# Black History Month is Ridiculous?



## 7starmantis (Dec 19, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10482634/
(among others)

Tells of Morgan Freeman's recent discussions of "Black History Month".

"NEW YORK - Morgan Freeman says the concept of a month dedicated to black history is "ridiculous."

Interesting, I am interested to see if he gets the same reactions as Bill Cosby has in discussing african american topics. In my opinion he is right on, and I've been saying ot for years...."The actor says he believes the labels "black" and "white" are an obstacle to beating racism."

Opinions?

7sm


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 19, 2005)

From one stand point Freeman is correct that "Black-History is American History". But from another stand-point Black History should be remembered because of the innumerable contributions people of color have made to the advancement of Science (Washington Carver), Medicine (Charles Drew), Civil Rights (M.L. King and Rosa Parks), acting (Denzel Washington -- first black actor to win best actor award), sports (Jackie Robinson), politics (Shirley Chisholm) and so forth. 
Still, again Freeman is correct that the desgination still points out the "differences" in race and could be harmful to the agonizing race-relations we're still suffering today. 
So it's really a double edged sword. Damned if we remember and damned if we don't. But who's "we"?? Whites? Other races? 
So, the question is what do "we" (Americans) do about it? How can we take care of this problem that should've been (IMO) taken care of during the civil rights movement years? 
I do disagree with Mr. Freeman on his statement that "...the only way to get rid of racism is to stop talking about it." Because it's in one way, just hiding or denying the problem. But then again I _do_ see the gist of his statement. The key I think is to talk about it postitively or in a manner that finds solutions rather than point out the problems which we all see everyday. 
Racism or ANTI-Racism (as I've said several times before and still am adamant about) begins at home. Parents of all colors/races (then teachers and other adult role models, i.e. MA instructors :wink1: ) have to teach their children that there are no differences between me and Mr. Freeman other than the colour of our skin... that and he makes about a trillion times more money than I do every time he goes to work ...  <smirk>
(I hope that) Many of us here agree that outward appearances make no difference in what's inside... "... *that a man be judged by the content of his character*..." (MLK~ "I have a dream." --1968). So, what is still causing people to still be racist or bigoted or prejudiced? 
I recall as a young boy, when I first began developing interest in the opposite sex, my father telling me that he'd dis-own me if I ever kissed a black girl. Later, years later, my father recanted his statement and told me that I was free to marry whomever I fell in love with. Seems he learned his lesson as well as I did when a black man saved my life from a (black) gang mugging. 
Racism will always be there so long as people still hold a grudge against the color of person rather than the character of the person. I've had more white people screw me over (for one thing or another) than I've had blacks. So I learned that lesson as well. There's *no* differences as far as skin-color. 
Still, it doesn't help, when we see Katrina victims (on both sides of the law) loot, murder and pillage among the devestation and they're by and large black. What does that tell the whites? But whites can be just as bad (Colombine comes to mind with that one). :idunno: Is there a solution to making us see just bad people and not just "bad Black people" and/or "bad White people"? 

We owe it to our children and their children and thier children's children to stop this as soon as possible. For our country to truly survive and prosper and be as glorious as it *CAN* be this... must happen. We need to rid ourselves of the stigma of shame that is our past (slavery and near genocide of Native Americans) that people fall back upon time and again,... (but we must never deny that it happened, just ... regret it and be better people.... )and outlaw groups that preach hatred and prejudice out of sheer ignorance. (So called) Aryans, Klansmen, Crips, Bloods, and so forth. 

It begins at home... *every* American home is _responsible_ for the mind-set of it's children who will become the adults of tomorrow. 

:asian:


----------



## mantis (Dec 19, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10482634/
> (among others)
> 
> Tells of Morgan Freeman's recent discussions of "Black History Month".
> ...


i kinda agree with cosby saying that...
even if you say "i love black people" even with the sweetest intentions you are declaring they are different and that u dont treat them normally. 
i dont know if im expressing myself fully, but if u feel normal about them u'd say i like people, or i dont like people...
i think merely metioning the race is pretty messed up....
but hey, how is he gonna beat racism?
if there are people who believe they are supreme how can you convince them that theyre not!
the only solution i see is by executing all white people all at once
(jk)


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 19, 2005)

Its the difference in cultures and beliefs, not skin color that are keeping us divided.

I think some people with darker skin WANT to be treated different and that people with lighter skin enjoy feeling superior because of it.

Its all bull ****. Its how we treat each other that matters.


----------



## mantis (Dec 19, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> Its the difference in cultures and beliefs, not skin color that are keeping us divided.
> 
> I think some people with darker skin WANT to be treated different and that people with lighter skin enjoy feeling superior because of it.
> 
> Its all bull ****. Its how we treat each other that matters.


right
but dont forget hundreds of years of them getting enslaved by you (or the other way around dpending on ur SKIN COLOR) 
they didnt even get an apology (which actually means nothing) but not even that...
i'd be pissed as heck for the rest of my 7th grandchildren's lives!


----------



## Xequat (Dec 19, 2005)

I think he's kind of right also because by having Black History Month, that kind of implies that it is separate from the rest of American history and it's OK not to teach it during the rest of the year because we know it'll come up in February anyway.  And I also agree that we should ignore race altogether, meaning take it off of every application for anything, for example.  We could still have privately funded scholarships and such things if someone wants to, but I agree that it should be ignored.  

Here's something kind of fun and funny:  when you're describing someone white, make sure that that's one of the first things you say and don't call attention to it and when you're describing a black person, put it in the middle somewhere.  For example, "yeah you know Bob...he's kind of tall, like 6'1," bald head, dresses nice, black, usually starts work at noon, loves doughnuts," etc. versus "Have you seen Henry?  White guy, about 5'10" with blond hair, drives a Ford, wears glasses," etc.  I usually do that and for some reason, I think it makes people think because if you leave out someone's race in a description, it seems to be assumed that that person is white.  Watch for headlines like "Four black teenagers killed in car crash" versus "Four local teens killed in car crash."  I've noticed it in the Cincinnati papers, but I'm just kind of assuming it happens everywhere.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 20, 2005)

I respect Freeman and Cosby, as they are self-made men, who are strong willed and intelligent, and who just happen to be black.  They would be successful no matter what race they had come from, and prove that race is incidental.

Freeman makes an important point, that over-emphasis on race and racism is, itself, a subtle form of racism.  It's a lot like picking at a festering wound, and never allowing it to heal.

The only way to move beyond racism is to stop focusing on it.  Race blindness, not reverse preferences, is the only path to a future devoid of racism.  

Everyone know that,as a majority, that means letting go of those prejudices, subtle and overt, that have developed, and embrace minorities and equals, and no longer view skin color as evidence of anything.

However, what is not so commonly accepted is the fact that, as a minority, that means letting go of those institutional beliefs and prejudices that have developed as a defence.  To embrace a larger society, devoid of the groups that have been created to insulate themselves from the constant threat they perceive from the majority.  

Of course, all this may be easier said in theory than done in practice, as some evidence exist that racism may be a naturally occuring phenomenon.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Dec 20, 2005)

I thought it was pretty cool when one my kids were talking about Star Wars and were trying to describe one of  the Jedi to me and described him as "you know, the bald one", referring to Samuel Jackson. My son never described him as black.  Maybe that's because I've never referred to people using 'black', 'white' or 'hispanic' or whatever.  Especially friends and fellow musicians.  I used to jam with a guy named Paul, excellent guitar player; happened to be black and in a wheel chair.  I would tell my kids "Hey, Paul's coming over tonight, you remember the guitar player who was here last week?"  It was never "the black  guitar player" or even "the guitar player in the wheel chair" because in my mind what made him special to me was that he was a great guy and an incredible guitarist and that's how I want my kids to think of him.  I don't want my kids growing up using "black", "white", "indian", "hispanic" as adjectives that they use to describe people as being "someone different then me".  You can always find enough adjectives about someone to describe  them without calling out how they are 'different' from you.  Keith is not 'that white drummer I played with last week', so Paul is not 'the black guitarist'.  I don't call attention to Keith's race, why should I call attention to Paul's?  There are enough good ways to describe Paul that are uniquely about him as a man and a musician that I can remind him to my kids without needing to point out to them that he's black.  I started noticing that when they describe other people, they don't use terms like 'black', 'white', etc...
------------
I know on my Mom's side of the family, the family has only been here since the early party of last century and they settled in Ohio.  I don't know about my Dad's side.  My wife is hispanic and her family has been in the New Mexico area for at least a few generations.  I really don't know.  I don't much about what happened to Slovaks and Russians and Scots and Irish in the past, even though that's my background, because what happened to people that far back doesn't concern me.  I do know that of the people I know myself; none of them owned slaves themself and none of them have been slaves themself.  History is something to study as an abstraction, but not something to be taken personally in your own life


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 20, 2005)

Maybe when the majority of people think that blacks are not fully human there is a need to point out all that has been done by them.

But now, there is less of a need to do that and some people may see it as trying to push an agenda.

I had a talk with someone about my work once as part of an evaluation. He asked me a question about how I felt taking orders from a woman. I looked at him in silence for a few seconds. It just had never occured to me to even think about that type of thing. I have had good bosses and complete idiots from both sexes. It was just a non-issue for me. I think now we need that in terms of race, sexual preferences, etc.

I agree with Freeman. True equality will come when we don't even notice if a person is black or white.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 20, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> Maybe when the majority of people think that blacks are not fully human there is a need to point out all that has been done by them.
> 
> But now, there is less of a need to do that and some people may see it as trying to push an agenda.
> 
> ...


 The time has come to focus on the ultimate minority...the individual.  A person should be judged on individual merits, black, white, or any other ethnic or racial make-up.  Yet, it becomes far to easy to focus on externality.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Dec 20, 2005)

At it's nadir, the human creature is a pack animal that discerns those that are different as 'other'.  I think this in inherent to our psyche and, as rational creatures, we have to rise above it.  Although it is my deepest hope that, as a society, we can respond harmoniously to the differences between the races, I feel that, as long as there are races, there will be race relations.  There will also be marginalization, dehumanization and bigotry.  There will be such separation.

I feel Black History Month is ridiculous only in that there is no Asian History Month, Native American History Month, Hispanic History Month or Fremen History Month.  I agree with Freeman.  The more differences are noted, the firmer the divisive line becomes.

But, that's just me.


----------



## Xequat (Dec 20, 2005)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> I feel Black History Month is ridiculous only in that there is no ... Fremen History Month.


 
Hehe, yeah, we should have a month dedicated to historical figures who have had really blue eyes.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Dec 20, 2005)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Hehe, yeah, we should have a month dedicated to historical figures who have had really blue eyes.


 
lol...just wanted to make the point.

Btw...good catch.  Here's your Muad Dib


----------



## Ray (Dec 20, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> but dont forget hundreds of years of them getting enslaved by you (or the other way around dpending on ur SKIN COLOR)
> they didnt even get an apology (which actually means nothing) but not even that...


Isn't it sterotypical to blame all whites in America today for the enslavement of blacks in America?  My people arrived in 1874 and settled in Emery County, Utah...past the end of slavery and with a people that opposed slavery.


----------



## Navarre (Dec 20, 2005)

Where I live there isn't a large population of anything other than Caucasians. 

I was out at The Olive Garden the other day with my children (both of them 3 yrs old).  The host was an average looking guy. He was also black.

At one point several minutes after being seated my son, while taking in the room, looked back at the host and asked, "Daddy, what's the brown guy's name?"

The host was out of earshot. My internal question was "Should I be embarrassed by the question?" and should I caution my son that the phrasing is inappropriate.

My personal feeling is that the question is perfectly innocent (obviously in his case).  He chose the most apparent physical attribute to distinguish the host from the other males in the room.

Perhaps in a more culturally diverse area he would have been less likely to choose race as the distinguishing characteristic. The question is still whether it was inappropriate.

I wouldn't have referred to the man that way because of a learned caution towards the sensitivity that others may have. The assumption of most if I referred to him as black is that I'm racist.

I notice races other than my own because it is an apparent distinguishing characteristic.  But I equally notice everything else that distinguishes the person.

If I teach my son to not refer to someone as black (or brown or whatever) am I teaching him that race doesn't matter or that it matters because we must be conscious to not mention it? Am I in fact enforcing racism?

Incidentally, my son also refers to Mace Windu only as the bald guy", apparently because that is the characteristic that stands out to him.  But he keeps reminding me that Yoda is green. Is he prejudiced against green people?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 20, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> right
> but dont forget hundreds of years of them getting enslaved by you (or the other way around dpending on ur SKIN COLOR)
> they didnt even get an apology (which actually means nothing) but not even that...
> i'd be pissed as heck for the rest of my 7th grandchildren's lives!



Well. I dont think theres anybody lefty alive that remembers being or owning a slave.

Should I apologize or pay (if i was the great grandson of a slave owner) for EVERYTHING my ancestors have done?

Theres probably a lot of white people in the US that had ancestors that were treated badly in Europe. Should they be able to grieve their causes to Germany, Russia etc.

Where does this end?


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 20, 2005)

Navarre said:
			
		

> Where I live there isn't a large population of anything other than Caucasians.
> 
> I was out at The Olive Garden the other day with my children (both of them 3 yrs old). The host was an average looking guy. He was also black.
> 
> ...



Skin color IS a fact. If you were trying to describe a person to the police would you not include the color of the skin? 

The trouble is when you start to put racist beliefs WITH the skin color. 

Saying someone is black (or has dark shin) is a fact. Its the other garbage we have attached to that fact that causes all thes problems as I see it.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 20, 2005)

Good post, I have allways believed that our differences are what make us beautiful. Observation of those differences is not wrong in my opinion and can be part of the process of understanding or acknowledging our beauty as diverse creatures.

What I find wrong is action based upon these differences....but I guess we would have to live in a perfect world and we know the chances of that. The problem is liken to the one we are seeing with religious freedom. If one religion can be vocal, we must then be held responsible for vocalizing all religions or be pegged a bigot. Thats ridiculous, but then look at this "history month" issue...as was allready said, where is Native American History Month (although our history is pretty much dead)...wait I guess it should be "Red History Month"...this is ridiculous. If we can intigrate the history of america accurately, we have no need for them. That in itself is a huge issue though. 

I do agree, the constant mentioning and observation of race is a problem, but so is taking said observation as an offense.

7sm


----------



## Navarre (Dec 20, 2005)

That's my feeling on it. To recognize or mention race is not wrong or inappropriate. 

I resent when someone is offended because I might mention their race because they assume I must be racist. Their assumption is the problem as I see it. 

What is wrong is to make a decision or take an action based solely on race. That is equally as wrong and clearly racist.

I did not tell my son to not refer to the man as "brown". I felt to do so would be to teach my son that race is something no one should speak of. I do not believe this. My son had made no conclusions about the man based on skin color.

I want my children to grow up to believe that skin color is no more a reflection of character than hair style or clothing. But I also do not want them to believe that the subject should be avoided either.

good lord. I've made 3 posts to The Study in the last day. How unlike me.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 20, 2005)

I think you made a wise and thought out decision.

Not a kneejerk political one.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 20, 2005)

Well, here is another aspect. My brother-in-law is a cop. He has to deal with alot of Mexicans and other Latinos in their area. They have found that pepper spray is not an effective deterent against Mexicans in many cases. They can't formally teach anyone this though, since that would be racial profiling of a sort. Does anyone else think this is kind of silly and to and taking things to an extreme? We would endanger law enforcement agents in an attempt to be more racially sensetive? How much is too much?

MrH


----------



## Navarre (Dec 20, 2005)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> I think you made a wise and thought out decision.
> 
> Not a kneejerk political one.


 
Thanks, Blotan. That's me, always introspective.

But still, we make the world better a small piece at a time, mostly by example. I feel lucky to have two wonderful children upon whom I can have so much direct impact. 

I'd like to think, given a lot of good lessons, that they will go out into the world and influences others accordingly, thus exponentially spreading a higher degree of spirituality.

Of course, that's giving myself credit for teaching them good lessons. I hope I don't screw that up.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2005)

I think Mr. Freeman and Cosby are right. We seem to have celebrations for women, black americans, asian americans, hispanic americans, jewish american, etc. But if you suggest a "white american" holiday, you are taggest a bigot and a racist and a divider. Like those other seperate distinctions aren't.

It extends to business development and other benefits. If I check off the correct boxes on applications, I can get loans, special treatment, tax breaks, health insurance, etc. As long as I'm not "white".

Some say it's "balancing the diferences" from education and upbringing. I say it's discrimination, because of some pigment, a chromosone and actually paying attention in school. 

We need to stop treating people as "white" "black" "brown" "red" purple" whatever americans. And start treating them as "People" period.

As much as I enjoy the specials, with the list of names and firsts (I always learn something new), it always seems racist to single out a race-group for special recognition and privilage.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 20, 2005)

I think they have a good point. We focus too much on differences, it often seems.


----------



## Kreth (Dec 20, 2005)

Part of the problem is the education system. the only names of black pioneers that jump out at me from my time in school (20+ years ago), are George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks. What about Jackie Robinson, Carl Brashear, Harold Washington, Alice Walker, Miles Bennett Dyson, et al.?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 20, 2005)

Teach them as notable individuals. Drop the race/gender biases.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 20, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Teach them as notable individuals. Drop the race/gender biases.



Agreed. If their deeds are meritable, they should stand on their own.

But then again, in some ways, people like having role models to look up to. Perhaps it serves as an encouragement?

MrH


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 20, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Part of the problem is the education system. the only names of black pioneers that jump out at me from my time in school (20+ years ago), are George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks. What about Jackie Robinson, Carl Brashear, Harold Washington, Alice Walker, Miles Bennett Dyson, et al.?


What about native american names in history, only ones that pop out are what, Pocahontas and Tanto? I'm all for complete history lessons, but why must we seperate them by race? Why can't Rosa Parks and Quanah Parker both be mentioned as civil rights leaders in the same breath? Civil rights apply to more than black people. Thats the problem, we have seperated long enough.

7sm


----------



## Kreth (Dec 20, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> What about native american names in history, only ones that pop out are what, Pocahontas and Tanto? I'm all for complete history lessons, but why must we seperate them by race? Why can't Rosa Parks and Quanah Parker both be mentioned as civil rights leaders in the same breath? Civil rights apply to more than black people. Thats the problem, we have seperated long enough.
> 
> 7sm


Sitting Bull, Geronimo, Sacajawea... I'm sure there are many others. I wasn't trying to be divisive, just pointing out that the need for a separate <insert race here> History Month could be obviated by making history less euro-centric.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 20, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Sitting Bull, Geronimo, Sacajawea... I'm sure there are many others. I wasn't trying to be divisive, just pointing out that the need for a separate <insert race here> History Month could be obviated by making history less euro-centric.



I agree, I wasn't trying to really disagree iwth you, just using your post as a stepping block for my own point. I agree.

7sm


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 21, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> It extends to business development and other benefits. If I check off the correct boxes on applications, I can get loans, special treatment, tax breaks, health insurance, etc. As long as I'm not "white".
> 
> Some say it's "balancing the diferences" from education and upbringing. I say it's discrimination, because of some pigment, a chromosone and actually paying attention in school.
> 
> ...



The problem is that now that a segement of society has those special privilages due to their race, they will fight like the dickens to keep them. And in the case of race, the people that advocate doing away with special treatment can be labled as racists. We have all seen it happen.

That is the danger that people like Freeman and Cosby face to those whose political power come from the way things are now. Not only is it harder for people to label them as hating blacks (not impossible as we have seen, but harder) but it also tells other races that not all blacks think the way their self- appointed leaders tell them to.

I think that is why Freeman is taking a big chance in saying even as little as he did. He may be tarred and feathered by some of those that benifit from the idea of whites still trying to keep the black man under their thumbs. Watch and see. I hope I am wrong. But if someone hears something about Freeman being trashed, please post it here. I don't get a lot of the news you do here in Japan easily.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 21, 2005)

If an apology will help create and uplift a more stable black community, I don't see the harm. I think society as a whole bears a responsibility in righting the wrongs of the past. It would show that its worth being an American and not indentify with sub-culture only.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> If an apology will help create and uplift a more stable black community, I don't see the harm. I think society as a whole bears a responsibility in righting the wrongs of the past. It would show that its worth being an American and not indentify with sub-culture only.
> Sean


 Are you suggesting that I apologize for something I did not do, to someone that it did not happen to? :erg:

Perhaps the Egyptians should apologize to the Hebrews for that whole 'slave thing'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I think Mr. Freeman and Cosby are right. We seem to have celebrations for women, black americans, asian americans, hispanic americans, jewish american, etc. But if you suggest a "white american" holiday, you are taggest a bigot and a racist and a divider. Like those other seperate distinctions aren't.
> 
> It extends to business development and other benefits. If I check off the correct boxes on applications, I can get loans, special treatment, tax breaks, health insurance, etc. As long as I'm not "white".
> 
> ...


 That's exactly right Bob.  If I recall the words of Martin Luther King Jr., he said he had a dream that one day people would be judged by not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

What happened, however, is a certain brand of revolutionary hijacked the civil rights movement, for the purpose of inciting revolution.  We've taken the focus off of treating people based on what's in their character, and returned it to class and race warfare for the purposes of achieving and agenda.  

I say we return to an individualistic society, where we judge people by their actions and deads, not by the category they fit in, and if they can be used to further the 'revolution'.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 21, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I think society as a whole bears a responsibility in righting the wrongs of the past.



Gee... how far back do we go.  Every society/group has been enslaved or persecuted in the past. Which one gets compensated? Lets stick with the US. American Indians, Chinese who built the railroad, Japanese internment during WW2, blacks being enslaved, etc.. Just about every group/religion has been prosecuted in some form, except perhaps the evil caucasion christian of english origin. Should we have a month dedicated to each minority race, religion or belief system?

How do you propose righting these wrongs? My whole beef with the suggestion is we have done so much already. The opportunity to excel exists for everyone, and many have done so! Its not been an easy road for many people, minority and non-minority included. Saying they need extra compensation or special treatment boarders on changing from minority rights to minority special rights (rights not even extended to the evil caucasions).

Personally, I don't really care what color your skin is. Its irrelevant. I don't want special treatment based on my skin/gender/religion, not negative treatment based on my skin/gender/religion. I respect people for what they do. In my case, if they are professional, intellegent and knowledgable in my field.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 21, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> If an apology will help create and uplift a more stable black community, I don't see the harm. I think society as a whole bears a responsibility in righting the wrongs of the past. It would show that its worth being an American and not indentify with sub-culture only.
> Sean



Rather than an apology, I think a cultural acceptance that slavery was wrong is the way to start. And I think we have done that. 

People talk about the problem with Japan not apologizing for WWII. But many of the protest against Japan is in conjunction with the fact that there seems to be a lot of Japanese that say that they did nothing wrong, hence the lack of an apology is troubling.

And, I hate to point out the facts, but there are even now a lot of lawyers drooling over their cut of a settlement for a lawsuit against the goverment over slavery. What do you think they would do with an apology other than try to use it to force a trial? Sad, but true.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that I apologize for something I did not do, to someone that it did not happen to? :erg:
> 
> Perhaps the Egyptians should apologize to the Hebrews for that whole 'slave thing'.


Yes, your very lifestyle was made possible by the wrongs of the past. And if that is what its gonna take to get the Israelies and Egytions from blowing themselves up in another war for tourism then so be it.
Sean


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 21, 2005)

I will not apologize for something I did not do to someone who I never personally wronged.   Ther very idea of that is just very strange. When did we start to feel personaly responsible for things that happened before my granddaddys time?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 21, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Gee... how far back do we go. Every society/group has been enslaved or persecuted in the past. Which one gets compensated? Lets stick with the US. American Indians, Chinese who built the railroad, Japanese internment during WW2, blacks being enslaved, etc.. Just about every group/religion has been prosecuted in some form, except perhaps the evil caucasion christian of english origin. Should we have a month dedicated to each minority race, religion or belief system?
> 
> How do you propose righting these wrongs? My whole beef with the suggestion is we have done so much already. The opportunity to excel exists for everyone, and many have done so! Its not been an easy road for many people, minority and non-minority included. Saying they need extra compensation or special treatment boarders on changing from minority rights to minority special rights (rights not even extended to the evil caucasions).
> 
> Personally, I don't really care what color your skin is. Its irrelevant. I don't want special treatment based on my skin/gender/religion, not negative treatment based on my skin/gender/religion. I respect people for what they do. In my case, if they are professional, intellegent and knowledgable in my field.


Getting acknowledgment does not equate to getting a handout. 
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 21, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Yes, your very lifestyle was made possible by the wrongs of the past. And if that is what its gonna take to get the Israelies and Egytions from blowing themselves up in another war for tourism then so be it.
> Sean


 My lifestyle?  My great great-grandparents were Irish immigrants, and they certainly never owned a slave.  I think it's time you stopped buying in to the leftist talking points of class warfare.

The idea that I owe ANYONE an apology for something that I didn't do is asinine.  What's more, it'll be a cold day in hell before any one gets that apology from me.  I'm willing to embrace anyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, as an equal.  I'm willing to judge them by their actions, not by their skin color.  

However, if an apology for something I didn't do is what is required for us to move on as a nation, then I guess conflict it will be.  I will not be made to stand accountable for what somebody else did, and what's more, there is no one going to make me do it.  

What it's darn sure time of, however, is for people to stop using the past as a crutch and an excuse for failures in the present.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 21, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> My lifestyle? My great great-grandparents were Irish immigrants, and they certainly never owned a slave. I think it's time you stopped buying in to the leftist talking points of class warfare.
> 
> The idea that I owe ANYONE an apology for something that I didn't do is asinine. What's more, it'll be a cold day in hell before any one gets that apology from me. I'm willing to embrace anyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, as an equal. I'm willing to judge them by their actions, not by their skin color.
> 
> ...


Or we could admit that some of the present situations are directly attributable to clear past injustice your family chose to be US citizens at some point in the past and therefore became part of the US population. No one is asking you to personaly get on your knees, they are asking you to realize what it took to make America America. I have a freind whos Indian Tribe was only recognized about two years ago, and that was a long time comming. Your right though. No one can make you become part of the solution. That is a personal choice, and you have made it. 
Sean


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 21, 2005)

What is on this list of things that should be apologized for? What other races or nationalities should we put on the list?  Where does it end? Im sure that everybody and anybody can come up with a wrong that was inflicted on their ancestors.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 21, 2005)

Yeah.  Based on TODs claim that we need to recognize we are where we are on the backs of others, I want a Damn apology that my family was forced to change their name, because being Irish we were oppressed and couldnt find work.  

Every NON-Irish on this board can kiss my damn feet in apology.

Or we can just remember not to repeat the past and move on.  YOUR CHOICE.

Make it wisely.


----------



## Sarah (Dec 21, 2005)

I think it is important to be respectful to the past, but sometimes it goes to far and it starts being about blame, and holding people today responsible for what happened in the past is insane.

We have issues here with 'you did such and such to my people 200 years ago'.....hell...I wasnt alive 200 years ago, I respect the fact that your great great great great grandfather went through this, but it wasnt 'my' fault, and I dont understand why you want me to apologise for it?

Loads of people have been repressed in history, at some stage we just have to move on. There is a fine line between remembering the past and letting it go so you can move forward together.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 21, 2005)

Sarah said:
			
		

> There is a fine line between remembering the past and letting it go so you can move forward together.


 
My point exactly.  You just said it much nicer than I did.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 21, 2005)

I don't know how we got on the "apology" issue again, but.  Tell ya what...

To every former slave, I'm sorry.
Now, since there is no one alive in this country right now, who is a freed slave (as that happened over 140 years ago) to the descendants of those freed slaves (who took many of the opportunities suddenly thrust upon them and produced some of the finest people this country has ever know, including inventors, statesmen and at least 1 millionaire):

I'm sorry that despite being given your freedom 140+ years ago, along with the right to education and the right to vote, as well as special grants and government programs that only you due to your heritage can take advantage of, and at least 45+ years of civil rights efforts still somehow feel that the events of the past are what is "keeping you down."
I am sorry that recent immigrants who have only been here a decade are ahead of you in education, economic position and social status.
I am sorry that I am unable to give you free money because your great great grandmother was kidnapped from her homeland.
I am sorry that I was paying attention in school, or showed up for that matter while you were out being "cool" and burning your textbooks.
I'm sorry that I showed up for work and did what was required of me and got ahead while you called in sick because you wanted to sleep in and as it was the 12x time that month got fired over it. I know it was only because of your skin color.
I'm sorry that I take pride in my property and take the time to pick up the trash others throw on my lawn, and I apologize for the inequality of expecting you do the same.
and, I am sorry that you somehow feel that by expecting you to show up for, and pay attention in school, that by expecting you to show up for work on time, prepared and willing to actually do the job for which you were hired, and expecting you to be able to communicate in an understandable manner that you somehow believe is unfair and yet another attempt of "the man" to "keep you down".

There's my apology. Even though, my family never owned a slave, having arrived here from Poland in the 1880's.

Now, where's mine?
I want an apology for:
- All these bad tv shows that seem to cater to, and reinforce stereotypes on ignorance and inability to speak English properly.
- All these special programs that I as a "White Male" can't get into.
- That assault at a bus stop 15 years back.
- The assault outside of my high school when I wouldn't share my non-existent cancer sticks.
- These incredibly bad remakes of both classics and craptastics that seem to be a recent trend.
- This idea that you need an apology and a cash handout for events that did not directly effect you, not prevent you from doing something about your life on your own.

I honestly don't care what your skin tone is, just your education level and work ethic.  I know doctors, lawyers, teachers, scientists, etc, all who happen to have a little pigment in their skin, all of whom busted their asses to get where they are. Others like Mr. Cosby and Mr. Freeman did the same thing, and are referred to as "Sell Outs" by others who share that same pigment. I think it's a pity. They are and should be seen as role models, positive influences that motivate you to work harder to do something with your life besides "hang out".

I'm sorry if my frank speech here is deemed racist by anyone. It is not. I say the same thing to any group that believes they are entitled to a handout for events that happened beyond their or their parents lifetimes.  Learn to read, take the time to find out and use the "special programs, ectc" that you are eligible for, and take responsibility for your own destiny.


----------



## KenpoEMT (Dec 21, 2005)

wow


----------



## arnisador (Dec 22, 2005)

Has anyone considered that it might be a _national _apology, on behalf of the country (which was hear at the time of slavery)? As Japan has been asked to do over various WWI and WWII issues?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2005)

Do they want it from the US government, the Dutch government or the English government? It was Dutch traders who brought the first slaves to these shores under the continued approval of the English King after all.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 22, 2005)

There's a lot of guilt to be spread around. African tribes often helped by selling captives from inter-tribal wars into slavery.

Did the U.S. government do anything wrong? If so, is it unreasonable to expect the head of govt. to apologize on behalf of the country? The country is a continuing entity.

I'm not a big fan of the apology for something this old, but the fact that those invloved are now dead is not a good argument. We're talking about the U.S. of A., and it's still here and still claiming to be the same nation as before. You don't have to apologize for something someone else did, but America may have a different sort of obligation.

Should the Japanese apologize for WWI and WWII atrocties?
Most of those who committed such crimes are dead, as are most (but not all) of the direct victims.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2005)

I'd forgotten about that, the fact that African tribes often fought wars just to gain captives to sell. Are they also required to make an official apology?

Also, are only white americans required to apologize, or are the decendants of black slave owners (there were a number of them) also required to participate in this "sorry-fest"?

What sort of apology should this be? Is it to be directed strictly at the african slave decendants, or will we also be including the native american slave decendants (who were a major part initially) as well as the white slave decendants? 

Many points to ponder here.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 22, 2005)

As far as the U.S., it would be George Bush, head of govt., who would presumably make the apology on behalf of the govt. of the U.S. You wouldn't have to do anything at all.

I say again, if Japan can be expected to apologize for its crimes, why not the U.S.?


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 22, 2005)

Hey, can we get an apology from Aisa for all the White Slavery going on now, while we are at it?​


----------



## arnisador (Dec 22, 2005)

Eh...Asia isn't a country, or other legal entity.

Also, those are generally individual crimes, not government-sponsored activities.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Dec 22, 2005)

I think an International Day of Apology is in order.  On the stated day, simply apologize to everyone you meet that is of a different race, creed, gender, orientation or political party than you.  Once that's done, clean slate.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 22, 2005)

Oh. Ok.
While he's at it, can he apologize for a few other things?
- The near genocide committed against the Native Americans by American troops during the 1800's
- The illegal embargo of a sovereign nation during the War of Northern Aggression
- The support of despots like Sadamn when they served our purposes.
- The targeting, and forced imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WW2 which destroyed families and saw their property seized. (though that might have already been done)
- A repeat apology to the people of Hawaii for the illegal theft of their nation, and a return to nationhood for them (if a state wide vote indicates that is what is wanted)
- The gouging we are going through currently from the oil cartels that support so many of our politicians.
To name a few.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 22, 2005)

I agree with Mr. Hubbard. I think the Civil War was apology enough.   We went to war against the slave states.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 22, 2005)

I think the expectation of an apology or any other "public" action is the very base of the problem we still have with racism and descrimination.

7sm


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 22, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> - The targeting, and forced imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WW2 which destroyed families and saw their property seized. (though that might have already been done)



Yeah, Ford did it.

How about we apologize to those that were born in the country because their ancestors were brought here as slaves, that they were not born in Seirra Leone, Liberia, Sudan or any other African nation you hear on the news lately. If anyone thinks they were harmed by being born here and wants money for it, lets instead compensate them by giving them a ticket back to where their ancestors probably came from.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 22, 2005)

My ancestors came from here...I get a ticket to Oklahoma?


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 22, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think the expectation of an apology or any other "public" action is the very base of the problem we still have with racism and descrimination.



You know, the more I read the above, the more sense it makes to me.

If people, black people, are saying they want an apology from us, then what they are saying is that they blame us for their situation.

We know slavery was bad and that it was a shamefull part of our past. But the calls for an apology are not about accepting the past and moving on, but in placing blame. And the people apologizing for it are the ones to blame. Not the guys in the past, the white people living now are the ones to blame.

So what they are is not their fault. If they did not do well in school, or get a good job, it is because of some force outside their control and the blame must be stuck on someone else. Their is little need to accpet responsibility for their actions or their choices- someone else is to blame if they are not doing as well as they think they should.

Good point!!!!


----------



## Guro Harold (Dec 22, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> You know, the more I read the above, the more sense it makes to me.
> 
> If people, black people, are saying they want an apology from us, then what they are saying is that they blame us for their situation.
> 
> ...


Hmmm,

China wants apologies from Japan for WWII.
Korean wants apologies from Japan for WWII.
The victims of Japanese Internment received an apology from the US Government and cash.

Apologies have been used politically.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 22, 2005)

Having been used and being a part of the problem can bo co-exist.

7sm


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 22, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I think the expectation of an apology or any other "public" action is the very base of the problem we still have with racism and descrimination.
> 
> 7sm


I would say its the injustice and subsequent white wash and cover up itself. You can't blame a group of like individuals for pointing it out. 
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Or we could admit that some of the present situations are directly attributable to clear past injustice your family chose to be US citizens at some point in the past and therefore became part of the US population. No one is asking you to personaly get on your knees, they are asking you to realize what it took to make America America. I have a freind whos Indian Tribe was only recognized about two years ago, and that was a long time comming. Your right though. No one can make you become part of the solution. That is a personal choice, and you have made it.
> Sean


What is the solution, is to stop using the past as an excuse for present failures.  How are further excuses going to solve anything?  Perhaps a little acknowledgement that people have control over their own lives and what they do with it would be a better start than trying to tally up what, other than themselves, has caused someone to act the way they do right now.

You are responsible for you.  Someone may have wronged you in the past, but that is no excuse for present or future behavior that is self-destructive. 

What's more, i'm glad you brought up native americans.  What happened 100 years ago or more in the history of the US was unfortunate.  However, what is holding native americans back today is that many are clinging to the past with the reservation culture, which yields high rates of poverty, alcoholism, and poor education.  Those that left the reservations are successful and contributing members of society.  

It seems that clinging to the past is the problem, not looking to the future. At some point in the process, people need to realize that the chains on their wrists, are ones of their own making.

Move on and get over it.  It's starting to remind me of those people who spend half their life in therapy complaining about their controlling mother and their horrible childhood.  It's a mental illness, that would be cured if they'd just 'let it go' and move on.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 23, 2005)

Well you are right that the reservation thing may have ended up being counter productive, and I'm sure putting Indians there and then just trying to forget about them was not the best course of action. As you suggest, dropping any personal grievance forgetting your culture and blending in would solve many problems. Would you drop yours?
Sean


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 23, 2005)

One point that was made above regarded the special treatment of minority groups.  Legislation like affirmative action, student aid, and housing aid favor one group over another based on the color of one's skin.  I've never thought this was good thing, however, I think at the time it was conceived, it was the right move because society had to be "forced" to change into something more equitable.  

It would be nice if we could drop skin color altogether and just focus on helping people with a few key things that help people become successful...like health care and education.  If one has a healthy body and a trained mind, there aren't many reasons why that individual can't be successful...and none of those should depend on the color of one's skin.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 23, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> I would say its the injustice and subsequent white wash and cover up itself. You can't blame a group of like individuals for pointing it out.
> Sean


 The injustice and "white wash" has been done, nothing can change that. Focusing on it only holds us back. Also, I'm not talking about pointing out an injustice, I specifically said the expectation of public appologies and public "recourse". However, I would say that continued "pointing out" of past injustices do hold us back to some degree. Its hard to help those Native Americans that need help if I'm so focused on bitching about the past genocide of my race. 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What's more, i'm glad you brought up native americans. What happened 100 years ago or more in the history of the US was unfortunate. However, what is holding native americans back today is that many are clinging to the past with the reservation culture, which yields high rates of poverty, alcoholism, and poor education. Those that left the reservations are successful and contributing members of society.


 I agree. It goes along with my idea that continued focus on past wrongs holds one back from future rights. I would like to point out that there are successful reservations and tribes, but few and far between. I like the way the legalities of the reservations work, I think its a great way to honor the Native Americans, but we can see that this attempt at "reparations" has been the downfall of many a Native American. 



			
				Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Well you are right that the reservation thing may have ended up being counter productive, and I'm sure putting Indians there and then just trying to forget about them was not the best course of action. As you suggest, dropping any personal grievance forgetting your culture and blending in would solve many problems. Would you drop yours?
> Sean


 First, the fraction of NA's that actually lived to see a reservation is staggeringly small. 
Second, no one is talking about "forgetting your culture". Thats an extreme that is somewhat disingenuous in my opinion. I haven't forgotten my culture as a card carrying, active member of the Comanche Nation, but I simply do not hold onto past grievences....what could that possibly yield?
We're talking about dropping the expectation of public reparations and dropping of "pointing the finger" and placing blame on a person or people who have absolutely nothing to do with the past grievence.

7sm


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 23, 2005)

On the Native American situation, just as a noneloquent observer, visiting the reservation is a very melancholy experience.  Beautiful stretches of land and a strong spiritual feel yield sharply to the occasional slum jutting up out of the landscape. Most of the buildings I saw on the Warm Springs reservation are not inhabitable yet are inhabited and they even have a casino.  I had to wonder if the preservation of the tribal culture was trickling down to the tribe itself.

On Black culture in America ... Friends of mine left our circle to join gangs and some of them were dead before they reached legal age. My parents being from the south, I have a slight southern twang to my accent and have been asked about it and had the discussion on Southern history many times.

_*WARNING: **SENSITIVE RANT AHEAD*_

So I've felt stuck between a generation who hired black people to labor for them and friends buried with bulletholes in them.  My angry feelings led me to this assessment:  it seems to me that white people no longer need to oppress black people, that there is no longer a 'need' for the KKK - black people are killing each other off without any help from whitey.  So are Mexican-Americans and Native Americans.

For someone who believes so strongly in the ability to make mixed culture work in amazing ways, it is absolutely heartbreaking to witness the infighting of our brothers and sisters of the colors.  And being white only lends me to being on the outside.  I was not able to go in and pull my friends out of their gangs - if I tried I would not be here today.  I am unable to go to the reservation and volunteer and help turn things around - that would involve decisions that only Native Americans can make.

For now, I will keep on volunteering for generic causes that help any and all races and abilities that come my way no matter of racial origin - I frankly don't care what skin people wear and it's none of my business.  I have bigger fish to fry.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 23, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> We know slavery was bad and that it was a shamefull part of our past. But the calls for an apology are not about accepting the past and moving on, but in placing blame.


 
The other way to look at it is that by refusing to apologize the U.S. govt. has failed to accept blame. Asking the govt. to acknowledge its mistakes is about asking the govt. to accept the past and then move on.

Look at the calls for Japan to apologize. The people in its govt. today had nothing to do with Nanking, Korean 'comfort women', and so on. Yet, it's asked to apologize, and to truly accept the past by allowing an honest discussion of it in its schoolbooks.

You focus on individuals whose ancestors were mistreated accepting and moving on...the govt. must also accept and move on. Some say it has just moved on...

I am not necessarily in favor of an apology--it's not clear to me what it would accomplish--but the 'all those people are now dead' argument neglects the fact that the U.S. govt. is over 200 years old and continues to this day. Do nations have obligations? Can they do wrong? If so, should they make amends? It's not George W. Bush's fault, but he speaks for the federal govt. The federal govt., viewed as an entity like a corporation, surely can apologize. A company could still be found liable for crimes it committed years past, even if no one who worked there then still works there now...it's a continuing fictitious person, for legal purposes. Does anyone doubt that this is still the U.S. of A.? Was there a revolution that I didn't hear about?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 23, 2005)

Thank you.


----------



## mantis (Dec 23, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that I apologize for something I did not do, to someone that it did not happen to? :erg:
> 
> Perhaps the Egyptians should apologize to the Hebrews for that whole 'slave thing'.


well apologizing is not necessarily done by you stopping every black person and say "i am sorry for what  my forefathers did to your race"
but it's done by admitting what's been done before is wrong and should not be done.
unfortunately a wide majority of the white community doesnt even think slavery was wrong to start with! 

side note: today's egyptians are not the egyptians that enslaved the israelis. today's egyptians are arabic tribes that moved from arabia to egypt way after Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad (about 1400 years ago only).


----------



## mantis (Dec 23, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The other way to look at it is that by refusing to apologize the U.S. govt. has failed to accept blame. Asking the govt. to acknowledge its mistakes is about asking the govt. to accept the past and then move on.
> 
> Look at the calls for Japan to apologize. The people in its govt. today had nothing to do with Nanking, Korean 'comfort women', and so on. Yet, it's asked to apologize, and to truly accept the past by allowing an honest discussion of it in its schoolbooks.
> 
> ...


well it's different
between countries governments have to apologize
but within one country people have to do that.
dont forget that governments usually do not represent the people, and they usually represent a minority of supremists coming from a really high class that refuses to be gathered with the "common people" in one rank, or physical place!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The other way to look at it is that by refusing to apologize the U.S. govt. has failed to accept blame. Asking the govt. to acknowledge its mistakes is about asking the govt. to accept the past and then move on.
> 
> Look at the calls for Japan to apologize. The people in its govt. today had nothing to do with Nanking, Korean 'comfort women', and so on. Yet, it's asked to apologize, and to truly accept the past by allowing an honest discussion of it in its schoolbooks.
> 
> ...


 Say, an act of atonement such as the deaths of nearly a million Americans in the pursuit of ending the injustice of slavery, between 1861 and 1865?  Just as Europeans began the institution of Slavery, many white Americans fought and died to end it nearly 150 years ago.  Since then, many Americans have fought to progressively cure those wrongs.

Now, how much of an apology do we owe, STILL?  The very notion that we owe an apology is built on a desire to blame the failures of individuals on a long dead institution.  In other words, it's self destructive.  Moreover, an apology would only serve as more of a crutch, in that it would allow people to further blame forces outside themselves for their lot, which doesn't help them in the least. Let it go, and move on.

Mark this one paid in FULL and lets get on with the 21st CENTURY.


----------



## mrhnau (Dec 23, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> unfortunately a wide majority of the white community doesnt even think slavery was wrong to start with!



Thats a bit of a broad statement. Your justification? sources? (won't be like ME and demand a retraction though  )


----------



## mantis (Dec 23, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> Thats a bit of a broad statement. Your justification? sources? (won't be like ME and demand a retraction though  )


im judging from a sample residing in Orange County, california! starting from cops too
i think there's more reasons to believe racism is still dominent than not. in fact i see no reasons to say racism has disappeared!
again that's what i meant by the problem is both arrogance and ignorance (im not calling you either by the way)
but people are too arrogant to admit their flaws, or they're too close-minded to understand what they do wrong. 
hey hey.. reminds me!
didn u see the news when new orleans was evacuated? don tell me there's no racism.. please! (and to the degree of not admitting slavery is wrong)


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 23, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The other way to look at it is that by refusing to apologize the U.S. govt. has failed to accept blame. Asking the govt. to acknowledge its mistakes is about asking the govt. to accept the past and then move on.


But that is assuming its the governments place to appologize...why? Why is the current U.S. Government the one to point the finger at and demand apologies from? Seems the U.S. Governmetn had a great deal of input in stopping slavery, maybe we should ask african americans to make a formal public show of appreciation to the current U.S. Government. 

Truth is either one of those scenarios is asinine. We need to move past the expectations and demands and realize that our future rests in our hands, not in our past.

7sm


----------



## Kreth (Dec 23, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> im judging from a sample residing in Orange County, california! starting from cops too


Could you please explain how Orange County = "the wide majority of the white community"?


----------



## mantis (Dec 23, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> But that is assuming its the governments place to appologize...why? Why is the current U.S. Government the one to point the finger at and demand apologies from? Seems the U.S. Governmetn had a great deal of input in stopping slavery, maybe we should ask african americans to make a formal public show of appreciation to the current U.S. Government.
> 
> Truth is either one of those scenarios is asinine. We need to move past the expectations and demands and realize that our future rests in our hands, not in our past.
> 
> 7sm


good point
that was actually my point
i say apologizing is done on the people's level
and not by saying sorry
but by admitting the mistakes that have been happening and actually correcting them, which i think is also done by erasing something called "black community", "white community", yellow or red (did i miss other colors? haha)
hmm.. maybe not feasible any soon!


----------



## mantis (Dec 23, 2005)

Kreth said:
			
		

> Could you please explain how Orange County = "the wide majority of the white community"?


no it's not
but it's a "slice"
btw, it's a valid statistical way
you take a slice of the society and you can make a conclusion (yes there is an error margin, and the results MIGHT be tentative)
btw, california alone is responsible for 25% of the nation's hate crimes (racist crimes) and that's a statistic in 2004 done by zoghby foundation

note: dont get me wrong, i met racist asians blacks or hispanics, and i met the nicest whites too... there's always exceptions!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> im judging from a sample residing in Orange County, california! starting from cops too
> i think there's more reasons to believe racism is still dominent than not. in fact i see no reasons to say racism has disappeared!
> again that's what i meant by the problem is both arrogance and ignorance (im not calling you either by the way)
> but people are too arrogant to admit their flaws, or they're too close-minded to understand what they do wrong.
> ...


 I agree about arrogance and ignorance being the big problem, thank you for illustrating that point perfectly.  Some people never seem to realize what part they play in a problem, preferring, as they do, to constantly blame others for their own problems as if they have no culpability in creating those problems.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> no it's not
> but it's a "slice"
> btw, it's a valid statistical way
> you take a slice of the society and you can make a conclusion (yes there is an error margin, and the results MIGHT be tentative)
> ...


 Well, since you're stuck on statistics, why don't you enlighten us on what 2% to 4% segment of society is responsible for 52% of the murder rate.  

Are we to assume that racism is the cause of that, or could it be that some people need to look internally for answers, instead of constantly casting about to find someone to blame? (Hint: Try the Bureau of Justice Statistics).


----------



## mantis (Dec 23, 2005)

yes
that's not my point
my point was that california is a good place to examine racism if you wanna find it.
i personally was subject to racist acts here in orange county
again, what im trying to communicate is what i know about a sample that i have contact with. 
im still talking about OC, i didnt start talking about alabama!!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 23, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> yes
> that's not my point
> my point was that california is a good place to examine racism if you wanna find it.
> i personally was subject to racist acts here in orange county
> ...


 
I'll make an observation about racism that i've made several times in the past.  The assumption about racism is that it's indemic in areas where people have the least contact with other races, say, middle America.

The reality, however, is that racism is greatest on the periphery of where several cultures meet.  OC, for example, is an area that borders many other cultural and racial areas.  Racism, as we refer to, is phenomenon that occurs when there are pressures from outgroups, on what we perceive as our ingroup.

Because OC has white communities that are under pressure from expanding black and hispanic communities.  The natural result is HUGE racial tension.

Again, the common belief is that a rural white, with little or no contact with minorities, is the most racist person.  The idea that 'ignorance' breeds racism.  The reality, however, is that the most racist people i've ever met are working class whites who lived for long periods of time in areas that bordered on black communities.  

It seems that competition with other groups, not ignorance, breeds racism.


----------



## mantis (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I'll make an observation about racism that i've made several times in the past. The assumption about racism is that it's indemic in areas where people have the least contact with other races, say, middle America.
> 
> The reality, however, is that racism is greatest on the periphery of where several cultures meet. OC, for example, is an area that borders many other cultural and racial areas. Racism, as we refer to, is phenomenon that occurs when there are pressures from outgroups, on what we perceive as our ingroup.
> 
> ...


oh, now ur making a lot of sense
which reminds me of a plan to make a railroad between UC Irvine, santa ana, and los angeles to take pressure off the 5 and 405 freeway (america's larget parking lots!!)
the plan was rejected because they didnt want the "low class people" from santa ana (ie mexicans) to go near Irvine!
i still think believing in race supremacy has an effect to this too!
thanks for the post


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> oh, now ur making a lot of sense
> which reminds me of a plan to make a railroad between UC Irvine, santa ana, and los angeles to take pressure off the 5 and 405 freeway (america's larget parking lots!!)
> the plan was rejected because they didnt want the "low class people" from santa ana (ie mexicans) to go near Irvine!
> i still think believing in race supremacy has an effect to this too!
> thanks for the post


 I should also add the most racist blacks are those that live on that periphery as well.

In rural areas, where blacks and whites have lived with each other for generations, racial tensions are relatively low.

That is also why blacks tend to have GREAT hatred of Asians who move in to black communities and start businesses.  It's the perception of competition.

We can see this historically.  Irish immigrants were viewed the same way when they first landed in New York.  

Again, it is competition for resources as much as anything else that drives racist views.  As such, the response exists internally to perceptions of competition, instead of being learned.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 24, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> But that is assuming its the governments place to appologize...why?



Well, because that's who legalized and regulated slavery for many years.



> Why is the current U.S. Government the one to point the finger at and demand apologies from?



Because it's the same U.S. govt, as in the late 1700s, but with different employees. We're the same country. Is Xerox a new company every time it changes CEOs?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, because that's who legalized and regulated slavery for many years.


 Actually, by that argument then the Dutch slave traders should apologize first.  Then the British.  Then the original african states that captured and sold slaves.  Oh, and lets not forget the Portugese.  And the Spanish.   It should be noted that the US banned importation of slaves in 1807, the same year that Great Britain banned the Atlantic Slave trade.  If we examine who profited most from slavery, we realize that the United States is not at the top of the list.  What's more, slavery was and still is a common practice in Africa, and it was certainly not invented by the white man.   The majority of slaves imported in to the New World didn't even go to what became the United States, they went to the tropics, where they were used for the production of sugar for the benefit of Europe.



> Between 1600 and 1800 the English imported around 1.7 million slaves to their West Indian possessions. The fact that there were well over a million fewer slaves in the British colonies than had been imported to them illustrates the conditions in which they lived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade



Then, in 1861, the FEDERAL government went to war against rogue states to, once and for all, end the institution of slavery.  Anyone who believes that Federal government circa 1776 was the same one that went to war in 1861 is not aware of the history of the federal government.

All of this is irrelavent, as there is no one alive who had ANYTHING to do with any of it directly. 
If the world spent it's time obsessed about events that happened 200 years ago, we'd spend all our time living in the past and fighting past battles. 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Because it's the same U.S. govt, as in the late 1700s, but with different employees. We're the same country. Is Xerox a new company every time it changes CEOs?


 Show me where anything was codified in federal law.  The fact is that the US federal government did not begin slavery, it did not regulate slavery, and it did not have any hand in the importation of slavery, except to ultimately ban it.  

The reality is the institution of Slavery was controlled on the state level.  It's why we went to war in 1861, and the states that enacted and operated slavery are NOT the same states that emerged post civil war. 

So, the Federal government had no role in slavery....except to intervene and outlaw it.

So, that leaves individual states as your 'corporations' that are responsible, if at all.  What's more, those states were drastically punished and changed as a result of the civil war.

Slavery was a crime, and the punishment due has already been metted out.  We don't keep punishing prisoners who have served their time.


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 24, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> the plan was rejected because they didnt want the "low class people" from santa ana (ie mexicans) to go near Irvine!


Yeah, cuz that's what the 55 fwy is for. Ever hear of the Orange Crush? It's IN  Santa Ana and it heads to all directions of O.C.  But, yeah, those old Chevy's might overheat before they ever get to Irvine. :whip:

Irvine was developed by The Irvine Company, my former employer, which used to own some of the last agriculture in the county which employed many hispanic workers.  Alas, Joan Irvine Smith sold much of the remaining ranch to TIC who grew nothing but office buildings, commercial buildings and retail space designed for the high-dollar income specifically which will mostly be white white-collar workers.  Although the Middle-Eastern population of OC has grown dramatically and controls much of the smaller businesses as does the Vietnamese population which converted virtually ALL of Bolsa Avenue to Little Saigon, much to the protest of some already residing Vietnam veterans.  Oeste Treces gang staked out territory over much of Santa Ana, Westminster, Midway City and Fountain Valley.  Heck, you can't go ANYWHERE in OC without seeing multiple races - even Irvine and Newport Beach.

Not that I mind ... I don't live there anymore and don't need to dodge the flying bullets ... at night in my apartment where I used to live OR on the freeway.

Back to honoring heritage ... I liken this whole thing to Hallmark cards and the cause-of-the-month.  Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Autism Awareness Month. Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Women's History Month.  President's Weekend.  Cardiac Awareness Month.  Friendship week.  Or, how about holidays? Christmas? Valentine's Day? Easter?

See, we could be educating ourselves about cancer, heart disease, developmental disorders, women's history, black American history, executive office veterans all the time.  We could be getting our friends little presents all the time and writing them sweet notes (or giving them high fives) so that they know what in your eyes makes them special, and making an extra effort to love your honey just because ALL THE TIME.

But we don't. We play D&D, post on forums, drive thru Starbucks and McDonalds, drive our kids to soccer, shop online, tap our PDAs and send e-cards.  We've set aside special occasions in an effort to devote serious national attention to important issues. Problem is ... a lot of notoriety on one day, one week, one month doesn't fix problems.  Continuous attention, awareness, education DOES.  How do we get that?

This can only come with a firm value system based on the principles of living with gratitude, respect and love.  Without these three elements we cram data into our heads, listen to talking heads and formulate opinions based on apathy and intolerance.

So ... whatever ... yeah ... feel it every day. Live Christmas every day. Learn about ALL history every day. Appreciate your friends every day. Love your spouse every day. Apologize for any wrongdoing every day.  Make a special occasion to amplify it a bit more once in a while - just don't forget that first part every day.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Yeah, cuz that's what the 55 fwy is for. Ever hear of the Orange Crush? It's IN Santa Ana and it heads to all directions of O.C. But, yeah, those old Chevy's might overheat before they ever get to Irvine. :whip:
> 
> Irvine was developed by The Irvine Company, my former employer, which used to own some of the last agriculture in the county which employed many hispanic workers. Alas, Joan Irvine Smith sold much of the remaining ranch to TIC who grew nothing but office buildings, commercial buildings and retail space designed for the high-dollar income specifically which will mostly be white white-collar workers. Although the Middle-Eastern population of OC has grown dramatically and controls much of the smaller businesses as does the Vietnamese population which converted virtually ALL of Bolsa Avenue to Little Saigon, much to the protest of some already residing Vietnam veterans. Oeste Treces gang staked out territory over much of Santa Ana, Westminster, Midway City and Fountain Valley. Heck, you can't go ANYWHERE in OC without seeing multiple races - even Irvine and Newport Beach.
> 
> ...


 God bless us everyone.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







(Sorry, couldn't resist...I was watching 'Scrooged' with Bill Murray)


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, by that argument then the Dutch slave traders should apologize first. Then the British. Then the original african states that captured and sold slaves. Oh, and lets not forget the Portugese. And the Spanish. It should be noted that the US banned importation of slaves in 1807, the same year that Great Britain banned the Atlantic Slave trade. If we examine who profited most from slavery, we realize that the United States is not at the top of the list. What's more, slavery was and still is a common practice in Africa, and it was certainly not invented by the white man. The majority of slaves imported in to the New World didn't even go to what became the United States, they went to the tropics, where they were used for the production of sugar for the benefit of Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I couldn't have said it better myself.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Actually, by that argument then the Dutch slave traders should apologize first.  Then the British.  Then the original african states that captured and sold slaves.  Oh, and lets not forget the Portugese.  And the Spanish.



"You can't give _me _a ticket, officer, other people were speeding too!"



> All of this is irrelavent, as there is no one alive who had ANYTHING to do with any of it directly.



Uncle Sam is still here. Don't we still have a United States of America? Did I miss the revolution?



> Show me where anything was codified in federal law.  The fact is that the US federal government did not begin slavery, it did not regulate slavery, and it did not have any hand in the importation of slavery, except to ultimately ban it.



The most obvious thing that comes to mind is the 3/5 compromise. Surely, that legalized slavery (or at least left it to the individual states to regulate it).

Are we too proud to apologize?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2005)

At the end of the War of Northern Aggression, the conquered nations that had formed the confederacy had their independence removed at gunpoint by the hostile invader who had fought a war in defiance of it's own laws and international law. These conquered nations were stripped of their independent constitutions, new constitutions were forced upon them, and they were absorbed into the "Union" against their will.

Numerous points of fall out came from this action.
- Freed slaves were not "educated and merged into society". They were mostly left to fend for themselves.
- The government of the North had broken many of it's own laws and policies in the course of this action, including the exile of congressmen who spoke out against this action.
- The Northern government began a long series of 'power grabs'. Previous administrations had been limited in how much involvement into daily lives and private businesses it could have. After the WONA, this changed, and massive government spending began.

One could argue that yes, there was a revolution, one which killed forever the Jeffersonian view of a small Federal government, and set us on our present course where big business is the most important citizen. Conspiracy buffs might also point to the Kenedy assassinations as another overthrow. 

There WAS a war fought where the issue of slavery was a key point, but that war ended in 1783. One of the key points was the King of England and his governors  refusal to end the importation of slaves to the colonies.

The myth that the WONA was fought over slavery has prospered but is a romantic fallacy. That war was fought over the same things most are. Power, control and money. There is historical proof that just prior to the outbreak of hostilities, that an amendment had passed congress and been ratified that would have firmly left the slave issue in the hands of the states. This "missing" amendment was printed in copies of the constitution for some time, later to be replaced with the one ending slavery in the US.

The bottom line is, no this is not the same nation as it was in 1783, or 1865. The conquered South has been destroyed, and absorbed. Those states that were "slave states" no longer exist, replaced by seperate entities bearing the same name. There has been a major reorganization of the Federal Government as well, that makes it quite "alien" to it's founders. I see no reason for an apology, especially since there is no one alive today who was directly impacted by that despised institution.


----------



## mantis (Dec 24, 2005)

what i can see so far is
- americans are very unapologetic and too arrogant to admit their mistakes. they even refuse to do anything to show "good faith" to start a new clean history 
- the american society will never see an end to racism
- diversity, what americans claim to be a strength, is actually a weakness. different communities are ready to burst and eat the others when they have a chance!
correct me if im wrong
(goal is not offending americans but that's what i sensed so far)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> what i can see so far is
> - americans are very unapologetic and too arrogant to admit their mistakes. they even refuse to do anything to show "good faith" to start a new clean history



Why should I apologize or admit to a mistake that wasn't mine, not my ancestors?


> - the american society will never see an end to racism


Probably not in our lifetimes.


> - diversity, what americans claim to be a strength, is actually a weakness. different communities are ready to burst and eat the others when they have a chance!


I agree, yet disagree.  The bulk of this sites staff for example is American, from many ethnic groups, faiths and social levels, yet we get along fine.
I've attended martial arts events, sci-fi/fantasy cons, and other events where the participation was just as mixed, just as diverse and found simply a group of people, enjoying a mutual interest together.  By the same token, I've also been in parts of my own town where I simply didn't feel safe, many of those were ethic neighborhoods. The vibes were hostile, is the only way to describe it.

My apology won't make a bit of difference. The ones screaming the most for an apology want it to lead to a big cash payout. One that I disagree with, unless someone can prove to me that our system is somehow geared towards still keeping people down. The success of Asian and Hispanic 1st and 2nd generation immigrants (who faced language, as well as cultural barriers) would lead me to believe that it's not history that keeps you down, but your own internal drive and desire to succeed.

I simply refuse to reward laziness with a false apology and free money.

I also repeat that we should be celebrating people, not sub-sections of people. Honor Dr. Carver, Dr. Cosby and the rest as people, who went the distance, and after hard work, and alot of struggle, reached the top.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 24, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> what i can see so far is
> - americans are very unapologetic and too arrogant to admit their mistakes. they even refuse to do anything to show "good faith" to start a new clean history
> - the american society will never see an end to racism
> - diversity, what americans claim to be a strength, is actually a weakness. different communities are ready to burst and eat the others when they have a chance!
> ...


Diversity isn't the problem. Whats taking us downhill are things like taking away the pledge of allegiance due to  legal arguments over over McArthy (spelling) era pork that got tacked on in the fifties. The civil war was fought to maintain the Union. Without a sense of unity we are lost. I feel public acknowlegment and maybe even some gestures of good faith would strengthen that union.
Sean


----------



## mantis (Dec 24, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Why should I apologize or admit to a mistake that wasn't mine, not my ancestors?
> 
> Probably not in our lifetimes.
> 
> ...


wise words mr. hubbard.
why would you apologize? the plain statement "we're sorry we committed a mistake" shows good faith and can be a good start to more balanced society. But that's not the apology i was talking about. the apology that i find real is done by the people by omitting every racist act a community possesses against another.
you know what's sad, although this doesnt really have to do with this discussion, is BLACKS themselves are racist!
they descriminate against africans too man! wth!!!!


----------



## mantis (Dec 24, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Diversity isn't the problem. Whats taking us downhill are things like taking away the pledge of allegiance due to legal arguments over over McArthy (spelling) era pork that got tacked on in the fifties. The civil war was fought to maintain the Union. Without a sense of unity we are lost. I feel public acknowlegment and maybe even some gestures of good faith would strengthen that union.
> Sean


i know
diversity should be a strength, especially for a new civilization or a culture like the american. but it becomes a problem when there's no social acceptance between communities, and that's what i am talking about


----------



## arnisador (Dec 24, 2005)

> The bottom line is, no this is not the same nation as it was in 1783, or 1865.



Legally, though, it is.

Would you let a company slip through this type of legal loophole? Change a name and cite the length of time and board turnover as a means of avoiding liability for the company's actions?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2005)

No. Legally it's not.

It's not the same nation today, as it was in 1783.

*Timeline:*
*Articles of Confederation adopted 1777 -  The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments.
*Full ratification by 13 states occured 1781
*Constitutional Convention held 1787
*US Constitution replaces AOC 1789

In order to adopt the US Constitution, the states had to leave the Confederation. This in effect created a new entity and disolved the old one. 

Therefore, the Current United States is not the same legal entity as the one the existed at the end of the War for Independance. 

Source: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> "You can't give _me _a ticket, officer, other people were speeding too!"


 NO, but your great-grandfather was speeding in 1944, here's your ticket.  



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Uncle Sam is still here. Don't we still have a United States of America? Did I miss the revolution?


 You've failed to show how the 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> The most obvious thing that comes to mind is the 3/5 compromise. Surely, that legalized slavery (or at least left it to the individual states to regulate it).


 It didn't legalize slavery, it was an attempt to prevent the destruction of the union.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Are we too proud to apologize?


 Apologize for what?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> what i can see so far is
> - americans are very unapologetic and too arrogant to admit their mistakes. they even refuse to do anything to show "good faith" to start a new clean history


 You're pretty arrogant to say that they were MY mistakes.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> - the american society will never see an end to racism


Racism is a species wide problem, not an 'American' problem.



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> - diversity, what americans claim to be a strength, is actually a weakness. different communities are ready to burst and eat the others when they have a chance!correct me if im wrong (goal is not offending americans but that's what i sensed so far)


 [/quote] Diversity, in itself, is NOT a strength.  That is a myth.  Diversity of ideas can be beneficial, but ONLY in the framework of unity.  Without unity, diversity just leads to conflict.


What offends me is that I owe an apology for what some bodies great great great great grand father MAY have done.  What's more, the south was already punished and destroyed.  It seems a bit of double jeapordy to ask for an apology AGAIN.

It's like a wife, still mad about something that happened in 1983, who every once in a while wants ANOTHER pound of flesh.  I'd have divorced her long before now.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Legally, though, it is.
> 
> Would you let a company slip through this type of legal loophole? Change a name and cite the length of time and board turnover as a means of avoiding liability for the company's actions?


 If the company were the same in name only, YES.

More to the point, if you inhereted a house from your great great great grandfather, how would you feel about a law suit based on the idea that, since your house CAME from your great great great grandfather, you still represent him?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

Ok, fine, it is Christmas, so here goes.....


I, sgtmac, hereby apologize for any actions of mine, that directly contributed to or directly supported, the Atlantic Slave trade AND Slavery in the Americas.

I hope this apology can bring some closure, and allow us ALL to move ON in to the 21st century.  :asian:





p.s.  I also apologize for the Egyptian slavery of the Jews, the black death, the Crusades, the extinction of the dinosaurs AND the dodo, and any other historical action that I may have supported, contributed to, profited from or even heard about....thank you.


----------



## mantis (Dec 24, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> NO, but your great-grandfather was speeding in 1944, here's your ticket.
> 
> You've failed to show how the
> 
> ...


apologize for enslaving an entire race that you brought to this country
and your refusal to treat them equally when they managed to get 'some' freedom.
i know we're going in a loop. but i think it's a valid issue. at least do something for those minorities that cover u butts in wars dude!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 24, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> apologize for enslaving an entire race that you brought to this country



But, neither I nor my ancestors did.



> and your refusal to treat them equally when they managed to get 'some' freedom.


Again, doesn't apply to me.



> i know we're going in a loop. but i think it's a valid issue. at least do something for those minorities that cover u butts in wars dude!



What should we do, that isn't already being done?


----------



## mantis (Dec 24, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> But, neither I nor my ancestors did.
> 
> 
> Again, doesn't apply to me.
> ...


man
why are u so like literal
im not asking bob hubbard to apologize specifically!
okay, we're going in an endless loop
i already know it's going anywhere, so no point of further discussion about it
haha
i give up man, i give up!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 24, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> apologize for enslaving an entire race that you brought to this country
> and your refusal to treat them equally when they managed to get 'some' freedom.
> i know we're going in a loop. but i think it's a valid issue. at least do something for those minorities that cover u butts in wars dude!


 This is what apologies lead to. As black Americans are americans too, does that mean they need to apologize to themselves?

Can I assume that when we mean 'The US should apologize' we are referring to 'whitie'?  As the government is made up of representatives of the people, and you obviously don't mean black people should apologize to themselves, that must only mean that it's white people that need to apologize.

So when we're done apologizing to african americans, are we going to apologize to native americans? Then irish americans, for the treatment of Irish immigrants during the 1800's?  Then who are we going to apologize to?  Oh, I know, how about we start prosecuting the descendents of slave owners and traders for crimes against humanity!  A kind of a 'Sins of the father' kind of thing.

This whole apology, 20 acres and mule non-sense started in the 1960's when black militant nationalists, like the Nation of Islam, wanted the US government to grant them a section of the United States that would simply be black only.  As such, it is a divisive concept, in a time when we really want to move beyond the past, in to a mutually beneficial future.  Martin Luther King Jr. understood that then, and we should understand it now.  

It's why the Nation of Islam didn't like Dr. King, and those working to peacefully bring America together, because he wanted black America to become a part of American society, to be accepted and treated as equals, while the Nation of Islam and other black militant nationalists wanted a pound of flesh, and were operating out of anger and a desire to exact some sort of reckoning.

I recommend we get over it, and move on to the 21st century.  Get over it.

Moreover, it's the victim mentality that is holding many in America back.  It's become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Adversity doesn't break everyone, in fact, adversity makes some people stronger.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> man
> why are u so like literal
> im not asking bob hubbard to apologize specifically!



Then who? The goverment...the goverment of the _people_ of the United States?

How about those that moved here after slavery? How about the people that were brought here as slaves, it is not their goverment too?

In my case, my family has always lived in free states and my great grandfather specifically joined the Illinois National Guard to fight slavery. He was a bit of a religous nut from what I hear and thought of the slaves in the south as if they were the Jews under Egypt. I am sure that my family has done some bad things in it's history, but how much responsibilty does it have for slavery?

Now some will say that the contributions of the slaves helped make this country stronger and thus made all of us better as a result. Thus, we benifited from their slavery and should apologize to their ancestors. But, aren't their ancestors also benifiting from a stronger United States?

In Japan, there are still a lot of people saying that Japan did nothing wrong during WWII. That is one reason why so many Asian countries is calling for the goverment to apologize to acknowledge that they indeed _did_ do something wrong and that is the national policy. But who in America is going to say that slavery was not a bad thing? We know that slavery is wrong, and we know that people were harmed by it. We regret it, but we can only look on the past and learn from other mistakes. To try to place blame for something we had no part in and that we acknowledge was a bad thing is like trying to get you to apologize for something your grandparent did.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

please go back and read previous posts


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> please go back and read previous posts


 I think he's probably read those posts,  but I think he wants you to clarify a few points about those posts.



In other news, a movement has begun requesting that Rome apologize to the people of Carthage.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think he's probably read those posts,  but I think he wants you to clarify a few points about those posts.
> 
> 
> 
> In other news, a movement has begun requesting that Rome apologize to the people of Carthage.


well my thought was that the entire society should do something to show good faith. 
but now i know it's not gonna happen. too difficult for some reason!
and you guys will keep saying "i didnt do it why should i apologize" and keep this endless loop forever.
i see no point in this discussion any longer and therefore i must shut up to save us all time!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> well my thought was that the entire society should do something to show good faith.
> but now i know it's not gonna happen. too difficult for some reason!
> and you guys will keep saying "i didnt do it why should i apologize" and keep this endless loop forever.
> i see no point in this discussion any longer and therefore i must shut up to save us all time!


 Well, do whatever feels right.

Nobody has yet shown me how an apology would do anything but act as a further crutch, and serve as justification for more excuses....or is this just another veilled money grab scheme?  

'If you're sorry, and you acknowledge you are responsible, then you should make compensation'....yeah, right....hold your breath. :rofl:



This just in...the Hittites are calling on Egypt to apologize for the attempted invasion by Ramses II in 1275 bc.  (i'm sorry, 'bce')

This just in, a demand has been made that Athens apologize on behalf of it's behavior toward the Melians, during the Peloponessian war.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> No. Legally it's not.
> 
> It's not the same nation today, as it was in 1783.
> 
> ...



No sale. The U.S. govt. is the same today as it was in 1789. The Civil War was viewed in one way by the Confederacy--but the view of the victorious U.S. govt. is that it was a rebellion. Rebellions that fail have no legal effect. If I declare myself the U.S. of Arnisador, the U.S. govt. doesn't change because of it. The current govt. is indeed the same legal entity that has existed at least since George Washington took office.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

okay
let me ask this then
what do you think should be done regarding segregated communities?
ie indians, blacks, asians, and hispanics?
or a better question is do you think it is necessary to get rid of racism or not, and if yes then how, and if not then why?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> im not asking bob hubbard to apologize specifically!



Agreed. It's the U.S. govt. that is at issue here. Not even George Bush need apologize for _himself_--just _on behalf of _the govt.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

not even that man
apology doesnt teach black kids
doesnt give them bread
doesnt remove liquor stores planted at every corner
doesnt clean their neighborhoods
doesnt get their young jobs
some action does
some plan may do that as well, right?
fine, dont apologize, but remember in a decade or 2 whites are becoming the minority.. it's gonna get scary for the white man! lol


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

but then what's this mentality
an ex-gangster is jailed for 20+ years
and then punished again by being executed
and that's considered fair

but apologizing for years of slavery: I DIDNT DO IT!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> not even that man
> apology doesnt teach black kids
> doesnt give them bread
> doesnt remove liquor stores planted at every corner
> ...


 No, only the black man can do that...the sooner he realizes it the better off he will be.  Excuses only prolong his plight.

And the threat that I will be the minority doesn't scare me in the least.  My ancestors came to this country as a minority, and they fought and worked for everything they ever had.  That won't stop because i'm suddenly on the minority list.

If you think that insinuating that i'm white, so i'm going to suffer some consequences unless I apologize, so I better apologize, you are living in a fantasy world.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

how can they do that with no resources man?
come on, be a little realistic man
look at you, do you hear yourself "only black man"
as if "black man" isnt a part of america
u make them sound like they live in a different country!
that's what im talking about man
if this mentalityy is gone that would be the best apology dude


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> how can they do that with no resources man?
> come on, be a little realistic man
> look at you, do you hear yourself "only black man"
> as if "black man" isnt a part of america
> ...


 NO RESOURCES?! Every man is responsible for himself, period.  That you think the insinuation that a man should make his living with his own will is RACIST, then that explains a lot about YOUR mentality.  

What's more, MY ancestors came to America with the clothes on their back.  The idiotic NOTION that you have to HAVE resources to MAKE resources, only encourages a victim mentality.

Nobody said the black man wasn't part of America, many black americans have BUILT prosperity with their own two hands.  Those that haven't, however, are mired in excuses and victimhood that you propose to maintain.  You think you are doing someone a favor, but it is YOU who are helping to foster their helplessness.  You should apologize.

You propose to denigrate the achievements of successful black americans, by claiming that they are no better than those that REFUSE to work.  In your mind, the only black americans that exist, exist only in inner-city squalor, and that is a dangerous, passive aggressive form of racism, predicated on the belief that it is NECESSARY for black america that YOU help them.  You, sir, are exhibiting the racist attitude in this discussion.  It is a racism built on a desire to believe that some people are hopeless without YOUR help.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> NO RESOURCES?! Every man is responsible for himself, period.
> 
> What's more, MY ancestors came to America with the clothes on their back. The idiotic NOTION that you have to HAVE resources to MAKE resources, only encourages a victim mentality.


why do we pay taxes if EVERY MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIMSELF
that's just ridiculous sir, with all due respect!
yeah, every man is responsible for himself to get away from a hurricane, but wait let's evacuate the rich white and for black "MANAGE YOURSELF"! 

please elaborate on your second argument. the way it looks right now makes it unworthy of commenting on


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

u propose that we should keep blacks in ghettoes
make drugs and alcohol easy to access
give them no education
give them nothing
and then expect them to survive
and if they cant then they are just savage thugs that couldnt make it in the civilized world!!!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> why do we pay taxes if EVERY MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIMSELF
> that's just ridiculous sir, with all due respect!
> yeah, every man is responsible for himself to get away from a hurricane, but wait let's evacuate the rich white and for black "MANAGE YOURSELF"!
> 
> please elaborate on your second argument. the way it looks right now makes it unworthy of commenting on


 The reason we began paying taxes is to build roads and bridges, for the common use of all.  The entitlement mentality is a recent development in American history.

What's more, that you see the difference between black and white is very clear.  Me, I prefer to judge individuals.  If a man is lazy, he is a lazy man, black or white.  If he is successful, he is not a successful black man, but a successful man.

Again, passive aggressive racism serves no purpose.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> u propose that we should keep blacks in ghettoes
> make drugs and alcohol easy to access
> give them no education
> give them nothing
> ...


 Really?  Where did I say that?

In fact, you are suggesting that all blacks are KEPT in ghettoes, which itself is a form of stereotyping.  There are MANY successful men and women who happen to black.  In America the idea that black americans are 'kept down' is nothing but the talking points of a political agenda.

The most powerful force that keeps MANY Americans, black and white, from participating is their own cultural beliefs.  Black americans stuck in inner-city poverty have a self-perpetuating belief that EDUCATION, for example, is 'acting white'.  It is those beliefs, rather than things enforced upon that particular group of african americans, that is most damaging.  It is also something internal, for which I have no power to alter.

I think men like Bill Cosby (who got criticized as an 'uncle tom' for pointing it out) and Morgan Freeman illustrate this very well.  The inner city african american community has embraced an anti-intellectual, self-destructive position on participation in American society, a position that you are helping to reinforce.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The reason we began paying taxes is to build roads and bridges, for the common use of all. The entitlement mentality is a recent development in American history.
> 
> What's more, that you see the difference between black and white is very clear. Me, I prefer to judge individuals. If a man is lazy, he is a lazy man, black or white. If he is successful, he is not a successful black man, but a successful man.
> 
> Again, passive aggressive racism serves no purpose.


yes, but why deprive the blacks from the educational benefit of taxes and give it to others?! 

so whites are hard working but blacks arent and this is how they ended up in ghettoes!


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Really?  Where did I say that?
> 
> In fact, you are suggesting that all blacks are KEPT in ghettoes, which itself is a form of stereotyping. There are MANY successful men and women who happen to black. In America the idea that black americans are 'kept down' is nothing but the talking points of a political agenda.
> 
> The most powerful force that keeps MANY Americans, black and white, from participating is their own cultural beliefs. Black americans stuck in inner-city poverty have a self-perpetuating belief that EDUCATION, for example, is 'acting white'. It is those beliefs, rather than things enforced upon that particular group of african americans, that is most damaging. It is also something internal, for which I have no power to alter.


by saying they shouldnt be given resources and they have to do it on their own and be responsible for themselves.
and yes the vast majority of blacks are kept in ghettoes OF SOME KIND.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> okay
> let me ask this then
> what do you think should be done regarding segregated communities?
> ie indians, blacks, asians, and hispanics?
> or a better question is do you think it is necessary to get rid of racism or not, and if yes then how, and if not then why?



To get rid of racism, we need to stop looking and treating people by the color of their skin. And to deal with segregated communities, we should not do anything that we would not do for any person as an individual.



> but then what's this mentality
> an ex-gangster is jailed for 20+ years
> and then punished again by being executed
> and that's considered fair



I know the recent case you are talking about, but are you trying to say that is _racist????_ The man killed more than one person. I agree he should not have spent so long in prison. He should have been fried much earlier. But any killer that fights execution is on death row for decades. The only short case I can think of is Timothy McVeigh because he did not fight his execution.



> why do we pay taxes if EVERY MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIMSELF
> that's just ridiculous sir, with all due respect!
> yeah, every man is responsible for himself to get away from a hurricane, but wait let's evacuate the rich white and for black "MANAGE YOURSELF"!



Now you are being argumentative and showing the viewpoint of those that will always see racisim. 

First of all, we are responsible for our own improvement. The goverment was established to build up things like the police and courts so that we could seek our form of happiness without interference. We defend the borders from invasion, and rescue people from natural disastors That is a long way of saying that everyone is responsible for everyone else.

Second, your comments about Katrina are off the mark. I have heard a lot of accusations, but there has not been anything to back the idea of racist handling by the goverment. But of course, some people will always see a racist problem.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> yes, but why deprive the blacks from the educational benefit of taxes and give it to others?!
> 
> so whites are hard working but blacks arent and this is how they ended up in ghettoes!


 Nobody is DEPRIVING black americans of educational benefits...but black americans.  It is a long understood problem that many inner-city black americans have a culture held belief that GETTING an education is 'acting white' and, therefore, believe that it's not something they should do.  How do you fight that kind of belief from outside? You can't.  

What's more, my friend, nobody said ALL whites are hardworking.  Many whites live in ghettoes too.  More whites live in poverty, than blacks.  Most of them for the same reasons.  Again, you see race, I see individuals.  What is the definition of 'racist' again?

What's more, you are obviously ignorant of WHY many black communities are poor.  The answer will likely surprise you.  High levels of teenage pregnancy, FAR MORE than racism, has been an on going cycle for years, has largely contributed to this problem.  

Black communities survived slavery pretty much intact.  In fact, in the years leading up to the 1960, despite racism, black communities were thriving in the US, with many blacks, even though working in low wage jobs, providing support for their families.

During the 1960's and 1970's, however, black communities took a drastic turn.  The culture of the inner-cities began to become what you see today, with well over 50% of those born, born to poor, single teenage mothers.


It is clear that the LARGEST factor driving poverty in black america, is teenage single-parents.  A single mother, ESPECIALLY a teenage single mother, is not able to provide the care, support and guidance necessary to provide opportunities for their children.  What's more, add other cultural factors, and the odd's are stacked against those children, and their children, and their children, so long as the cycle continues.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> by saying they shouldnt be given resources and they have to do it on their own and be responsible for themselves.



So it sounds like you are advocatingthe opposite. Give African Americans a load of cash and not hold them responsible for their actions.

Good lord, no one will ever convince me that those advocating an apology are not after some cash after this thread.



> and yes the vast majority of blacks are kept in ghettoes OF SOME KIND.



And those that are, are usually kept their by their beliefs. Those that do well tend to not be treated well by the rest of the community. They are called uncle toms and the like. Take a look at Bill Cosby.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> So it sounds like you are advocatingthe opposite. Give African Americans a load of cash and not hold them responsible for their actions.


 I think we've tried that for several generations.  How'd it work?  Oh, I know, I know.  If a program is a fundamental failure, you just didn't 'try hard enough'.   "Give a man a $10.00 bill, and he can buy lunch, teach him how to work, and he can buy his own lunch".  



			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> Good lord, no one will ever convince me that those advocating an apology are not after some cash after this thread.


 Of course it is.  I think we ferreted that out already.  It's a clever form of extortion....'Give us some money, because if you don't, you will be the minority in a few years, then, watch out!'.  Alrighty then.  




			
				Don Roley said:
			
		

> And those that are, are usually kept their by their beliefs. Those that do well tend to not be treated well by the rest of the community. They are called uncle toms and the like. Take a look at Bill Cosby.


 Yes, because they illustrate that black americans CAN be successful, with a work ethic and an education, AND most importantly, without a HUGE chip on the shoulder and the belief that everyone isn't out to get them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2005)

Last I checked, at least around me, there is a thing called public school. It is available to anyone, free of charge. They serve lunch there, and you pay for is based on economic need. When I was a rug rat, I paid a quarter a day. My nephew, who's mom makes more than his grandmother did, pays a huge 50 cents. His school is located in one of those "ghettos". In fact, so was the school both my sister and I attended as kids. Buffalo has this "magnet" program, and forced busing thing.  My high school was in a prerdominantely black neighborhood, my sisters was in a Hispanic one. Again, both schools were public, and open to all free of charge.

My classmates were a mixed bunch. Geeks, jocks and losers.  The geeks graduated, now hold jobs or have their own businesses. The jocks ended up in  uniform, and fought in the first gulf war. The losers are mostly in jail or dead. The last group were the "cool" kids, who didn't believe in reading, were always in trouble, and often flunked out as the idea of reading and learning was beneath them.

They made the choice to not show up, they made the choice to not pick up a book and learn to read/write/count/speak.  Why should I apologize for their poor choices?  

What extra resources should they be given? They had free education, but they CHOSE not to use it. They already have at least a hundred different scholarship and grant programs available exclusively to them for further education.  So, what else do they need?

Those liquor stores are usually run by African Americans. If not them, then Asians and middle eastern owners. These are people who -are- making an effort, and using the resources they have, seeking out the grants, loans, etc, and trying to build a business in their community, despite the high crime and vandalism rates.

As to the cleanliness issue, sorry, you can't convince me. I have 2 hands. I can bend. Therefore I can bend down and pick up trash. I do it every week. I also cut my grass, and shovel my walk. I borrow my grandfathers mower and do my lawn, my mothers and on occasion my sisters, all summer long. I also shovel my driveway and sidewalk, and on occasion do my mothers as well. I found the shovel I use a few years back, though I've bought 2 others since. How is it ANYONE but the person living theres responsibility to keep the outside, and especially the inside of their home clean? How hard is it to work with your neighbors, form a community cleanup crew and every month, everyone pitch in and sweep up the streets, sidewalks, and whack down some weeds. Someone's got to have a lawn mower, a broom, and a bag.  Hell, you can get free, abet small, garbage bags for free...just buy groceries. NYS has one of the most liberal food stamp programs, designed for the cash poor. Thats 'free' money, for food.

So, you can eat and get educated for free. You can on your own, with just an old grocery bag and your own hands (which 99% of people come with preinstalled) keep your property looking presentable. You have access to additional grants and support if you choose to try your hand at self-employment.

As for segregated communities, I am not aware of any laws in this country that limit where you can live based on race. In my neighborhood (considered one of the "good parts of the city", there are at least 2 black families on the street next to me, and one across from me and down a bit. Theres at least 3 Hispanic families (I used to work with 2 members of the one, years back), and 1 Asian family. This is out of say 50-75 houses, mostly 2 family, and a guess based on who I see walking by, nothing scientific). I know the other blocks around me are just as diverse.

So, what more do they need?

* Should we pay people to goto school? Has been suggested, I think its ridiculous.
* Should we come up with some complex formula and a huge government payoff to anyone who can prove connection to being a descendant of a slave? I'm personally against it.

My experience says that the problem, and the resultant solution lies with those who will benefit the most. They need to get off their asses, and do something besides sit at home, or hang out on street corners and moan about their fate. I work 17 hours a day, every day. I'm sure putting in 8 wouldn't kill them. And, no one give me crap about menial jobs, etc. I've done plumbing, scooped poop, sorted garbage, cleaned up factories, and been a human beast of burden on job sites over the years. It's dirty sucky work, but it paid, and let me move up. I see ads in the paper all the time for labor. I know the store where my GF works is always looking for help, as are easily a dozen others around here, almost all are on bus routes.

The "Man" is not what is keeping them down. It is their own ignorance, pride, and arrogance. Until they take the time to become masters of their own destinies, no amount of "I'm sorry" and "Heres more free money" will help them.
White, Black, Red, Yellow, or Purple, it doesn't matter. You are responsible for you.

Cant read? - Free government programs will help you.
Cant write? - Free government programs will help you.
Can't add? - Free government programs will help you.
Want a job? - The Department of Labor has listings, openings, and resources, free to everyone. There are signs up in windows, and ads in the paper. You just might have to walk a bit, or take a bus. My next door neighbor takes a cab to work every day, dropping her kid off on the way.
Want to start a business? - Grants, loans and other developmental programs are available, if you meet their requirements and have a solid business plan.
Want to go back to school? - Grants, scholarships and loans are available based on qualification and need.
Hungry? - Food Stamp programs are available in most states, based on economic need.
Cold? - Apply for HEAP
Sick? - Free and low cost clinics and medical centers are all over the place. Coverage is available through the Medicaid and Medicare programs (though the paperworks a *****), as well as several other newer programs.
Homeless? - There are shelters you can stay at, providing beds, showers and warmth while you get back on your feet.

Again, no excuse, except ignorance, and only the ignorant can change that.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 25, 2005)

That about sums up my belief too.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 25, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Uncle Sam is still here. Don't we still have a United States of America? Did I miss the revolution?
> 
> Are we too proud to apologize?


Ok, I have to address this. Its been touched on a bit, but I keep seeing this used. Your addressing of Uncle Sam and then using the word "we". The term "we" has been used alot in the last few pages on this thread. What does that term mean in this thread? "We" means what white people? The government of the people...not of the white people. "We", includes me (Native American) and people of all races. As a point of fact, the black race is not the only race that was enslved. The african americans are well known as slaves because they were held as important at least as slaves. They had at least that much worth....which was not given to native americans which needed not be imported, paid for, or protected (if one died there were plenty more to grab). So lets not make this a black vs white issue.

Also, how and to whom should I appologize? I'm half Native American (registered) and half Scotch Irish. Do I offer half of an appology to those enslaved (including my own race)? Am I to receive half an appology from you and half of those reparations? This is ridiculous. We are a different people, under a different government, in a different time. We should start helping each other instead of holding each other to past mistakes of ancestors of all of us. 



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> well my thought was that the entire society should do something to show good faith.
> but now i know it's not gonna happen. too difficult for some reason!
> and you guys will keep saying "i didnt do it why should i apologize" and keep this endless loop forever.
> i see no point in this discussion any longer and therefore i must shut up to save us all time!


Entire society? Including me? By saying the "entire society" should do something you are excluding blacks and other races from society, unless you are proposing we appologize to ourselves. I dont hate half of me for enslaving the other half hundreds of years ago. Wait....my other half successfully caried out genocide on my other half...man I will need the help of a professional psychologist now! 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> No sale. The U.S. govt. is the same today as it was in 1789. The Civil War was viewed in one way by the Confederacy--but the view of the victorious U.S. govt. is that it was a rebellion. Rebellions that fail have no legal effect. If I declare myself the U.S. of Arnisador, the U.S. govt. doesn't change because of it. The current govt. is indeed the same legal entity that has existed at least since George Washington took office.


 What sources are you using to same its the same government? Care to research the amount of changes put into effect since George Wachington? Care to research the amount of Supreme Court interpretations of the constitution since George Washington? Are we still the same entity?



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Agreed. It's the U.S. govt. that is at issue here. Not even George Bush need apologize for _himself_--just _on behalf of _the govt.


 The U.S. Government didn't even have much to do with slavery except banning it! How is it their issue? Also, my unlce was head of indian affairs for the government working with every president since Nixon to Clinton....is he also at fault? He traveled to every reservation in the U.S. making sure they were being treated right....I guess he is at fault and should go and appologize to his people for his unjust treatment of them (including himself). 

This notion of an apology is simply asinine...its not possible and is only holding us to a past none of us had anything to do with on either side! 

7sm


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ok, I have to address this. Its been touched on a bit, but I keep seeing this used. Your addressing of Uncle Sam and then using the word "we". The term "we" has been used alot in the last few pages on this thread. What does that term mean in this thread? "We" means what white people? The government of the people...not of the white people. "We", includes me (Native American) and people of all races. As a point of fact, the black race is not the only race that was enslved. The african americans are well known as slaves because they were held as important at least as slaves. They had at least that much worth....which was not given to native americans which needed not be imported, paid for, or protected (if one died there were plenty more to grab). So lets not make this a black vs white issue.
> 
> Also, how and to whom should I appologize? I'm half Native American (registered) and half Scotch Irish. Do I offer half of an appology to those enslaved (including my own race)? Am I to receive half an appology from you and half of those reparations? This is ridiculous. We are a different people, under a different government, in a different time. We should start helping each other instead of holding each other to past mistakes of ancestors of all of us.
> 
> ...


yes
i said ENTIRE SOCIETY not individuals
you guys think of society as a bunch of individuals each acting on his own. well those individuals have congressmen, and congressmen can talk for them and so on. there are institutions that represent the people. 
again asking, how do you propose segregation based on race ends if no one is willing to do anything at all?!
i really dont understand americans, they take money from their roads, schools and paychecks to spend it in some foreign countries that they havent even heard of, or cannot STILL locate on the map to teach those countries about democracy, and to claim you're helping them build a future but at the same time you REFUSE to spend some of that money help minorities build their future. hypocracy?!


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> yes
> i said ENTIRE SOCIETY not individuals
> you guys think of society as a bunch of individuals each acting on his own. well those individuals have congressmen, and congressmen can talk for them and so on. there are institutions that represent the people.
> again asking, how do you propose segregation based on race ends if no one is willing to do anything at all?!
> i really dont understand americans, they take money from their roads, schools and paychecks to spend it in some foreign countries that they havent even heard of, or cannot STILL locate on the map to teach those countries about democracy, and to claim you're helping them build a future but at the same time you REFUSE to spend some of that money help minorities build their future. hypocracy?!


So your definition of "society" is congress? Your still refusing to accept a diverse society or congress or government. We are a diverse people we should accept that. In fact, I think its more liken to racism to ignore diversity than to refuse taking responsibility for actions not your own. 

No one is willing to do anything at all? You can't be serious. Your trying to argue that the only action that is action is an appology? C'mon, there are alot of people doing alot of things that your ignoring by saying things like that. A public apology is asinine, you can't even decide who should be giving the apology let alone to whom. 

Dont be so quick to lump everyone together in such little boxes. Also, do some research on on what americans and america has done to "help minorities build their future". Now your tlaking about money where before we were talking about an apology? Your confusing me.

Also, again, who is to give the apology? What about my case? Do I appologize to myself?

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ok, I have to address this. Its been touched on a bit, but I keep seeing this used. Your addressing of Uncle Sam and then using the word "we". The term "we" has been used alot in the last few pages on this thread. What does that term mean in this thread? "



The Republic of the United States of America.



> Also, how and to whom should I appologize?



This is a strawman argument. No one has ever suggested that _you _apologize. It doesn't even make sense. It's the federal govt. (and some state govts., but I leave that aside for now) that has done wrong.




> What sources are you using to same its the same government? Care to research the amount of changes put into effect since George Wachington? Care to research the amount of Supreme Court interpretations of the constitution since George Washington? Are we still the same entity?



Uh...yes. That's not a controversial stance. If we're not the same govt., we wouldn't be bound by treaty obligations made by older groups, for example. I find it hard to believe that anyone would question whether the U.S. is 200+ years old. How old would _you _say it is? Just since George W. Bush took office?



> The U.S. Government didn't even have much to do with slavery except banning it!



Before they banned it, they explicitly allowed for its legality, in the Constitution, and they regulated it, taxed the workings of it, etc.

But leave that aside. Your argument is that it was OK for the govt. to ignore slavery on its soil for all those years? Nothing wrong with that? As long as they're just ignoring the problem, it's See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil? I want more from my govt. than that.



> This notion of an apology is simply asinine...its not possible and is only holding us to a past none of us had anything to do with on either side!



Well, one can take the point of view "My country, right or wrong" or the point of view "My country, right its wrongs."


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

im sorry you guys
but you guys are show no intelligence whatsoever in understand what i am saying
or not even giving ears!
i heard ur reply like 20 times before, yes i know u will not apologize
why dont you open your ears or mind and actually understand the EXAMPLES that i am giving.
soooo literal!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2005)

Mantis,
What examples?

You said:


> apologize for enslaving an entire race that you brought to this country


Last I knew, the entire population of any race was not subjecated, just small portions. Estimates indicate that almost 2 million africans were imported to North America, with 10-15% going to the US, the rest to other nations. There however were still tens of millions of Africans still in Aftrica, so therefore the "entire race" was not enslaved nor brought to this country. 



> and your refusal to treat them equally when they managed to get 'some' freedom.


The laws that had been unequal have been overturned, as have many other unfair laws.



> i know we're going in a loop. but i think it's a valid issue. at least do something for those minorities that cover u butts in wars dude!



Which minorities? The bulk of the armed forces I see are white.



> well my thought was that the entire society should do something to show good faith.



But American Society isn't a single entity. It's a blending and non-blending of a hundred different parts. Again, no one alive today was involved. If "we" are to apologize for slavery, then as I said, so should the other nations who were also involved. Also apologized for should be the atrocities commited against the Native Americans. It won't bring back the dead, it won't fix the sins of the past. I would think that the large number of specalized benefits already show good faith.



> but now i know it's not gonna happen. too difficult for some reason!


Because what you ask is unreasonable.



> let me ask this then
> what do you think should be done regarding segregated communities?
> ie indians, blacks, asians, and hispanics?
> or a better question is do you think it is necessary to get rid of racism or not, and if yes then how, and if not then why?



Again, who is forcing them to live segregated? Please point me to the laws that require it. Please indicate how they are being forced there?  Historically speaking, imegrants from other cultures have grouped together, preserving parts of their heritage. That is why in some parts of the US and Canada have "Chinatowns". How do we "desegragate" these communities? Pass laws, and put in ethic quotas? We've already done the forced bussing thing, and it doesn't work.



> apology doesnt teach black kids
> doesnt give them bread
> doesnt remove liquor stores planted at every corner
> doesnt clean their neighborhoods
> ...



So, who isn't allowing them into schools?
Who is denying them food?
Who runs those liquor stores?
Who is responsible for cleaning their neighborhoods, if not them?
Who's responsibility is it to get them jobs if not theirs?



> why do we pay taxes if EVERY MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIMSELF
> that's just ridiculous sir, with all due respect!
> yeah, every man is responsible for himself to get away from a hurricane, but wait let's evacuate the rich white and for black "MANAGE YOURSELF"!



I pay taxes to cover roads, libraries, police, fire, water, defense. Those are there to allow me an enviroment I can progress in.

The hurricane argument isn't a good one, except for the folks who believe it was "Gods Wrath"



> u propose that we should keep blacks in ghettoes
> make drugs and alcohol easy to access
> give them no education
> give them nothing
> ...



I see no one proposing we keep them in ghettos, nor do I see anyone saying drug them, keep them drunk, stupid and hungry.

I however see people saying it's their own responsibility to seek out and use the -vast- resources already set aside soley for their use.



> yes, but why deprive the blacks from the educational benefit of taxes and give it to others?!
> 
> so whites are hard working but blacks arent and this is how they ended up in ghettoes!



Who is depriving them of an education? Besides themselves?  Don't take -anything- I've said as a slam on them. I feel the same way about any group that thinks it's entitled to a free ride at my expense.  I work for a living, busting my ***, and I'll be damned if some slacker group will get a dime. 



> im sorry you guys
> but you guys are show no intelligence whatsoever in understand what i am saying
> or not even giving ears!
> i heard ur reply like 20 times before, yes i know u will not apologize
> ...



I have just gone through everything you've said.

Again:
Who is keeping the blacks "down"?
Who is depriving them of anything?
Who is forcing them to live in these "ghettos"?

I have heard you, but your arguments aren't holding up under the facts of what is available in this nation, to those who want to succeed.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

let me start from the beginning
simply
what i am saying is to get rid of racism more of the society's money should be employed in more efficient programs that give minorities what they need -- this may require some restructuring of the society example this may lead to having a hispanic president (ur like keep on dreaming haha)

i said this is the way an apology should happen. by dropping the word color, or race from all of our actions, and by putting money where it's supposed to go (example: fix LA's schools for example rather than going to war or something!)

now 7starmantis said he doesnt wanna apologize. i said again the apology is not by a specific on individual saying "sorry dude.. my grandfather raped ur grandma coz she was a slave". again, this kind of apology cannot happen by having the government or the administration like George Bush saying "sorry" but it happens by employing the social institutions that already exist, such as the congress, the city counsel and other organizations (yes these were examples i was giving, im not saying society is CONGRESS)

who forced them to live in ghettoes? what kinda argument is that man? who forced the indians to live in camps, the japanese, and who's discriminating the middle easterns today? THE EFFING GOVERNMENT MAN!

you are saying my arguments do not hold under the facts available in this nation HALLILUJA man. that's what im saying. what's available in this nation MUST go if you want racism to go. it's obviously not feasible any soon. i agree!

last thing i want to emphasize is what i noticed from this long long convo with you guys: you guys treat the minorities as sub classes of people who happen to live somewhere in the same country. let's say the blacks are behind for some reason (whatever the reasons is) they're behind in education, they join gangs, they drink, they fall into drugs (and all other prototypes) let's assume this is right, YOU as an american who share the same nationality and the same country with these people do you just leave them to do it on their own? or do you STRIVE to help them out? (help them maybe by stirring your political power in that direction)
americans say they are willing to go to afghanistan and Iraq to free them from dictatorships and such, but they are not willing to do 1/4 of that effort to free minorities from the existing burdens?! that does not make sense man. 

i did read your replies to my points, but i'd rather not reply to them again. hopefully this post establishes a clearer idea on where i stand and what i want. 
thanks bob, thanks 7star and the rest!


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Dec 25, 2005)

We all have burdens. Why should one group who has every opportunity and no more legal obstacles than anybody else has get special treatment? Nobody alive remembers being or owning a slave. Why dont you hear as much complaining from the Native Americans who were treated just as unfairly? I think that people are treated differently on large part because they WANT to be treated differently and some lame apology isnt going to change anything. It will jusat be another lame PC political ploy that will accomplish nothing. As to giving MORE money, tossing money at problems is not the solution.

I think this whole argument is insulting and belittling of every African American who took the opportunity this country gave him and became successful. What a country full of excuse finding defeatist helpless wheres my government cheese drones we are becoming.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2005)

My city, Buffalo NY, just elected an African American to the office of Mayor.
Our city government has had a high representation in it by minoritys, including several council presidents I believe.

As an employer, I personally don't care what an individuals race, gender or creed is. Just that they are able to do the tasks required of them in a professional manner. 

You say the government is forcing them to live in ghettos. Again, I ask how!
Last I looked, the 'indians' aren't required to live on the reservation, nor have they been in decades. The 'internment camps' of WW2 were closed when that war ended, and it has been apologized for.

As to me personally seeking them out and trying to force them into the light...why should I? Who am I to try and force anyone to better themselves, against their will?  Should I show up, grab their kids and take them to school, and try to force them to learn to read? Should I show up and pick up after them? Cut their grass, rake their lawns, pick up their garbage? Tasks that they, though perfectly healthy aren't willing to do?

I say, anyone who is too lazy to take 5 minutes to pick up the trash deserves to live in filth. The extent of my 'charity' is done in the winter when, on occation, I'll snowblow my neighbors sidewalks. Interestingly enough, he returns the favor when he can. Should I head to the 'ghetto' and clear their walks too?

They are behind, as is anyone who is behind, because they are not taking advantage of the gazillion opportunities already there for them. They join gangs because they want to "belong", and because when one is ignorant, one is drawn to the 'pack'. How many former gang members have gotten out, gotten educated, and now work to save others? A number of them.

It's not the governments responsibility to force you to succeed or to support you when you choose to live ignorant and stupid. I think theres too many programs right now that reward lazyness. 

The job situation is no different. There are tons of jobs out there. Yes, they suck, they are hard, and they pay crap, but they are there. If you are hungry, you have options. You won't know what they are though, if you don't take the time to look. 

I agree with you on a few points. The US shouldn't be out "saving the world" when it's got the same problems here to deal with, which is why I'm a strong believer in bringing ALL the troops home, and rather than sending the billions of dollars in food, medicine and other aid to these 3rd world nations that spit on us, that we should instead seal our borders, and funnel all that effort into cleaning up out inner cities and exterminating the drug culture. 


I know people, of African decent, who are struggling now. Fighting their way up in thankless jobs, or doing their own businesses. They are busting their asses, day in and day out, to build a better life for themselves and their families. My hat is off to them, because sometimes, hell, often, they have more dedicvation, more heart, more belief than I do, and I take inspiration from them when my own well runs dry, which it does often.

I know Blacks who are just coasting. Content to collect a check and complain about how "the man" is keeping them down. I have no respect for them, because they haven't put any effort into getting ahead.

I know trash, who refused to goto school, who refused to learn more than bare basic communications skills, who hang out in the 'wrong circles', who look down their noses at the "snobs" who do that "reading ****". They die young, they die poor, and they die badly. I have nothing but contempt for them. They chose that life for themselves. Not I.

I know "whites" who fit the same 3 groups. I have a "friend" who can't hold a job more than a week or 2. Ends up fired or quitting because he doesn't believe he should be inconvenienced by such things as showing up on time, or at all. He constantly complains on how his "rights" are violated, how he's "being repressed", etc. He's not a dummy, just doesn't want to be bothered. So he lives with his mom, he's 44, and when she dies, he'll really be in deep ****.  I have a cousin who has a teaching degree, decided not to bother with it, ended up as a network admin at a major corporation making more cash than I can even think about. She did it by working full time while in school, and 2 jobs all summer for 5 years, giving up her social life in order to do so. She recently bought a house (and not a cheap starter home either) and got married. All this, since the 9/11 economic drop hit.

I believe that hard work, belief and drive will take anyone, anywhere, in time. I have no time, patience or love of the lazy.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

okay
so basically hard work can get you there eventually, that's what you're trying to say.
good i agree.
however, this has nothing to do with treating racism in america.
fair enough. i think i have to agree with you now!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2005)

Ok, we're syncing up. This is good.

2 key points:
Fighting Racism and dealing with past injustices remain.

To fight racism, is a major battle. First, the "distinctions" and "seperateness" must end, not by legistation, but by educating people and encouraging them to see each other as 'people' or 'americans'. Drop the "-american" crap, and the "only for this group" special programs. Stop "quota" hiring practices. Encourage everyone to be the best, to seek out the best, to reach for the best. My background is polish and english. I don't see myself as a "polish american" or an "english-american"...just as an "American." I've been on the floor with straight, gay, jewish, pagan, christian, white, black, yellow and red. All I cared about, and all they cared about was having a good time. It's a pity that others see divisions, where I see uniquenesses to celebrate.

As to the past injustices, they are past. We can't change them, and we didn't do them. The best we can do is say "The US would like to apologize for it's past participation, centuries past, in several deplorable acts such as the near genocide of the Native peoples of this continent, the enslavement of numerous races, and other past atrocities. Those were terrible events, we're sorry that they happened, but we are glad that in our time we have moved beyond such things. We look forward to the continued blendings of our cultures and the continuing intergration of all our citizens", or something close to that. I mean, the Hawaiians got an apology for the theft of their entire nation by the US. If we really wanted to make amends, shouldn't we free Hawaii and return it to self-rule?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 25, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The Republic of the United States of America.


 More precisely...whom? Who makes up this republic? Is it not a diverse group of multi-cultural and multi-racial people? We have gained so much to start stepping backwrds now. As we can see from this thread, a public apology is only going to serve to create more problems at this point in time. An apology is an acknowledgement of fault or guilt. There is absolutely no one in the government of today who was even alive during these times. The government has changed by interpretations from the supreme court if by no other way since then. Instead of looking back and bringing focus to a past issue, why can't we look forward and begin to work together more? 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> This is a strawman argument. No one has ever suggested that _you _apologize. It doesn't even make sense. It's the federal govt. (and some state govts., but I leave that aside for now) that has done wrong.


 Strawman? Its very legit, we are talkingabout apologies. If we want to take it to the government, my uncle is part of that, he is also native american...what kind of apology should his office present? 
By the way, this "wrong" you are talking about is almost non-existent. What wrong? Your tryingto say the government created, mandated, and carried out slavery...not so. Also, the "wrongs" have all been overturned and changed now, is that not action enough?



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Uh...yes. That's not a controversial stance. If we're not the same govt., we wouldn't be bound by treaty obligations made by older groups, for example. I find it hard to believe that anyone would question whether the U.S. is 200+ years old. How old would _you _say it is? Just since George W. Bush took office?


 Wha? How old would I say it is since Bush took office? What does the age of the entity have to do with its internal changes? The bottom line is that an apology from anyone, regardless of who offers it, is goign to do what exactly? Not a damn thing as far as any type of action that would actually help any of these so called slave races. The very fact that an apology is expected is the continued seperation that feeds racism. If we must be held back by these seperations and exclusionary demands, we will not help to stop racism, but only further the endless cycle it feeds off of. 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Before they banned it, they explicitly allowed for its legality, in the Constitution, and they regulated it, taxed the workings of it, etc.


 Which has all been changed and made illegal....but we are the same still, right?



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> But leave that aside. Your argument is that it was OK for the govt. to ignore slavery on its soil for all those years? Nothing wrong with that? As long as they're just ignoring the problem, it's See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil? I want more from my govt. than that.


 What in the world? :idunno: Where did I say anything like that? I dont even know where you got anything like that from. I'm completely confused by this.

In case your confused I dont think slavery or the genocide of my ancestors was ok, I also do not think demanding or expecting an apology from a government or people who had nothing to do with it and of whom I am a part will do anything for racism except keep its seperations in our minds.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Well, one can take the point of view "My country, right or wrong" or the point of view "My country, right its wrongs."


 And righting those wrongs is not making them illegal, changing policy, changing laws, and punishing those who try to continue in its action? How exactly is an apology going to "right its wrongs"?



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> let me start from the beginning
> simply
> what i am saying is to get rid of racism more of the society's money should be employed in more efficient programs that give minorities what they need -- this may require some restructuring of the society example this may lead to having a hispanic president (ur like keep on dreaming haha)


 I think we all agree that action is needed. But again, why must help be boxed in by race and colors? Your saying in one breath to drop color and race from our vocabulary, but then saying we need to give finacial help based on race and color. Thats contradictory at best. 



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> now 7starmantis said he doesnt wanna apologize. i said again the apology is not by a specific on individual saying "sorry dude.. my grandfather raped ur grandma coz she was a slave". again, this kind of apology cannot happen by having the government or the administration like George Bush saying "sorry" but it happens by employing the social institutions that already exist, such as the congress, the city counsel and other organizations (yes these were examples i was giving, im not saying society is CONGRESS)


 No, please re-read my posts. I said I was confused as to what half of my should apologize and to whom. I was making a point that we are a diverse people now and keeping divisions beteen us in the name of righting wrongs is still....wrong. 

I'm in complete agreement that action is needed, but your now sort of backpedling about your "apology" request. Your not talking about an apology now but action. There are those who are speaking of a literal verbal apology, that is what I'm arguing against if anything. 

Listen, as we can see from this thread, the expectation of a public apology only serves to strengthen lines of division between us all. Those lines are blurring and we need to stop whatever action will strengthen them, even if it seems like a good idea on the surface. 

Remember we are all americans...why must we work hard to devide ourselves into black, white, red, etc? I'm an american as is any black person born here, why should I (multiracial) support an appology to a black american for something niether of us had anything to do with? Why should we even think on this level? Why is there any difference between me and this black american? These types of things sound good but at the core they only support divisions and exclusions that would further racism in america today.

*Bottom Line:* To support this apology we must also accept and support the lines of seperation between us. This will do nothing to further the cause of stoping racism.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 25, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I'm in complete agreement that action is needed, but your now sort of backpedling about your "apology" request.



Your posts are too confused to merit a response. For other readers, I'll point out that reading my posts in this thread will show that I have not requested an apology, and have said that I don't necessarily support one. The point I am making is that those who say "Why should I, John Doe, apologize in 2005 for this event from the past?" are (intentionally?) misunderstanding/misrepresenting the issue. No one seeks an apology from Bob Hubbard, or others here, for their alleged wrongs. Re-stating the request like that is a strawman argument: switching in an easy-to-refute position for the more difficult position that the govt. itself owes an apology. It's a caricature of the actual request for the govt. to apologize.

An apology itself is likely being requested as a first step toward seeking reparations (which I do not support). It's about money. But the U.S. was wrong to allow slavery for all those years, and an apology would not be inappropiate. I also don't think it'd be helpful, but the objection to apologizing for mass, legalized slavery is hard for me to follow.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2005)

The United States of America did not support slavery.  By this, I mean it did not as an entiry (as far as I've been able to determine) engage in the obtainment of slaves from Africa or any other location. It did not engage in the importation of those prisoners into this nation. It did not organize or run the slave auctions, nor participate in the exchange of humans for profit.

Those activities were run by independant business entities.

The United States of America did not go to war to free anyone. In fact, when   the Emancipation Proclaimation was issued, it was little more than a political move, since it a-did not free slaves still held in the North, and b-was issued 2 years after the start of hostilities. Prior to the start of war, there was an ammendment passed that left the issue of slavery up to the individual states to decide.

Based on this, the United States of America has nothing to apologize for.
The Southern Nation-States that left the Union are no more, they were disolved at the end of hostilities and new organizations under the same name but different constitutions were created to govern the conquored nation-states. Therefore, those who are often seen as the "Evil" also, no longer exist as entities, so again, there is no one to make the apology.

We might as well issue an apology for the 20 million+ murdered by Stalin.

"On Jan. 1, 1863, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln declared free all slaves residing in territory in rebellion against the federal government. This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed few people. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side; nor did it affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control. Naturally, the states in rebellion did not act on Lincoln's order. But the proclamation did show Americans-- and the world--that the civil war was now being fought to end slavery.

Lincoln had been reluctant to come to this position. A believer in white supremacy, he initially viewed the war only in terms of preserving the Union. As pressure for abolition mounted in Congress and the country, however, Lincoln became more sympathetic to the idea. On Sept. 22, 1862, he issued a preliminary proclamation announcing that emancipation would become effective on Jan. 1, 1863, in those states still in rebellion. Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in America--this was achieved by the passage of the 13TH Amendment to the Constitution on Dec. 18, 1865--it did make that accomplishment a basic war goal and a virtual certainty. - http://www.7cs.com/Emanc.htm"

As early as 1778 laws were being passed freeing slaves and abolishing slavery. In 1954, the idea of seperate but equal was struck down by the Supreme Court. The NAACP was formed in 1909, and has speedheaded major reforms for african americans. Interestingly enough, it too today is often seen as a "sell out", just like other successful Americans of African decent.

So, over the last 100 years, events have been taking place that attempt to repair and fix the inequalities of the past. They have said "Actions speak louder than words." I think, given the opportunities, the special privilage and the rest, that apology has been given, by action. It is not our fault that a small vocal minority of the greater whole refuses to accept it, and continues to hold to the false belief that they are "second class". In fact, they themselves do the most to reinforce that notion, by their own actions, and lack thereof.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> let me start from the beginning
> simply
> what i am saying is to get rid of racism more of the society's money should be employed in more efficient programs that give minorities what they need -- this may require some restructuring of the society example this may lead to having a hispanic president (ur like keep on dreaming haha)
> 
> ...


 We've been force feeding money in to social programs in black communities, hand over fist, for decades....and the problem is getting WORSE.

How many more billions in government give aways will we have to spend, before you realize that it isn't the answer?  Oh, I know 'all of it'.

The problem, as it stands now, is purely internal.  Excuses and requests for apologise only exasperate the problem.  Why do you think black americans like Bill Cosby are coming forward to say enough is enough?  Because they see that the problem is internal, and handouts only serve to make the problem worse.

Question?  How is giving a heroin addict more money going to help him?  The sad fact is, a heroin addict needs to want to make his own life better first, before ANYONE can help him.  You can't FORCE someone to get better.  The problem in the African American communities won't be solved by any amount of 'White Man's guilt' money.  In fact, it is the belief that they are OWED this money, and they should rely on it, that has created the victim mentality.  Opportunity? Yes.  Handout?  NO!!!!

Part of the problem is $800.00 rims on $500.00 cars.  What I mean is the shallow materialism of the inner-city.  Wealth is defined as big screen tv's, stereo's and spinning rims. (They spinnin'!!!-Chris Rock).  Many in the inner city believe that prosperity is found in the trivially material.  The ability to buy $200.00 shoes, and gold chains, when many of them have to rely on government assistance to feed their families.  

What's more, that's not a black problem alone.  It's indicative of much poverty.  In fact, it's a mindset that is poverty creating.  It is the reason that many white americans are poor as well.  The problem isn't that they live in extreme poverty, the problem is that they live in comfortable reliance on the state.  

There's a HUGE difference.  If they lived in extreme poverty, many would take advantage of whatever existed to help get them out.  However, if the state is going to foot much of the bill, there's really no need to get out of the 'relative poverty'. 

To illustrate what I mean, contrast that shallow materialism with this...

I have a family who are friends of mine who are immigrants from Indonesia.  They moved here, virtually impoverished.  Eventually, however, through hardwork and financial discipline, they were able to purchase a motel.  The entire family worked their, and they worked like slaves, saved like misers, and lived like paupers, until they'd saved enough to buy ANOTHER motel.  Then half the family went their.

Eventually, using the same method, they bought a third motel.  Now, honestly, you wouldn't know to look at them, they don't dress flashy, but they are worth a considerable amount of money.  Moreover, they can afford to send their children to just about any college.

Another man I know is a doctor from the Phillipines.  I was having a conversation with him the other night, and he told me that he has a friend in the Phillipines who has worked for 15 years, and has finally saved up enough to buy a car.  This doctor told me that he was here in the US for 6 months, and he bought his first car.

Now, these people, who came to the US with virtually nothing, are among the biggest advocates I know who claim that America is a land of opportunity.  They are also among the most unsympathetic to the cry that you can't make it in America.  As far as they are concerned, if you can't make it in America, you can't make it anywhere.  Moreover, you should be ashamed of yourself, if you can't make it in America.  

That is basically what the doctor told me, that he really doesn't understand all the whinning going on in America.  As far as he's concerned, it's a golden land of opportunity.

I guess it takes living in REAL poverty, to understand how relatively good we have it, and what opportunities are available to the industrious and self-reliant.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 25, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Your posts are too confused to merit a response. For other readers, I'll point out that reading my posts in this thread will show that I have not requested an apology, and have said that I don't necessarily support one. The point I am making is that those who say "Why should I, John Doe, apologize in 2005 for this event from the past?" are (intentionally?) misunderstanding/misrepresenting the issue. No one seeks an apology from Bob Hubbard, or others here, for their alleged wrongs. Re-stating the request like that is a strawman argument: switching in an easy-to-refute position for the more difficult position that the govt. itself owes an apology. It's a caricature of the actual request for the govt. to apologize.


 Ah, c'mon now. Confusing is using the term "government" as a static absolute entity and asking "it" to do anything. 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> An apology itself is likely being requested as a first step toward seeking reparations (which I do not support). It's about money. But the U.S. was wrong to allow slavery for all those years, and an apology would not be inappropiate. I also don't think it'd be helpful, but the objection to apologizing for mass, legalized slavery is hard for me to follow.


It seems that when I hear the issue of an apology it comes from those not on the side of actually receiving the apology. In other words (not to confuse) most people who support a public apology from anyone are usually white (those who are at fault according to this argument). I'm a registered member of the Comanche Nation, I have dual citizenship, if you will. I would be one of the ones apologized to, and I think its crap. Maybe we should ask those minorities if they really want an apology before "we" force anything else on them. 

Bottom Line is still that to support an apology from anyone is to support divisional seperations that make us not Americans or One People, but many seperate individuals. We should seek for action that unites, not action that keeps us seperate.

My own "half-breed" opinions,
 7sm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Ah, c'mon now. Confusing is using the term "government" as a static absolute entity and asking "it" to do anything.


 Well, he's operating under the belief that the US government is just like a business, and that the share holders are responsible for earlier actions of the company.  One HUGE difference, governments are not profit making organizations.  There are no shareholders, unless you refer to the average american as a shareholder.  In that case, we're back to all of US apologizing.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> It seems that when I hear the issue of an apology it comes from those not on the side of actually receiving the apology. In other words (not to confuse) most people who support a public apology from anyone are usually white (those who are at fault according to this argument). I'm a registered member of the Comanche Nation, I have dual citizenship, if you will. I would be one of the ones apologized to, and I think its crap. Maybe we should ask those minorities if they really want an apology before "we" force anything else on them.


 Yeah, it's complete garbage.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Bottom Line is still that to support an apology from anyone is to support divisional seperations that make us not Americans or One People, but many seperate individuals. We should seek for action that unites, not action that keeps us seperate.
> 
> My own "half-breed" opinions,
> 7sm


 'half-breed'...heh heh...Every time I see that word, I think of Cher in buckskins.  :rofl:


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> One HUGE difference, governments are not profit making organizations.


this has got to be the funniest joke i heard in 2005
that's just hilarious
good joke bro! non-profit organization? lol


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 25, 2005)

I think Bill Gates turned down the idea of running for similar reasons. 

mmm.  Buckskins...Cher.
Wait, was this before or after the tatoos?  :rofl:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> this has got to be the funniest joke i heard in 2005
> that's just hilarious
> good joke bro! non-profit organization? lol


 In case you haven't heard, my friend, governments don't produce profits, ours produce deficits.  If a company operated like most governments, they'd be bankrupt and their CEO's eating in a soup kitchen.

That you believe they ARE profit making is only an indication of how out of touch you apparently are.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Also if we're talking continuous institutions, such as governments, being liable, and if we are referring to financial liability as well, doesn't that make the British Crown the single MOST liable entity involved in the Slave Trade in the western hemisphere.

In fact, overwhelming majority of slaves brought to the area now called the US, were brought while it was a British holding.  Importation of further slaves was abolished by congress in 1808, so only a very small number of slaves were brought in while the US was a soverignty.  Further, the slaves brought in to what is now the United States represents only a small percentage of the overall slaves brought in to the New World by the Crown, to feed it's sweet tooth.

What's more, the Dutch, French, Portugeuse and Spanish, along with a few others, likewise profited.

This is shown to illustrate who is LARGELY responsible for the bulk of the slave trade.  Perhaps Great Britain owes us and a few others some money and an apology.  I wonder how many Brits are familiar with that part of their history?


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 25, 2005)

Good points. It all goes back to _WHY_ we are expecting or demanding an apology.

Also, since the U.S. Government has done so much to abolish slavery, lets make those current citizens who have at least 1/16 blood relation to any race that may heve been enslaved also offer a public show of gratitude to the U.S. Government. Everyone can see how absurd that notion is, but for some reason hold to the earlier notion :idunno:

7sm


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In case you haven't heard, my friend, governments don't produce profits, ours produce deficits. If a company operated like most governments, they'd be bankrupt and their CEO's eating in a soup kitchen.
> 
> That you believe they ARE profit making is only an indication of how out of touch you apparently are.
> 
> ...


sorry man
just couldnt help but laugh at that one
yah, if corporations run like the govt then corporations will go bankrupt BUT their CEOs will only get richer!
anyway, this isnt the point of this thread!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Good points. It all goes back to _WHY_ we are expecting or demanding an apology.
> 
> Also, since the U.S. Government has done so much to abolish slavery, lets make those current citizens who have at least 1/16 blood relation to any race that may heve been enslaved also offer a public show of gratitude to the U.S. Government. Everyone can see how absurd that notion is, but for some reason hold to the earlier notion :idunno:
> 
> 7sm


 Oh, yeah, it's pretty clear why certain individuals want 'an apology'.  In court that's an acknowledgement of guilt and, therefore, an acknowledgement of responsibility.  The first step toward demanding compensation and damages.

Heck, if we had signed on to the Hague, they'd have probably already filed a complaint there.  The International Court would probably have filed.  Ironic, however, that the Dutch themselves were among the biggest slave traders, that probably wouldn't get mentioned.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Oh, yeah, it's pretty clear why certain individuals want 'an apology'. In court that's an acknowledgement of guilt and, therefore, an acknowledgement of responsibility. The first step toward demanding compensation and damages.


oh, so you guys think the blacks or indians want an apology go end up getting some compensation?!
i think the japanese asked for an apology because it was a matter of dignity, the same with middle eastern and islamic organizations currently. and if you go back to history books around the ww2 era you will realize that not even one japanese person accepted any money offered by the government when the apology happend, right?
btw, after this thread im going to get a new bumper sticker that says UNITED WE STAND


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> oh, so you guys think the blacks or indians want an apology go end up getting some compensation?!
> i think the japanese asked for an apology because it was a matter of dignity, the same with middle eastern and islamic organizations currently. and if you go back to history books around the ww2 era you will realize that not even one japanese person accepted any money offered by the government when the apology happend, right?
> btw, after this thread im going to get a new bumper sticker that says UNITED WE STAND


 Yours might be more accurate to read 'Divide and Bicker'.  

The Japanese analogy is fallacious, and has little bearing with an apology for 160 year old + acts.

Moreover, you've yet to make even the most remote case how an apology will do anything but HARM.  I, however, have made case after case, which it is obvious you don't even want to discuss, that an apology is harmful, as it presumes guilt, where no one today IS, and further reinforces a cultural crutch that is the CORE problem anyway.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> oh, so you guys think the blacks or indians want an apology go end up getting some compensation?!



You have convinced me of that with what you have posted here. I commented on it in post #130.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yours should read 'Divide and Bicker'.
> 
> The Japanese analogy is fallacious, and has little bearing with an apology for 160 year old + acts.
> 
> Moreover, you've yet to make even the most remote case how an apology will do anything but HARM. I, however, have made case after case, which it is obvious you don't even want to discuss, that an apology is harmful, as it presumes guilt, where no one today IS, and further reinforces a cultural crutch that is the CORE problem anyway.


at this point i believe a formal apology, or an act to end racism is more harmful than anything else. 
yes, this particular thread taught me things i never expected before. you see, when i hear the "united we stand" stuff, and hear politicians talk about democracy and the "american values" i usually believe that stuff. i dont anymore!
instead i should always keep in mind the red indian history, the japanese, the blacks, and now the middle eastern. this says truth about "america"

i really mean no offense, but knowing this, i think, is better than denying it. maybe later generations will do something about it


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> oh, so you guys think the blacks or indians want an apology go end up getting some compensation?!


 
After having said THIS



			
				mantis said:
			
		

> what i am saying is to get rid of racism more of the society's money should be employed in more efficient programs that give minorities what they need


  Yep, chu-CHING $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> at this point i believe a formal apology, or an act to end racism is more harmful than anything else.
> yes, this particular thread taught me things i never expected before. you see, when i hear the "united we stand" stuff, and hear politicians talk about democracy and the "american values" i usually believe that stuff. i dont anymore!
> instead i should always keep in mind the red indian history, the japanese, the blacks, and now the middle eastern. this says truth about "america"
> 
> i really mean no offense, but knowing this, i think, is better than denying it. maybe later generations will do something about it


 'American Values' are about hard work and determination, not free government giveaways.  That's probably why you're so confused.

I love it when people throw around catch phrases that they don't even begin to understand.  

Do you have the slightest clue how much money we've thrown at the inner-city problem?  Billions.  Is it better?! No.  Why?  Because you can't fix an internal problem from outside.  What about that DON'T you understand?

I keep talking about individuals, and you keep SEEING race...race, race, race, race, race.  What's the definition of racism again? Oh, yes, defining the quality of every individual purely by what race he happened to have been born in to.  It's time the racism died, man.  


'What we have here, is a failure to communicate...some men you just can't reach'


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> After having said THIS
> 
> Yep, chu-CHING $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!


now, see, this is my problem with you guys today! so literal
u dont go hand them money
but u create more programs to help them catch up with u guys and get over their issues and social diseases that they struggle with (or some in certain areas)


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> now, see, this is my problem with you guys today! so literal
> u dont go hand them money
> but u create more programs to help them catch up with u guys and get over their issues and social diseases that they struggle with (or some in certain areas)


 What about not being able to solve INTERNAL problems, from outside do you not understand?  Countless programs have been started, and all of them have failed.  Why?  Because the problem can't be fixed by White Guilt.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> What about not being able to solve INTERNAL problems, from outside do you not understand? Countless programs have been started, and all of them have failed. Why? Because the problem can't be fixed by White Guilt.


whites are evil man
(just kidding)
if the people decide that this is a problem to be solve, i.e. racism
then no more "whites" exists in the issue.
it's ALL AMERICANS now
unfortunately the mentality has to change, as well as terminology
it takes some "getting used to" but it's doable.
shouldnt be done out of guilt anymore, but should be thought of as hey we have a group that encounters problems, let's fix em up!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> whites are evil man
> (just kidding)
> if the people decide that this is a problem to be solve, i.e. racism
> then no more "whites" exists in the issue.
> ...


 I think I already pointed out how to do that.  Stop referring to black anything.  Everyone is an individual, responsible for their own actions, both positive and negative.  They don't get a free ride because of race, they don't get a pass because of race, and they don't get persecuted because of race.  Martin Luther King Jr's dream made reality.

If a black man is lazy, stop saying it's because he's black, or it's because of racism.  It's because he is a lazy man.  If a white man is lazy, same thing.  If a black man is successful, he is a successful man, if a white man is, same thing.  Make black and white no different than brown suit and blue.  Judge men by their character.  

If you don't make excuses for WHITE criminals...STOP making excuses for BLACK CRIMINALS!!!  Little things like that.


I've been wondering for years where this self-flaggation, this 'white guilt', started in white america, this desire to punish ourselves for the deeds of our ancestors.  It's certainly enough to simply not use skin color as a thing to judge people by.  We don't need to be punished for the sins of the father.


----------



## mantis (Dec 25, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I think I already pointed out how to do that. Stop referring to black anything. Everyone is an individual, responsible for their own actions, both positive and negative. They don't get a free ride because of race, they don't get a pass because of race, and they don't get persecuted because of race. Martin Luther King Jr's dream made reality.
> 
> If a black man is lazy, stop saying it's because he's black, or it's because of racism. It's because he is a lazy man. If a white man is lazy, same thing. If a black man is successful, he is a successful man, if a white man is, same thing. Make black and white no different than brown suit and blue. Judge men by their character.
> 
> ...


okay
ur words now are more comforting, kinda..
is it time yet to propose what could be done (maybe in the next 500 years) to end racism? and to wake up ur lazy black man lol?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 25, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> okay
> ur words now are more comforting, kinda..
> is it time yet to propose what could be done (maybe in the next 500 years) to end racism? and to wake up ur lazy black man lol?


 Lazy man, black has nothing to do with it....except that people tend to identify themselves as part of groups based on their perceived likeness (i.e. skin color) as such, there really is no unified black race, but there IS a black culture (several, actually).  

Inner city black culture, for the most part, embraces a mentality that is self-destructive.  However, unlike race and skin color, culture is changeable.  You can choose to embrace a different cultural view.  

Somewhere along the lines, many of us got taught in America, that is wrong to judge someone because of the color of their skin.  Well, some of us learned the wrong lesson, which was 'It's wrong to judge anyone if their skin color is different than mine'.  You can still judge people.  You just shouldn't use skin color as the criteria.  It's ok to make value judgements based on behavior.  If someone is a criminal, it's ok to call them that, REGARDLESS of skin color.  We just shouldn't use skin color as a factor in our judgement. 

So, if a sub-culture encourages self-destructive behavior, it behooves us to point that out, clearly, and do our best to encourage a cultural change.  That was what Bill Cosby was talking about, when he started getting labelled an Uncle Tom, because those that embrace that mentality don't want to change, and they most ESPECIALLY, don't want to acknowledge that the mentality has anything to do with their failing communities.  What's more, a great deal of the current segregation is self-imposed, as many inner-city blacks want to insulate themselves from the larger society.  

As for ending racism, you might have to keep in mind that racism is, by all current evidence, an evolutionary adaptation of social man.  It has, in the past, served an evolutionary function in that it allowed the individual to identify with the in-group, be it a tribe or a larger society, and defend it from out group threats.  

So, an end to racism, entirely, is a slow process.  All of us are subject to in group/out group judgements.  Even if you think you are devoid of this type of mentality, you might find that you make judgements based on all kinds of differences with other people.  'All Republicans are fascists', 'Red socks fans are morons', 'Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc, are a bunch of religious nuts', we tend to view differences as threatening.

However, social psychology teaches us the quickest way to group reduce competition is to unite the groups under a common cause.  The military is a wonderful example of this.  Men may join the military, never even having held a conversation with a member of another race or ethnic group.  However, the required team mentality, the requisite of close cooperation for a common goal, tend to bring men together.  The more difficult the challenge, and the harder they have to work toward common goals, the more closely nit they become.

So, the answer to unifying us, is to stop accentuating our differences, stop referring to ourselves as African Americans, Irish Americans, Asian Americans, Martian Americans, etc, and simply be Americans.  Then, unite toward a common goal, and forget the problems of the past.

Fortunately, though racism is an evolutionary adaptation, we have developed, as Richard Dawkins points out, 'the ability to turn against our creators', because developed rational intellect. 



Couple of interesting articles about racism.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html

I find the idea of a diagnostic criteria for racism in the DSM-VI amusing, but, then, there were some good points that many things listed with diagnostic criteria, like depression, are things everyone feels to some extent, so, who knows.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> As early as 1778 laws were being passed freeing slaves and abolishing slavery.



I'm not familiar with that. I gather it had little practical effect?

As to the U.S. govt. not actually importing slaves itself, I doubt this argument would succeed from Colombia ("We don't grow cocaine--heck, we outlawed it! But what can we do if our people choose to export it on their own?") or the like. In addition, by regulating the activity, the U.S. made it clearly legal.

No one should feel embarrassed about the 3/5 Compromise?



> So, over the last 100 years, events have been taking place that attempt to repair and fix the inequalities of the past. They have said "Actions speak louder than words."



But, words can have an effect too. Why such opposition to adding to what's been done over the past 100 years with one apology?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Well, he's operating under the belief that the US government is just like a business, and that the share holders are responsible for earlier actions of the company.  One HUGE difference, governments are not profit making organizations.  There are no shareholders, unless you refer to the average american as a shareholder.



So...is the "current" U.S. govt. obligated by treaties the "older" one entered into? Is the "current" U.S. govt. obligated to accept legal tender that the "older" one printed? Did Americans who served in WWII serve in the armed forces of some other country than ours? Can Argentina get out of all its debts by declaring itself a new govt. and assigning the debts to the older one?

Why do we call George W. Bush the 43rd president of the U.S. rather than the 1st president of whatever govt./nation you think this is?

This is a simple matter of fact, folks...there isn't an issue to debate here. The government may fall in a parliamentary system, but that focus on the indivuals is a lower-ranked meaning of the word (#5, vice #2-4). The U.S. is the same nation it was 200 years ago, _as a legal entity_. Just as Tookie Williams was responsible for the acts his body committed many years earlier even though he had changed, the U.S. remains responsible for its actions also.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Oh, yeah, it's pretty clear why certain individuals want 'an apology'.  In court that's an acknowledgement of guilt and, therefore, an acknowledgement of responsibility.  The first step toward demanding compensation and damages.



Yes, I'm sure this is the ultimate motivation (as I said in post #146). It's about the money.

That still doesn't mean it isn't _right _to apologize...it might just not be _wise _to do so (much as in any legal proceeding).


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The Japanese analogy is fallacious



I'd like to hear why.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 26, 2005)

I believe it was Vermont who first abolished slavery in that state.
Laws flipped back and forth for 200 years in "fairness". Keep in mind laws were also passed that strictly forbid women the right to vote. Should they also get an apology?

As to the treaty concept....ask the Sioux, Comanche and the Apache what the value of a US treaty was.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I believe it was Vermont who first abolished slavery in that state.



That's state level...the issue here pertains to the federal govt. Whether individual states should apologize would be a whole separate issue...though in the case of S.C., for example, I'd say "Hell Yes."

As to whether we should apologize to women, I take no stand. But...is there a ration on apologies? Are we limited? What's the purpose of that question? Of course the issue could eventually be drawn down to an absurd point, but there's only one group at question here.



> As to the treaty concept....ask the Sioux, Comanche and the Apache what the value of a US treaty was.



But that's beside the point. Are we legally bound by them, or no? Are we the nation that made those treaties? Whether we honor our obligations is another point...though I think you undercut your argument that the U.S. is now doing things right and injustices are all in the distant past.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> So...is the "current" U.S. govt. obligated by treaties the "older" one entered into? Is the "current" U.S. govt. obligated to accept legal tender that the "older" one printed? Did Americans who served in WWII serve in the armed forces of some other country than ours? Can Argentina get out of all its debts by declaring itself a new govt. and assigning the debts to the older one?


 No, actually, the US government is not obligated to accept older legal tender.  

And what's more, Argentina only owes what we are able to collect, as debts and collections are arbitrary, abstract concepts.  Do you owe a debt your great grandfather owed?



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Why do we call George W. Bush the 43rd president of the U.S. rather than the 1st president of whatever govt./nation you think this is?
> 
> This is a simple matter of fact, folks...there isn't an issue to debate here. The government may fall in a parliamentary system, but that focus on the indivuals is a lower-ranked meaning of the word (#5, vice #2-4). The U.S. is the same nation it was 200 years ago, _as a legal entity_. Just as Tookie Williams was responsible for the acts his body committed many years earlier even though he had changed, the U.S. remains responsible for its actions also.


 No, what I said was that the single entity MOST responsible for the Atlantic slave trade IS the British Crown, an entity that is continuous as well.

Since you seem determined to take a legalistics perspective on responsibility, then it is certainly is admissible to point out what nation is MOST responsible for the Atlantic Slave trade (if you want to point fingers).

The difference is that Tookie is a continuous real, tangible, concious entity.  He personally fired the shots that murdered 4 people.  The US government is an abstract concept, unless you want insinuate the buildings in Washington DC are what allowed the slave trade.  Show me the concious entity alive at the time of slavery and responsible for it.

There IS not body of the US government that existed at the time of Slavery...except the buildings themselves and a few documents.  If that's the argument, then Italy is still responsible for the actions of Imperial Rome, so long as the architecture and literature still stand.


Of course, all of this is moot.  The entire subject of 'abstract' accountability is irrelavent.  It only applies if we accept it...and I don't.  So, again, arnis, you can argue until you are blue in the face that WE owe an apology, and it really amounts to nothing except your personal opinion that we should apologize dressed up in a clever argument.  We aren't going to.  I don't buy in to the whole 'White man's guilt' sins of the father argument, it's petty, trite and it creates a cycle where we are responsible for long dead people, in perpetuity.  It's bogus.  



Moreover, nobodies addressed my simple question...how will it improve anything?  I think i've laid out an argument that has yet to be addressed that it is more harmful than helpful.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> That's state level...the issue here pertains to the federal govt. Whether individual states should apologize would be a whole separate issue...though in the case of S.C., for example, I'd say "Hell Yes."
> 
> As to whether we should apologize to women, I take no stand. But...is there a ration on apologies? Are we limited? What's the purpose of that question? Of course the issue could eventually be drawn down to an absurd point, but there's only one group at question here.


 Slavery was a state issue, not a federal issue.




			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> But that's beside the point. Are we legally bound by them, or no? Are we the nation that made those treaties? Whether we honor our obligations is another point...though I think you undercut your argument that the U.S. is now doing things right and injustices are all in the distant past.


 Slavery ended 160 years ago, I think you've lost the argument that it is an injustice that DIDN'T happen in the distant past.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 26, 2005)

Actually, the Texas articles of sucession were the worst, IMO. An ignored fact was that the Confederacy had made the importation of new slaves illegal from the start, and had several things in motion that may (I say may) have made race relations a lot better had they gone through. Much of the hostility after the WONA was a result of property owners who were angry at the illegal theft of their property (ie farms) by the puppet governments which was supposed to be divied up among former slaves, but often was sold for the profit of "carpet baggers". They took their rage out on what had become the symbol of the war...the slaves.

As to the "questions", no, there is not just 1 group in question, but many. If we are apologizing to "former slaves", are we only doing it to black, or are we also apologizing to white, red and yellow? Are former black slave owners also included in this apology, or are they excempt?  When, after this apology is issued and the begging hands come out, who gets the funds? Where do those funds come from? What new taxes will be raised to cover it? Will we have a blanket "national apology fee" added to our debts?

As to Are we bound to them, no. They are overturned regularly, as evidenced by numerous actions by the last few presidents.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 26, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Actually, the Texas articles of sucession were the worst, IMO. An ignored fact was that the Confederacy had made the importation of new slaves illegal from the start, and had several things in motion that may (I say may) have made race relations a lot better had they gone through. Much of the hostility after the WONA was a result of property owners who were angry at the illegal theft of their property (ie farms) by the puppet governments which was supposed to be divied up among former slaves, but often was sold for the profit of "carpet baggers". They took their rage out on what had become the symbol of the war...the slaves.
> 
> As to the "questions", no, there is not just 1 group in question, but many. If we are apologizing to "former slaves", are we only doing it to black, or are we also apologizing to white, red and yellow? Are former black slave owners also included in this apology, or are they excempt? When, after this apology is issued and the begging hands come out, who gets the funds? Where do those funds come from? What new taxes will be raised to cover it? Will we have a blanket "national apology fee" added to our debts?
> 
> As to Are we bound to them, no. They are overturned regularly, as evidenced by numerous actions by the last few presidents.


 
Yes, those who say 'the government is responsible' fail to comprehend (or to care) that WE are, for all intense and purposes, the government and provide ALL it's funding.  So, if anyone is going to pay for it, WE THE PEOPLE are going to pay for it.

Therefore, despite ALL the protests that 'we aren't demanding you, personally, are responsible' that is, indeed, what is being said.  

There seems to be belief in this country that government is some HUGE nebulous 'other', that exists outside of us.  I think that mentality creates HUGE problems in the long wrong, as this discussion indicates.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In case you haven't heard, my friend, governments don't produce profits, ours produce deficits. If a company operated like most governments, they'd be bankrupt and their CEO's eating in a soup kitchen.
> 
> That you believe they ARE profit making is only an indication of how out of touch you apparently are.



If you substituted Governments for the company I work for, you would have an example of how a company can loose lots of money. 

And I really wonder how the CEO stays in with these huge loses. 

I apologize for being off topic for the above in dealing the original thread.

As to Black Histroy Month, it has been said in other words by others. I think the history should be taught and that it should not be candy coated for it will let people forget what has gone before. 

I also agree that as long as we separate people on the cantent of "Melon" in their skin, their religion, their country of origin, then there will be an issue of differences.

Peace


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Of course the issue could eventually be drawn down to an absurd point, but there's only one group at question here.



Really? What group is that? Surely your not ignoring the death sentence slavery was to the Native Americans and simply "going with the flow" and claiming only african americans are due an apology? If one group deserves it many do. You can't seperate and say this group does and this one doesn't.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> No, what I said was that the single entity MOST responsible for the Atlantic slave trade IS the British Crown, an entity that is continuous as well.



Again...are apologies rationed? We won't apologize until they apologize first? What kind of moral position is _that_?



> It only applies if we accept it...and I don't.  So, again, arnis, you can argue until you are blue in the face that WE owe an apology, and it really amounts to nothing except your personal opinion that we should apologize dressed up in a clever argument.



In fact, I've said just the opposite: I don't see what point an apology would serve, and don't find myself in favor of it. It's being requested principally as a first step in seeking reparations.

I agree with your conclusion, but not with your reasoning. But you're too fired up on defeating a ludicorus non-argument that no one has advanced ("_You _owned slaves so _you _should apologize!") that you continue to argue that point...and assign others to holding that position for the convenience of your argument. No one believes that, and I don't favor the apology. I just think _your _reasons for not favoring an apology are shallow.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 26, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Slavery was a state issue, not a federal issue.


 
The federal govt. gave the states the right to regulate it, but the while it was largely handled at the stste level, there was federal involvement.



> Slavery ended 160 years ago, I think you've lost the argument that it is an injustice that DIDN'T happen in the distant past.



When did I make that argument?

You're arguing with someone else, apparently. So long, and thanks for all the fish.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2005)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> If anyone thinks they were harmed by being born here and wants money for it, lets instead compensate them by giving them a ticket back to where their ancestors probably came from.


 
Yeah, can I get a ticket back to Ireland?  That would be great.  God knows I cant afford to go back on my own.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 26, 2005)

Obviously most of you posting are not convinced an apology would serve any real purpose other than to grow the problem. Since this is a martial arts site I would like to try a martial arts analogy to support an apology. The concept is "purposefull compliance". Why try it? We should try it because "purposfull defiance" has proven to be quite polarizing. Being that the people are the government, the object of the game is to be successfull. If we comply with reasonable demands with a "meet us halfway" approach, the money spent would actualy serve to control and , yes, overwhelm. Shirking personal responsibility and telling those falling behind to simply buck up is poor path so far. If things get worse we could always go back to not caring.
Sean


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Being that the people are the government, the object of the game is to be successfull.
> Sean


 
The people are the government?

Ha, my freind, what country do you live in?  I live in the U.S. where the CORPORATIONS are the Government.

Or, I suppose the People with the kind of cash the Corporations have.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 26, 2005)

... by the corporations, for the corporations. With liberty and justice for all...   

"who can afford it!" Jello Biafra
Sean


----------



## Martial Tucker (Dec 26, 2005)

mantis said:
			
		

> okay
> ur words now are more comforting, kinda..
> is it time yet to propose what could be done (maybe in the next 500 years) to end racism?



Good luck on that one. Unfortunately, it is human nature for those who are insecure with their own lives/identity to feel threatened by/fear/resent those who are some how different from them. This goes far beyond just racial issues.

 You are talking about changing very centrally-held attitudes, both conscious and sub-conscious, within a huge percentage of the population, and those attitudes exist on "both sides of the fence".

Interesting how these attitudes seemingly went away for a (too) short period of time right after 9/11. It took a major National tragedy to shock us back to the reality that we are all brothers & sisters, which did seem to unify us for a few weeks. I remember strangers holding doors open for each other, and many other random acts of kindness that have long since faded away as the pain of that period faded. For a short time, there was a sense of brotherhood that I had never seen before in my 45 years. I wondered at the time how long it would last......Now I wonder (and fear) what it will take to get it back.


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 26, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> ... by the corporations, for the corporations. With liberty and justice for all...
> 
> "who can afford it!" Jello Biafra
> Sean


 
Exactly.



There's always room for Jello, Unless you are the Dead Kennedys.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 26, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Obviously most of you posting are not convinced an apology would serve any real purpose other than to grow the problem. Since this is a martial arts site I would like to try a martial arts analogy to support an apology. The concept is "purposefull compliance". Why try it? We should try it because "purposfull defiance" has proven to be quite polarizing. Being that the people are the government, the object of the game is to be successfull. If we comply with reasonable demands with a "meet us halfway" approach, the money spent would actualy serve to control and , yes, overwhelm. Shirking personal responsibility and telling those falling behind to simply buck up is poor path so far. If things get worse we could always go back to not caring.
> Sean


Its a fair analogy, but your use of certain terms are interesting. You use the term "meet us halfway". Who exactly are you using the word "us" to describe? See, the point is that even in your post you must seperate and devide in order to support the notion of an apology. I dont see anyone here who could be guilty of "shirking personal responsibility" unless of course you are implying poeple living today do carry some responsibility for slavery. I also dont see anyone here telling those faling behind to simply "buck up". Everyone here is in favor of programs to help, but are simply pointing out what actually helps and what doesn't. Why the tunnel vision and blinding focus on one answer to a complex question? 

Once again, the bottom line is that supporting an apology is supporting divisional lines between "us" or "Americans". That is the problem I'm refering to. To cast blame or guilt, we must seperate us once again by race, why can't we just move past that and find an answer that doesn't further add to the seperation that causes racism?

7sm


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 26, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Its a fair analogy, but your use of certain terms are interesting. You use the term "meet us halfway". Who exactly are you using the word "us" to describe? See, the point is that even in your post you must seperate and devide in order to support the notion of an apology. I dont see anyone here who could be guilty of "shirking personal responsibility" unless of course you are implying poeple living today do carry some responsibility for slavery. I also dont see anyone here telling those faling behind to simply "buck up". Everyone here is in favor of programs to help, but are simply pointing out what actually helps and what doesn't. Why the tunnel vision and blinding focus on one answer to a complex question?
> 
> Once again, the bottom line is that supporting an apology is supporting divisional lines between "us" or "Americans". That is the problem I'm refering to. To cast blame or guilt, we must seperate us once again by race, why can't we just move past that and find an answer that doesn't further add to the seperation that causes racism?
> 
> 7sm


The reality of the situation is that an us against them mentality exists. We both want the same thing however facing the reality that there is a cultural victim mentality that must be addressed. Denying it is not going to help. If you read some of these post feelings can get pretty heated about the issue. If you want a sub-culture (that exists... honest) an apology in a tangeble form could spark that bond. Members of this sub-culture must feel they have a stake in the dominant culture to want to be a part of it. Again we all benefit from the entity Known as the United States. It was built with slavery and over running existing populations. If problems exist let the republic deal with them. Far right and left opinions must be compromised just as they always do. I doubt the doing nothing approach is gonna work.
Sean


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 26, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> The reality of the situation is that an us against them mentality exists. We both want the same thing however facing the reality that there is a cultural victim mentality that must be addressed. Denying it is not going to help. If you read some of these post feelings can get pretty heated about the issue. If you want a sub-culture (that exists... honest) an apology in a tangeble form could spark that bond. Members of this sub-culture must feel they have a stake in the dominant culture to want to be a part of it.
> Sean


I disagree completely. Just because an "us against them" attitude may exist is no reason to fuel it. By the way, whom are you refering to when saying "us agaisnt them"? I am one of the minorities and I dont have that attitude. Maybe its no so much race groups that have that attitude anymore? 
I think to deny is to accept its existence and purposfully ignore it....that is not what I'm implying. No one is saying deny its existence, but dont make further action that fuels its existence or longevity. What source are you using to say an apology could "spark that bond"? Members of what sub-culture? See, this is the veyr problem I'm refering to. In order to support these things we have to support dividing lines. I think us accepting each other as people rather than anyting to do with race is a much bigger step forward than some ambiguous appology from people who dont mean it or have nothing staked in it....not to mention being from a people who are part of these races being appologized to. 

Again, the problem with the apology is who does it come from and to whom is it aimed? If "we" apologize to "us" shouldn't "we" apologize to women? Shoudn't we apologize to every nation we have crossed? Where does it stop? Shoudn't the african americans publically show appreciation to "us" for stopping racism? See, this only fules a viscious cycle that inadvertantly (I assume) places blame, creates contempt and seperates people.

I think thre are much better ways to use our resources, time, and ....drumroll....money.

7sm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> The federal govt. gave the states the right to regulate it, but the while it was largely handled at the stste level, there was federal involvement.


 Actually, the states existed BEFORE the Federal Government.  In the beginning, the states had far more power than the federal government.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> The reality of the situation is that an us against them mentality exists.


 Yes, perpetrated by those, like yourself, who continue to say 'us and them' rather than dealing with people as individuals.  The very definition of racism is defining a persons worth as being based upon race.  Stop doing that, and you'll have taken a substantial step toward ending racism.



			
				Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> We both want the same thing however facing the reality that there is a cultural victim mentality that must be addressed. Denying it is not going to help. If you read some of these post feelings can get pretty heated about the issue. If you want a sub-culture (that exists... honest) an apology in a tangeble form could spark that bond. Members of this sub-culture must feel they have a stake in the dominant culture to want to be a part of it. Again we all benefit from the entity Known as the United States. It was built with slavery and over running existing populations. If problems exist let the republic deal with them. Far right and left opinions must be compromised just as they always do. I doubt the doing nothing approach is gonna work.
> Sean


 So we compromise with idiocy by leaning a little more toward it, to meet it half way?  I think not.  The idea that anyone alive today owes an apology for something that occurred when none of us was alive is a product of a mentality that merely seeks to put it's foot in the door for a monetary claim, nothing more.  It's racist, it's divisive, and it's cynical.

I'll save my compromising for something more worthy, thank you.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes, perpetrated by those, like yourself, who continue to say 'us and them' rather than dealing with people as individuals. The very definition of racism is defining a persons worth as being based upon race. Stop doing that, and you'll have taken a substantial step toward ending racism.
> 
> So we compromise with idiocy by leaning a little more toward it, to meet it half way? I think not. The idea that anyone alive today owes an apology for something that occurred when none of us was alive is a product of a mentality that merely seeks to put it's foot in the door for a monetary claim, nothing more. It's racist, it's divisive, and it's cynical.
> 
> I'll save my compromising for something more worthy, thank you.


What you seem to be doing is denying peoples identity. It is why we have to use the term African American, even when most people believe its stupid to use a term that seperates a black person from other Americans by qualifying it with the word African. Yet here we are in 2005 using that term. Why, because that is the agreed upon identity. We all wanna roll our eyes when forced to use it but what are ya gonna do? Calling social demands idiocy might make ya feel better, but if it causes a polarization then perhaps you our prepaired for it to get worse. I say we pull our heads out of the sand and become proactive. Then change negative identity chosen by brute force. Social affirmation is not to be ignored.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> What you seem to be doing is denying peoples identity. It is why we have to use the term African American, even when most people believe its stupid to use a term that seperates a black person from other Americans by qualifying it with the word African. Yet here we are in 2005 using that term. Why, because that is the agreed upon identity. We all wanna roll our eyes when forced to use it but what are ya gonna do? Calling social demands idiocy might make ya feel better, but if it causes a polarization then perhaps you our prepaired for it to get worse. I say we pull our heads out of the sand and become proactive. Then change negative identity chosen by brute force.
> Sean


 See, that's what I mean, when you say 'you seem to be denying people's identities', you assert that they are DEFINED by race.  Yet, over and over again, modern science has shown that there is no such thing as biological race.

What causes polarization is this kind of passive-aggressive racism.  We need to stop deciding that people are defined by racial differences, and judge every person on their individual merits.  Merely changing the polarity of racism will never solve the problem.

This whole 'apology and reparations' movement is nothing but the racist mentality of a certain segment of society who, themselves, can't get past the color of people's skin.  They've decided that race is the most important definition of who people are, and have locked in on that single point in order to divide people.  They justify it by claiming victim and aggrieved status as their motive, not racism, though it's obvious by the fact that their claim is made purely along racial lines, that it is, indeed, racism. 

Again, racism is not solved by MORE racism.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> See, that's what I mean, when you say 'you seem to be denying people's identities', you assert that they are DEFINED by race. Yet, over and over again, modern science has shown that there is no such thing as biological race.
> 
> What causes polarization is this kind of passive-aggressive racism. We need to stop deciding that people are defined by racial differences, and judge every person on their individual merits. Merely changing the polarity of racism will never solve the problem.
> 
> ...


Its being ingrained into young childrens minds everyday. You can chose not to accept that these children are taught to define themselves by race, but they are. Your right though; this is a social problem and not scientific. I never claimed any different.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Its being ingrained into young childrens minds everyday. You can chose not to accept that these children are taught to define themselves by race, but they are. Your right though; this is a social problem and not scientific. I never claimed any different.
> Sean


 So your answer is to FURTHER ingrain the idea in to children's minds that they are solely defined by race, and should define their own personally worth and value purely based on their membership in a racial group?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> So your answer is to FURTHER ingrain the idea in to children's minds that they are solely defined by race, and should define their own personally worth and value purely based on their membership in a racial group?


The devil is in the details, but we want the same thing. Again I suggest a purposefull compliance to overide the mentality with a stake in the community. Building more prisons seems garnish the most public support. Now that is a social ill.(soon to be our largest GNP but at least its fair[?])
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> The devil is in the details, but we want the same thing. Again I suggest a purposefull compliance to overide the mentality with a stake in the community. Building more prisons seems garnish the most public support. Now that is a social ill.(soon to be our largest GNP but at least its fair[?])
> Sean


 Prisons are our largest GNP? :rofl: Ok, it's at least apparent you have a sense of humor.

I've yet to hear how MORE racism is the answer.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 29, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Prisons are our largest GNP? :rofl: Ok, it's at least apparent you have a sense of humor.
> 
> I've yet to hear how MORE racism is the answer.


You think I'm kidding; thats cute. Perhaps you should take a criminal justice course. Then come laughing about it becoming our largest GNP.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> You think I'm kidding; thats cute. Perhaps you should take a criminal justice course. Then come laughing about it becoming our largest GNP.
> Sean


 I minored in criminal justice, for the record, though that's entirely irrelavent.  Criminal justice degrees are overrated.   This isn't a criminal justice issue, anyway, it's an economics issue.

The whole 'GNP' argument is a flyer for a conspiracy theory on the 'prison industrial complex', the rip-off of the ole' military industrial complex.

By the way, those incarcerated 2 million people are the reason why crime has been dropping drastically in the US for the last 15 years, while some other industrial countries, such as Great Britain, who like to point to our incarceration rates, are seeing a rise in crime.  What's more, 2 million people aren't really even incarcerated, at least for not more than a few months at a time.  Most of those people are on probation or parole, though they are listed as incarcerated, as they are, for the most part, listed under state and federal Bureau of Prisons inmate lists.

Speaking of which, i've heard some silly arguments along these lines. Arguments like 'Despite drop in crime, inmate numbers increase'...duh.  Why do you think crime is dropping, folks?  If several social programs failed, and crime kept rising (as they did during the 1970's and 1980's, leading to all time high murder rates) and society decided to get fed up and start putting criminals in prison, and crime started FALLING, what do YOU think is happening?  

What's happened is, that all the clever and nuanced social worker ideas have failed, so we're back to putting the blame for crime on criminals, where it belongs.

Moreover, i'd be interesting in seeing the data that shows that prisons are becoming our largest 'GNP'.

None of this has ANYTHING to do with the idea that the answer to racism is MORE racism.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 29, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Again I suggest a purposefull compliance to overide the mentality with a stake in the community.


We are discussing the apology argument. Do you honestly believe that an apology from anyone to anyone is really going to "overide the mentality" of racism? Do you honestly believe an apology from whomever to whomever is really going to create a "stake in the community"? I dont see it.

The debate over apology or no apology, is really cloaked in racism. To have one race of people apologize to another race is to accept devisional lines based on race. The argument against that is "we shouldn't ignore it". To that I ask why not? If you (generic term for any reader) came up to me and began shouting racist remarks at me, do you honestly believe any action is going to change your (again, simply a generic term for making a point) racist mind? Choosing to not accept racism and "ignoring" racism are very closely related. The point is in how and why we do either one. Choosing to refuse action based on race is a step towards ending racism. Small step as it is, its much closer to the end than action based on race. 

Lets stop arguing about the apology (racist arguemtn any way you cut it) and start putting together action that will actually help someone or help end racism. See, racism can go as a two way street. A group of white americans can be racist even by supporting something like an apology. They may even think they are doing the right thing, but I seem to recall white support for "Jim Crow" laws based on, "Its for their own protection". Defining action based on race is racism, regardless of the action. Reparations in my book would be racist.

7sm


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 29, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> We are discussing the apology argument. Do you honestly believe that an apology from anyone to anyone is really going to "overide the mentality" of racism? Do you honestly believe an apology from whomever to whomever is really going to create a "stake in the community"? I dont see it.
> 
> The debate over apology or no apology, is really cloaked in racism. To have one race of people apologize to another race is to accept devisional lines based on race. The argument against that is "we shouldn't ignore it". To that I ask why not? If you (generic term for any reader) came up to me and began shouting racist remarks at me, do you honestly believe any action is going to change your (again, simply a generic term for making a point) racist mind? Choosing to not accept racism and "ignoring" racism are very closely related. The point is in how and why we do either one. Choosing to refuse action based on race is a step towards ending racism. Small step as it is, its much closer to the end than action based on race.
> 
> ...


I think affirmative action is a proactive step toward creating a stake in the community. Women have really come a long way with new policies. The differences between men and women will never be erased. I hope racial differences go way. I also accept that affirmative action causes as many problems as it solves; however, I have considered it whining. Those unworthy of promotion have a way of getting rid of themselves.
Sean


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 29, 2005)

So would an apology from male americans aimed at female americans be in order and be productive? Would it change anything from the way it is now?

7sm


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 29, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So would an apology from male americans aimed at female americans be in order and be productive? Would it change anything from the way it is now?
> 
> 7sm


 Most American women get apologized too all the time.  'I'm sorry, honey, I was wrong....please let me back in the house, it's getting cold and it's starting to rain.'


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 30, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So would an apology from male americans aimed at female americans be in order and be productive? Would it change anything from the way it is now?
> 
> 7sm


No its cluster**** there too but, It seems to be going smoothly. Don't get me started on that.
Sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 30, 2005)

Basically, the 'white man' is 'the devil' and needs to PAY!  Where have I heard all this before?

I mean, that's what we're really talking about.  All this talk about 'institutions' apologizing and paying.  Institutions are mental constructs, they don't exist outside our minds.  If we aren't talking about certain individuals paying and apologizing, then we are talking about the entire country paying and apologizing.  And we certainly don't expect african americans to apologize to themselves.  Now we've said that women need an apology too.  So, there's only one group of people that this is directed at...I wonder who. 

I think it's long past time we used skin color as a determining factor of character.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Basically, the 'white man' is 'the devil' and needs to PAY! Where have I heard all this before?
> 
> I mean, that's what we're really talking about. All this talk about 'institutions' apologizing and paying. Institutions are mental constructs, they don't exist outside our minds. If we aren't talking about certain individuals paying and apologizing, then we are talking about the entire country paying and apologizing. And we certainly don't expect african americans to apologize to themselves. Now we've said that women need an apology too. So, there's only one group of people that this is directed at...I wonder who.
> 
> I think it's long past time we used skin color as a determining factor of character.


You know the whole reason we have a republic is so that "mob rule" doesn't become unjust. Let the republic do its job.
sean


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 30, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> You know the whole reason we have a republic is so that "mob rule" doesn't become unjust. Let the republic do its job.
> sean


 I'm sorry, i don't follow your analogy.  What does mob rule have to do with any of this?  Other than that some unscrupulous and disingenuous individuals are pushing apologies and reparations as a cynical way of making a play for the votes and political support of select minorities, under the premise that if it succeeds, they'll get some money out of it.  Wooohooo, where do I sign on for some 'reparations'.  

Mob rule indeed.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 30, 2005)

It's all about guilt, folks.  Create artificial guilt for an act that you didn't commit, but that has been attached to you....then open the pocket book and start paying and, more importantly, you'll be bound to vote 'the right way' so as to appease that guilt, and try to make an end for an act that you had nothing to do with.

Of course, it only has power over us if we allow it.  I say lets forget this silly racist non-sense, study the 19th century for what it is...history, AND move on in to the 21st Century.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 30, 2005)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It's all about guilt, folks. Create artificial guilt for an act that you didn't commit, but that has been attached to you....then open the pocket book and start paying and, more importantly, you'll be bound to vote 'the right way' so as to appease that guilt, and try to make an end for an act that you had nothing to do with.
> 
> Of course, it only has power over us if we allow it. I say lets forget this silly racist non-sense, study the 19th century for what it is...history, AND move on in to the 21st Century.


Actualy I was taught, in the criminal justice cources that I took, its about fear.
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Dec 30, 2005)

Does Black History Month actually separate us as Americans?

Not if its done right.

Freeman is hardly the first African American to gripe about Black History Month.

Funny story:

About 15 years ago, I was working in the training department at a commercial nuclear power plant, back in New York. I was partnered with a Caucasian fellow named Bob, who was and is simply one of the most upright, kind and completely unflappable people Ive ever dealt with. We had lots of fun conversations in what was essentially a boring job-at least, it was _supposed_ to be boring; when it was exciting, there was usually something terribly wrong.

Anyway, one day in late January-and remember, this is winter in upstate N.Y., cold to rival Alaska-I jokingly said, _And what is *up* with giving us February? I know what it was, they want their own *month* now? Lets give em February, and therell be no marching. _Bob looks right at me, deadpan, doesnt miss a beat and in the utmost sincerity says, Its not *your* Black History Month; its all of ours. 

To which I could only say he was right-he was, like me, *usually* right.

More seriously, an uncle of mine used to complain, Why do we get the _shortest_ month? Why, indeed?

It was Carter G. Woodson, a great black historian educated at Harvard and the University of Chicago who initiated what would become Black History month with Negro History Week, in 1926. He used to complain about it, too. He hoped the event would eventually put itself out of business by promoting the respectful integration of Negro history with everyone elses history. In many ways, black history studies have made a lot of progress since those days. In many other ways, were still waiting.

Woodson chose the second week of February so the big week would coincide with the birthdays of Frederick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. If Frederick Douglas, who escaped slavery to become a pioneer journalist, diplomat and advisor to Lincoln, were anywhere near as well integrated into American history studies as he is into African American history studies, there would be no need for Black History Month. 

And the fact is, most Americans have at least a vague idea of who Douglas, G.W. Carver and Crispus Attucs were, and thats about as far as it goes-they may have heard of these men, or even remember them in detail, but what they really remember is Paul Revere, and two if by sea, even though it didnt quite happen that way. Sadly, there are numerous other African Americans throughout American history who made substantial contributions to America, and odds are good that without Black History Month, many of you would never know about them.. 

Fact is, there isnt one aspect of todays American culture that hasnt been informed by or some form of a response to the presence of African Americans (and yes, that is a challenge), in spite of my famous joke about convening a meeting of the Society of African American Nuclear Engineer..(you know, as Im heading off to sit on the toilet.)-and yes, along with my usually more noted American Indian heritage, mine is essentially an Anglicized African American name, and I am descended from freed slaves-who went on to rather famous success in shipping, agriculture and commerce, though one ancestor was burned alive in the slave riots of new York in 1712..things you probably didnt read about in American history class, but should have..

Morgan Freeman offers a delightfully enlightened viewpoint on how to perceive people as individuals, but as far as eliminating racism goes-and it still exists-Ive never known a problem to go away _by not talking about it_. The French sort of tried that: they swept their race problems under the rug in the spirit of liberte, egalite, fraternite, and refused, as a matter of French law, to recognize that different races exist, which made it hard, if not impossible, for the law to deal with decades of racial discrimination. Long standing racial and ethnic grievances led to the recent uprisings by poor, largely unemployed Arab and African youths in towns across France, just as they led to riots throughout American history.

We Amercians need not, and should not run from our own racial past. It is very much a part of our turbulent history, from the great debate the Framers of the Constitution staged over how to count slaves for purposes of reapportionment (three-fifths of a person??) to todays first black woman Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice.

The bad old days of separtism tried to erase black folks from American history. Black History Month , if only for that month, puts us back in. It is not :ridiculous to study the tragedies and triumphs of the many, many people who made this country what it is. They have a lot to teach us. We need Black History Month. We dont need to limit it to blacks only-or to only a month.

Oh, and that apology? If it were sincerely offered, Id sincerely tell you where you could stick it


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 30, 2005)

Touch Of Death said:
			
		

> Actualy I was taught, in the criminal justice cources that I took, its about fear.
> Sean


 Fear has nothing to do with it.  It's the natural stage when a culture becomes introverted and self-absorbed.  The culture begins to re-examine it's earlier stages, and begins making value judgements on it's past and the actions of their ancestors.  Conqueror's guilt.  It's an inevitable stage of a successful civilization.   

In times of plenty, we have the luxury of self-examination.

There used to be a mindset in psychology that dwelling on the past was healthy.  Ironically, it was those who dwelled on the past all the time who needed the most therapy.  Those who are able to move on from painful experiences are the healthiest and most successful.  Learn the lessons of the past, then move on.


----------



## Dan G (Jan 2, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> In case you haven't heard, my friend, governments don't produce profits, ours produce deficits. If a company operated like most governments, they'd be bankrupt and their CEO's eating in a soup kitchen.
> 
> That you believe they ARE profit making is only an indication of how out of touch you apparently are.
> 
> ...


 
The Italians pretty much invented the Global slave trade 2000 years ago, and slavery involved and continues to involve a wide range of peoples and ethnic groups both inside and outside of Africa.

It is estimated that about 10 to 15 million slaves were taken from Africa to between 1450 and 1900

The single biggest transatlantic trafficker of slaves was Portugal with about 4.5 million slaves total, Britain second with about 2.5 million, Spain with about 1.5 million France with about 1 million, and Holland with about 300,000.
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm
http://www.people.hofstra.edu/faculty/alan_j_singer/242%20Course%20Pack/2.%20Ninth/132.pdf

from 1701 Britain was by far the major trafficker as the Spanish Wars of sucession weakened their competitors.

On the other hand a quick look at the historical timeline shows that Britain was also a pioneer in attempting to abolish the Slave trade.

1569 - The legality of slavery in Britain was first challenged in the Cartwright case, involving a Russian slave. (Until the Ottoman Empire took Constantinople most slaves in Europe originated in Eastern Europe and Russia - history has gone full circle)

1772 - Somersett v Stewart establishes that any slave landing in Britain automatically becomes free."The air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe, and so everyone who breathes it becomes free. Everyone who comes to this island is entitled to the protection of English law, whatever oppression he may have suffered and whatever may be the colour of his skin." 

1807 - British nationals and shipping banned from the international Slave Trade. 

18-25 onwards - British Navy very active in supressing the Slave Trade. an estimated 300,000 slaves freed from intercepted shipping and Schools and settlements fo freed slaves set up on islands such as the Seychelles.

1833 Britain Abolishes Slavery in entirety. 800,000 slaves emancipated from British colonies.

1885 - Berlin Treaty on Africa - European powers agree to ban slave trade

1903 - British Consul (Sir Roger Casement - later executed for his part in the Easter 1916 uprising) investigates slavery and human rights abuses in Congo Free State, a personal dominion of the utterly unpleasant Belgian King Leopold II. Report published in 1904 is used to whip up international pressure on Belgium over forced labour/slavery that relied on systematic use of amputation to prevent dissent.
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob73.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/protest_reform/casement_01.shtml

1908 - Belgium annexes Congo Free State to prevent human rights abuses and former colonial officials charged for atrocities commited.

1926 - Brussels Conference nations put in place Slavery Convention. (Oman finally signs in 1970!)

1948 - Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits slavery. (Not binding on states)

1957 - Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery (amends 1926 Slavery Convention)

Despite all the legislation and treaties to make slavery illegal, and all the enforcement action over 200 years it is surprising how much slavery is still going on.

2005 - Best monitoring of current global slavery trends largely comes from the US - US Department of State report estimates a worldwide slave trade of about 600,000 to 800,000 persons yearly (with about 14,500 - 17,500 in the US)  It was estimated that about 1,400 women were trafficked into the UK for prostitution in 2000, but that figure is old, and fails to take into account other areas of forced labour, child trafficking etc..

http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2005/


 Looking at the title of the thread I don't find anything ridiculous about Black History Month; all history is important and looking at it with a particular focus can bring out things that would otherwise be missed (or have been sytematically ignored).  Any examination of the slave trade and African-American history leads directly to a lot of material that is relevant to current issues that affect a lot of countries and people much more immediately than a debate over apologies and compensation for 100 - 150 year old human rights violations.

Good thread - a quick check to see if it was Britain or Portugal that was the biggest slave trader got me doing a lot of reading and thinking.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> Good thread - a quick check to see if it was Britain or Portugal that was the biggest slave trader got me doing a lot of reading and thinking.


 Yes and no.  The Portugeuse, making a living as they did off of their shipping, were the largest actual transporters of slaves.  However, the destination for those slaves was mostly British colonies of the West Indies, where the British profited off of their labor for production of sugar.  So, it kind of depends on which part of the slave trade you are referring to, the actual transporter of slaves, or the end users.  Either way, there is no serious dispute that the British and Portugeuse, along with the Dutch and Spanish, were responsible for the lion's share of the slave trade.

Which, I find ironic when Brits point to the US history of slavery with scorn.  I find it ironic because, how much moral authority do you have, if you start an evil institution (the atlantic slave trade), you chiefly profit from it, are responsible for most of it.  Then when it starts becoming less profitable for you, and other nations start getting involved in it that you are in conflict with, you decide that NOW it's time (after you've made many fortunes on the institution) to state that it's an evil instituted (that you mainly started to begin with).  

The British squeezed every pound they could out of the slave trade, and the subsequent production of sugar, rum and other goods, and NOW they want to take the moral high-ground and condemn the US involvement in the institution they chiefly started?  Ludicrious.  They should condemn it, but they should remember THEY began it.  

It's about like Tookie Williams claiming that his work against gang violence qualifies him for Sainthood....If you start an evil, and then work to end it, you don't deserve accolades, you're just cleaning up your own mess.


----------



## Dan G (Jan 2, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Yes and no. The Portugeuse, making a living as they did off of their shipping, were the largest actual transporters of slaves. However, the destination for those slaves was mostly British colonies of the West Indies, where the British profited off of their labor for production of sugar. So, it kind of depends on which part of the slave trade you are referring to, the actual transporter of slaves, or the end users. Either way, there is no serious dispute that the British and Portugeuse, along with the Dutch and Spanish, were responsible for the lion's share of the slave trade.
> 
> Which, I find ironic when Brits point to the US history of slavery with scorn. I find it ironic because, how much moral authority do you have, if you start an evil institution (the atlantic slave trade), you chiefly profit from it, are responsible for most of it. Then when it starts becoming less profitable for you, and other nations start getting involved in it that you are in conflict with, you decide that NOW it's time (after you've made many fortunes on the institution) to state that it's an evil instituted (that you mainly started to begin with).
> 
> ...


 
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm

The majority of the transatlantic slave trade went to Brazil - 4 million people, then the Spanish Empire - 2.5 million, British West Indies and British NorthAmerica and the US combined account for another 2.5 million. 

The first time a slave was taken from Africa to North America was in 1528, by the Spanish to Florida.

The first recorded incident of the English engaging in the Transatlantic trade was John Hawkins in October 1562, he traded with the Spanish.

14 May 1607 - Jamestown founded. 

August 1619 - first African slaves brought to an English American colony, by the Dutch to Jamestown.

http://www.innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html

Having said all that it doesn't really change the real point that the British made huge fortunes from the Transatlantic slave Trade, at it's height were the key player, and squeezed all they could from the colonial economies that were supported by slave labour - and I agree that it is hypocritical to focus only on abolition and ignore the behaviour that preceded it, particularly as Britain was happy to reap the rewards of slavery abroad whilst slowly reforming at home. 

I am not convinced that the British abolition of slavery was mainly the result of lack of profitability - I think the main source of that theory is a book by the Marxist jamaican historian Dr Eric Williams - _Capitalism and Slavery_, published in the 60's just after Jamaican independence -when crediting any liberties acheived to the former colonial powers wasn't very fashionable. 
The theory makes some sense though, especially after American Independence, but I think (but I am not that certain) the real downturn in Jamaica happened after unilateral abolition by Britain. Having said that there was a natural conflict between social reformers and business interests in Britain, and I imagine that had the colonies been producing more revenue (and had the US not become independent) the reformers would not have had as much influence.
I think a better argument is that abolition happened as a result of genuine principle when business opposition was weakened, but that having put themselves at a major economic disadvantage Britain was motivated by massive self interest in making major efforts to level the field by enforcing abolition using their Navy and pushing other countries to abolish slavery by treaty. Having control of 50% of the world's merchant shipping at the time, and the world's most powerful Navy gave Britain the muscle to abolish slavery unilaterally and then prevent anyone else from exploiting Britain's economic disadvantage for long.

The way I see it any country that has substantial power and influence and effects a reform is open to the charge of hypocrisy if it criticises another country for failing to make that reform, as the chances are that whatever injustice preceded the reform was done on a wider scale by the larger country. As a former superpower Britain still gets that criticism from time to time (normally internally), and the US now gets it daily. It is the price of success.

 Similarly any country that slowly evolves a liberal regard for civil rights can be called hypocritical in comparison to a country that has no regard for civil rights whatsoever. The occasional failures of the US or Britain to extend their very liberal civil justice systems consistently to all its citizens can be called hypocritical in comparison to North Korea, for example, that couldn't give a damn and doesn't mind who knows. Both the US and Britain are hypocritical when it comes it human rights, it happens when a country has high ideals and sometimes fails to make them work in reality, but I know which systems I'd rather live under. 

I don't know much of Tookie Williams, I don't respect the competence or integrity of lawyers, judges or politicians enough to support capital punishment, and it seems a waste to execute someone that might be able to do something socially useful, but he doesn't strike me as saint material either. 

I enjoy the debate on this thread, it keeps me thinking.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 2, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm
> 
> The majority of the transatlantic slave trade went to Brazil - 4 million people, then the Spanish Empire - 2.5 million, British West Indies and British NorthAmerica and the US combined account for another 2.5 million.
> 
> ...


 I certainly agree with the bulk of your post, and it was never my intention to paint Great Britain as the largest offender in Slavery, just point out the European contention that slavery is singular wrong of the United States as hypocritical, as a half dozen countries of Europe traded and profited off many times more slavery than the US ever had, started with Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and France.  

Again, i'm merely pointing out that there is a European myth about the US, that the US has a history of wrongs, and that slavery is evidence of how evil the US is....the hypocrasy comes in the fact that they apparently are ignorant of their own GREATER involvement in slavery.  They feel that somehow, because they decided to disavow themselves, after profiting greatly, that they are somehow absolved of ALL consequences of slavery...yet, at the same time, the United States alone shares sole responsible for an institution it neither started, neither profited from the bulk of, nor committed the majority of, while Europeans get to pronounce their own history on the subject lilly white....it doesn't wash.


----------



## Dan G (Jan 3, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> I certainly agree with the bulk of your post, and it was never my intention to paint Great Britain as the largest offender in Slavery, just point out the European contention that slavery is singular wrong of the United States as hypocritical, as a half dozen countries of Europe traded and profited off many times more slavery than the US ever had, started with Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands and France.
> 
> Again, i'm merely pointing out that there is a European myth about the US, that the US has a history of wrongs, and that slavery is evidence of how evil the US is....the hypocrasy comes in the fact that they apparently are ignorant of their own GREATER involvement in slavery. They feel that somehow, because they decided to disavow themselves, after profiting greatly, that they are somehow absolved of ALL consequences of slavery...yet, at the same time, the United States alone shares sole responsible for an institution it neither started, neither profited from the bulk of, nor committed the majority of, while Europeans get to pronounce their own history on the subject lilly white....it doesn't wash.


 
I agree, it doesn't wash, and there are plenty of examples of European countries taking very selective views of their history - of which Britain is no exception. (don't get me started on France, Belgium and Austria...)
I don't mind well argued criticism of Britain at all, much of it is fair, and actually depending on how you sample the statistics it is possible to show that Britain was at one point the largest offender in the Slave Trade. More relevant to the US it was unquestionably Britain that was responsible for any conditions in the US at the time of independence - absolutely no way that Britain can duck responsibility there.

Big targets make easy targets - and the US is the biggest around. Apart from the fact that verbally bashing the US is an (often) harmless world sport with relaxed rules that allow all but the most intellectually incompetent to excel, it is also a very convenient way of distracting attention from all sorts of domestic issues. Fact of life, and the price of having power and a respect for freedom of expression. Time to start worrying is when it all goes quiet...

I like these threads and particularly enjoy your contributions because the carefully argued US perspective forces me to question some of my basic assumptions, some of my views have definitely changed, and where I haven't changed my mind I have still learned things - some of which are professionally relevant. Cheers :asian:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 3, 2006)

Dan G said:
			
		

> I agree, it doesn't wash, and there are plenty of examples of European countries taking very selective views of their history - of which Britain is no exception. (don't get me started on France, Belgium and Austria...)
> I don't mind well argued criticism of Britain at all, much of it is fair, and actually depending on how you sample the statistics it is possible to show that Britain was at one point the largest offender in the Slave Trade. More relevant to the US it was unquestionably Britain that was responsible for any conditions in the US at the time of independence - absolutely no way that Britain can duck responsibility there.
> 
> Big targets make easy targets - and the US is the biggest around. Apart from the fact that verbally bashing the US is an (often) harmless world sport with relaxed rules that allow all but the most intellectually incompetent to excel, it is also a very convenient way of distracting attention from all sorts of domestic issues. Fact of life, and the price of having power and a respect for freedom of expression. Time to start worrying is when it all goes quiet...
> ...


 I find these discussionsequally enlightening and I always walk away learning something useful.:asian:


----------

