesn't mean that black urban culture isn't toxic, it just means that there are real historical reasons for the economic and physical separation of the black population. Ultimately those reasons do go back to the enslavement, suppression, and discrimination that that community faced for hundreds of years. In many ways, it's remarkable how much progress has been made over the last 40 odd years.

The reason why so many blacks are skeptical of the Republican party is that they so obviously pander to the Southern good old boys that made it their hobby to keep black people 'in their place'. Reagan announced his candidacy in Philadephia, Mississippi - a place famous only for the murder of three civil rights workers. The Republican "Southern Strategy" and its call for "state's rights" and "law and order" was rightly interpreted by black Americans as a choice to jettison the traditionally black Republican vote in exchange for the votes of southern white racists. Southern Strategy.

Here's a piece from "The Black Slate " that lays out pretty well why black Americans weren't thrilled with the Republican party in the Reagan era.

Ultimately, the modern Republican party offers very little to black working class America. The Republican party is anti-minimum wage, it's anti-union, it cuts student financial aid... it's for concentrating wealth in the hands of those who already hold wealth... rather than using our common-wealth to make it easier for everyone to pursue their individual goals.

I would like to see such statistics cross referenced with general socio/economic stats.

I find the idea of wealthy americans blaming the vast numbers of poor and underpriverlidged for their own plight pretty pathetic.

And I find the fact that you so undervalue a large portion of the population as to assume they have no ability to affect their own lives, that they are completely and utterly beholden to wealthy America to be kind to them....patronizing and pretty pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I find the idea of wealthy americans blaming the vast numbers of poor and underpriverlidged for their own plight pretty pathetic.

---

So that means you're giving us middle class conservative types who agree with these wealthy Americans a free pass on the matter?

I find your tone regarding wealthy Americans to be quite amusing...

When you progress from one tax bracket to the next because of your own hard work it has a funny way of changing your outlook on the world and on those who had the same opportunities you did as a child. Please take note that a large percentage of those arrogant wealthy Americans come from not so wealthy backgrounds. America is THE country for self made men and women (i.e. those that qualify as 'well off' or wealthy), our history is polluted with success stories of people who rose from humble beginnings. There are Asian kids I grew up with whose parents were, as they say, 'off the boat' and took whatever menial jobs as seamstresses, cooks and physical laborers they could find. Those same immigrants saw their kids go on to earn salaries in the upper 5 and lower 6 figures because they instilled in them an excellent work ethic. A good friend of mine (Greek/Jewish) was born to a father who was a mailman and a mother who was a social worker. He and his siblings lived in a rent controlled apartment, shared a single bedroom, wore inexpensive clothes and probably never shopped at an expensive dept. store except for the occasional holiday gift. Despite their obviously humble origins my friend and his brother went on to start their own software company in California and were eventually making money hand over fist.

To put it bluntly there simply aren't enough 'old money' families here in the States to decry our upper class as a fixed and immovable 'blue blood' aristocracy. The socio-economic 'glass ceiling' effect that still exists in Europe doesn't exist here in the States and if and where it does exist, it's more of a nuisance than an outright obstacle. Sure, we still have our share of nepotism and 'rich kid on the fast track to success' stories but for the rest of us good old hard work still pays off. So when you read about these wealthy Americans bitching and moaning as to why their fellow Americans in lower tax brackets ought to trade in their excuses for hard work maybe you ought to take it for what it is rather than what you'd like it to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

The socio-economic 'glass ceiling' effect that still exists in Europe

---

We have a glass ceiling ?

IMHO Europe and the US are much the same, if you work hard you can make it. Except in Europe society will pay for your education, and there is a safety net if you would 'fail', whereas in the US, if you succeed, you can get really filthy rich.

Quote:

---

Except in Europe society will pay for your education, and there is a safety net if you would 'fail',

---

Its the same here. You dont even have to fail or even try though to collect.

I was never able to figure out who the evil white man (i.e. me) caused all the pain and suffering in the minorities of America. I mean,if you look at the statistics, blacks are offing each other in record numbers all over America! The number one killer of crips today aren't evil white rascists who are evil just because they aren't black, but other Crips, not even their rival gang, the Bloods! It's scary how that happens, yet they still have the nerve to shove blame around at everyone else. I mean, Lincoln freed the slaves over a hundred and fifty years ago, and yet we, the whites, are still the evil devils that opressed the poor struggling black man.
If anything, these blame casters are only making the black man even worse off. It's them that commit the crime in the streets, with their gangs and their drugs. And yet, the "evil white rascist" American government has to contain the crime, with almost no help from the Black communities. If anything, the black communities make it worse for the police, they hid their "gangsta's" and "homies" in their ranks, and when the cops try to get near, another innocent police officer is murdered in cold blood. If they don't like the conditions, they should try to improve it themselves, not begin calling all us White Americans evil and rascist. Because, you know what, I ain't rascist. I give everyone a fair chance, despite the fact that I may not trust certain peoples at a glance. If I'm so rascist, then why do I have several black friends? They do fine too, they're all getting good enough grades and none of them are living in poverty. And not once have they blamed the White man for their problems.
The Black community wants a black president, and they think it's rascist that they don't get one. But isn't the opposite kind of true? I mean, if a president is elected just because he's black, and not because of his competence and skill, wouldn't that be rascist against the White, Hispanic, whatever candidates that ran? I think so! And, they say they want better conditions!?! Here are some facts:

• Collages in America give preferance to black and minority students over white students, even if the white student is more qualified to fill the position as a student of the university.
• Blacks and other minorites in America, when applying for a legal or government position (Police Officer, Fireman, Lawyer, etc) are given a differant, eaiser test then what White people are.
• Affirmative action states that if you don't sell your house to a black man, you can get arrested. I'm not sure of the exact reasons and prerequisits, but I do know that you can.

I'm totally sick of this bashing of my race. Although blacks can use the minority card against being called rascists, I am going to say this right now, out loud in a public forum.
Blacks and other minorities who blame the White man for all of their problems instead of taking responsibility for themselves are rascist; if they use an excuse such as "slavery has tied us down" or "we are oppressed in America" they are rascist.
There I said it. And you know what, it's true! Isn't rascism a hatred or prejudice against a certain race? In fact, the fricken UN says

Quote:

---

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

---

(the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination)
Is that not what these people do? They discriminate against all whites, blaming them for their problems instead of taking the initiative and trying to fix them. Most of these blame casters still collect a welfare check; paid for mainly by the White Majority of America (77% of America is white, and most of the Upper classes are white).
I'm going to shut up now, because, to be quite frank, all this typing is giving me a headache after a long, hard day. I don't mean to be mean or rude in the above, but if I do offend anyone (by calling the a rascist etc) I do apoligize, it's just that that is what I beleive and you know what, I really don't care if I offend anyone as long as the truth gets said. Thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

I
Blacks and other minorities who blame the White man for all of their problems instead of taking responsibility for themselves are rascist; if they use an excuse such as "slavery has tied us down" or "we are oppressed in America" they are rascist.
.

---

Exactly. Its caused so much counter-discrimination. For example: A black comedian can make fun of a white man becasue he is white without a penalty. If a white comedian dares to make the smallest comment about a black man becasue hes black, its off to court for him. If a white man complains about the racist humor, the black comedian has the excuse: "your just saying that becasue im black."

Exactly. Its caused so much counter-discrimination. For example: A black comedian can make fun of a white man becasue he is white without a penalty. If a white comedian dares to make the smallest comment about a black man becasue hes black, its off to court for him. If a white man complains about the racist humor, the black comedian has the excuse: "your just saying that becasue im black."

Has Sacha Cohen ever been taken to court for Ali G ? Or doesn't he count .
Though the Khazakhstan Embassy in London did complain that his Borat character gave a negative impression of their country .

lol Borat in USA has to be the greatest TV thing ever...
the country song....HAHAHAHA

I don't know, has there ever been a black community? I know it's a saying, but I never really got it. I always assumed that black Southern Baptists weren't really that similar to street blacks. I know it was a while ago, but Martin Luther King Jr. fought against different types of racism than Malcom X, and their tactics were hardly similar (well, right before Malcom's death they were but...)
In fact, one of my black friends from Tennesee (can't spell it... ~;) isn't at all like some of the gansgta types in my school. Of course, you can't be a a "street" personwhen you live in my town, the houses are insanely expensive...

I really am not sure were I stand on this. I honestly believe that racism still exists and that blacks and other minorities still aren't equal, and we should still right the wrongs of our past. However, that's only possible if both the government and the minorities work together for equality, not just one or the other.

Of course they don't have an equal say as whites in the government, but that's democracy, you see, there are less blacks then whites, so the whites have more voting power.
If you mean in society, yeah there still are, but that's not the fault of the whites, its the fault of those minorites who couldn't get their acts together. There are many blacks who get a good edcuation and suceed in life and get along well without any problems. And that's a good thing. There are also blacks who drop out of school and use their welfare checks to pay for drugs. That's not a good thing, but should we call ourselves rascists for not giving those stoners as much of an oppertunity as we give someone who's clean and responsable?

lol Borat in USA has to be the greatest TV thing ever...
the country song....HAHAHAHA
Ah yes , the country song , where he got a fine upstanding bunch of people to enthusiasticly sing along to "Kill the Jews Kill them all" .
Classic , he couldn't sing and couldn't play , but oh how the audience just loved the lyrics . :embarassed:
So... Rhetoric or reality ? ~;)

Of course they don't have an equal say as whites in the government, but that's democracy, you see, there are less blacks then whites, so the whites have more voting power.
But the author of the original article thinks that blacks even if they are the majority cannot be an effective government . He thinks they benefit more if they are ruled by a white minority government .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

[B]
the country song....HAHAHAHA
Ah yes , the country song , where he got a fine upstanding bunch of people to enthusiasticly sing along to "Kill the Jews Kill them all" .
Classic , he couldn't sing and couldn't play , but oh how the audience just loved the lyrics . :embarassed:

---

I saw that, that was hilarious, wasn't the singer jewish himself? ~D Kind of reminds me of Charlie Chaplin who participated in a best lookalike match (he got the third place)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

So that means you're giving us middle class conservative types who agree with these wealthy Americans a free pass on the matter?

I find your tone regarding wealthy Americans to be quite amusing...

When you progress from one tax bracket to the next because of your own hard work it has a funny way of changing your outlook on the world and on those who had the same opportunities you did as a child. Please take note that a large percentage of those arrogant wealthy Americans come from not so wealthy backgrounds. America is THE country for self made men and women (i.e. those that qualify as 'well off' or wealthy), our history is polluted with success stories of people who rose from humble beginnings. There are Asian kids I grew up with whose parents were, as they say, 'off the boat' and took whatever menial jobs as seamstresses, cooks and physical laborers they could find. Those same immigrants saw their kids go on to earn salaries in the upper 5 and lower 6 figures because they instilled in them an excellent work ethic. A good friend of mine (Greek/Jewish) was born to a father who was a mailman and a mother who was a social worker. He and his siblings lived in a rent controlled apartment, shared a single bedroom, wore inexpensive clothes and probably never shopped at an expensive dept. store except for the occasional holiday gift. Despite their obviously humble origins my friend and his brother went on to start their own software company in California and were eventually making money hand over fist.

To put it bluntly there simply aren't enough 'old money' families here in the States to decry our upper class as a fixed and immovable 'blue blood' aristocracy. The socio-economic 'glass ceiling' effect that still exists in Europe doesn't exist here in the States and if and where it does exist, it's more of a nuisance than an outright obstacle. Sure, we still have our share of nepotism and 'rich kid on the fast track to success' stories but for the rest of us good old hard work still pays off. So when you read about these wealthy Americans bitching and moaning as to why their fellow Americans in lower tax brackets ought to trade in their excuses for hard work maybe you ought to take it for what it is rather than what you'd like it to be.

---

Nonsense. The vast majority of millionaires in America are born millionaires, not made millionaires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

I saw that, that was hilarious, wasn't the singer jewish himself? ~D Kind of reminds me of Charlie Chaplin who participated in a best lookalike match (he got the third place)

---

Yes Sacha Baron Cohen... Jewish comedian who takes the piss out of the usual Jewish targets of prejudice. He's dodgy for sure.

Quote:

---

That's not a good thing, but should we call ourselves rascists for not giving those stoners as much of an oppertunity as we give someone who's clean and responsable?

---

They aren't stoners. They are junkies. There's a difference. Stoners do pot. Junkies do coke and herion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

• Collages in America give preferance to black and minority students over white students, even if the white student is more qualified to fill the position as a student of the university.

---

Good point. This is direct racism to whites. Not allowing a student to attend a college becasue he is white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

They aren't stoners. They are junkies. There's a difference. Stoners do pot. Junkies do coke and herion.

---

Nah, junkies are the ones who lay around in crackhouses all day because the heroin is screwing them up. They're basically harmless until they've been in need of a hit for a few days, and only then when the ol' "oral sex for drugs" thing stops working on the grounds that the junkie is no longer attractive in any way due to malnutrition and lack of hygiene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah yes , the country song , where he got a fine upstanding bunch of people to enthusiasticly sing along to "Kill the Jews Kill them all".

---

That's "throw the Jew down the well, so my country can be free". I thought it was great, whether or not the Southern Americans really hate Jews or not.

Good point. But I wouldn't call most street people stoners, as it's often termed with harmless, brain cell deprived long haired types. ~;)