# African migration to U.S., now more than slavery...



## billc (Jun 10, 2012)

I was listening to Adam Corolla's free podcast today, he interviewed his good friend Dennis Prager, and an interesting fact came up.  Both guys mentioned the fact that more Africans have migrated to the United States than were brought here as slaves of the early European settlers ( having been sold to the Europeans by other Africans ).  I thought that was an interesting thing to know.  I think it goes a long way to dismiss the whole America is a racist country myth.  Is there racism in America? Sure.  Is America a racist country?  No.  If you doubt me, point me to the European country that has had a minority prime minister.  We've been around as a country less than the other European countries and have already elected the first minority President.  Not bad.

I have found that Adam Corolla is a really smart, wise, man and has a great deal of sense that is not common anymore.  If you have a chance, look up his podcast on I tunes.  It is the most listened to podcast on the internet, or so he claims, and he isn't shy about his opinions.


----------



## Golden Crane (Jun 10, 2012)

Trust me, this one fact - provided it is accurate - doesn't do much to dismiss the idea that America is still a racist country. One needs only point to the treatment of Native Americans (both back in the days of the wild, wild west and today), Japanese Americans and the lovely interment camps they were forced into during WWII and the current immigration "spot check" laws in Arizona for helpful illustration.

Remember, Africans were brought to the US not as indentured servants or low-wage workers, but as SLAVES - as in property with no ability to decide their own fates and no rights who were not even considered fully human (remember Dred Scott, the Missouri Compromise and the turmoil of the 60s Civil Rights era?). Your corner of America may not be racist (nor is mine in an overt way), but trust and believe racism alive and well in this the good ol' US of A.

BTW - the term 'minority" is a bit of a misnomer. Although it is supposed to be used to mean NUMERICAL minority (as in there are fewer brown folks than non-brown ones), the "numerical" part almost always gets left out, which makes it sounds like the people being referenced are somehow "less than". Besides, now that  more brown babies were born in the US than non-brown, maybe that term will go the way of the dinosaur like "colored" and "black" have. Here's hoping! :ultracool


----------



## frank raud (Jun 10, 2012)

Golden Crane said:


> Trust me, this one fact - provided it is accurate - doesn't do much to dismiss the idea that America is still a racist country. One needs only point to the treatment of Native Americans (both back in the days of the wild, wild west and today), Japanese Americans and the lovely interment camps they were forced into during WWII and the current immigration "spot check" laws in Arizona for helpful illustration.
> 
> Remember, Africans were brought to the US not as indentured servants or low-wage workers, but as SLAVES - as in property with no ability to decide their own fates and no rights who were not even considered fully human (remember Dred Scott, the Missouri Compromise and the turmoil of the 60s Civil Rights era?). Your corner of America may not be racist (nor is mine in an overt way), but trust and believe racism alive and well in this the good ol' US of A.



As long as we are remembering, remember that at the time slavery was completely legal, and widely practiced throughout the world. It is despicable to our standards now, but most labour practices which helped builded North America(slavery, indentured servants, child labour) were the norm at the time, not only in North America, but in the European countries where most of our immigrants and settlers came from. If you think  horrible working conditions were limited to those of African descent, take a look at the plight of the Irish or Scottish. Many a country was built on the backs of slaves and serfs, none of whom had the "right" to decide their own fate.


----------



## frank raud (Jun 10, 2012)

Again, referencing internment camps for the Japanese in WWII fails to take into account the changes to international law since then. The USA was not the only country with internment camps, Canada had them for people of Japanese, German or Italian descent, Australia had them as did many other countries. Again, what was acceptable then has changed. Internment camps are covered under the 4th Geneva Convention, signed in 1949, after WWII.


----------



## billc (Jun 10, 2012)

I always think it is odd that as slavery is condemned it is often glossed over and completely ignored that actual Africans had to go out and capture, transport and then actually sell their fellow Africans into slavery.  That Slavery still exists on the African continent and is also overlooked, is still a mystery to me.


----------



## billc (Jun 10, 2012)

On the info. on numbers...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_slaves_were_brought_to_the_Americas



> Of these, an estimated 645,000 were brought to what is now the United States. The largest number were shipped to Brazil.



http://www.migrationinformation.org/USfocus/display.cfm?id=719



> The number of African immigrants in the United States grew 40-fold between 1960 and 2007, from 35,355 to 1.4 million. Most of this growth has taken place since 1990.
> 
> Compared to other immigrants, the African born tend to be highly educated and speak English well. However, they are also more likely not to be naturalized US citizens than other immigrants.


----------



## K-man (Jun 10, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I think it goes a long way to dismiss the whole America is a racist country myth.  Is there racism in America? Sure.  Is America a racist country?  No.  If you doubt me, point me to the European country that has had a minority prime minister.  We've been around as a country less than the other European countries and have already elected the first minority President.  Not bad.


Mmm.   I'm stretching this a bit, but the inference here is that the US is a sexist country. You still haven't elected a female President.    There have been a fair few female leaders in Europe, and even one in Australia.


----------



## granfire (Jun 10, 2012)

K-man said:


> Mmm.   I'm stretching this a bit, but the inference here is that the US is a sexist country. You still haven't elected a female President.    There have been a fair few female leaders in Europe, and even one in Australia.



hah, you forget the female leaders of notorious sexist countries like India and Pakistan....


----------



## frank raud (Jun 10, 2012)

granfire said:


> hah, you forget the female leaders of notorious sexist countries like India and Pakistan....



And Canada.


----------



## K-man (Jun 11, 2012)

frank raud said:


> And Canada.


But, I don't think that Kim Campbell was actually elected as leader by the electorate. She succeeded Mulroney but never actually sat as PM in parliament. She held the position for just over four months, then the voters chucked her out of office and right out of parliament, at the general election.


----------



## K-man (Jun 11, 2012)

granfire said:


> hah, you forget the female leaders of notorious sexist countries like India and Pakistan....


I really didn't want to go there .... but.    Did you really want me to draw comparisons, especially with Pakistan? Benazir Bhutto had a lot of power but she was under a Presidential system and was eventually dismissed for corruption. In her term of office, Pakistan recognised the Taliban and cosied up to Libya.

Indira Gandhi was a lot better than Benazir Bhutto but unfortunately they both suffered the same fate. As I said, did you really want to compare US politics with India and Pakistan?

Then there was ..
Sirimavo Bandaranaike, three times Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, who was the first woman in the world to hold the office of prime minister. Her daughter later became President then Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.

Interesting stuff!   



​




​


----------



## granfire (Jun 11, 2012)

K-man said:


> Indira Gandhi was a lot better than Benazir Bhutto but unfortunately they both suffered the same fate. As I said, did you really want to compare US politics with India and Pakistan?
> 
> ​


​ 
Hey, we are so enlightened and progressive, we can't even get a female on the ticket.
And those countries managed. Yes, and Sri Lanka...you are actually making my point, thank you. 
So they sucked. Happens to a lot of leaders.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I was listening to Adam Corolla's free podcast today, he interviewed his good friend Dennis Prager, and an interesting fact came up.




That you clearly get what you pay for in this instance? :lfao:



billcihak said:


> Both guys mentioned the fact that more Africans have migrated to the United States than were brought here as slaves of the early European settlers




Except it's *not a fact*. We don't really know just how many Africans were kidnapped and imported to North America prior to the abolition of the slave trade in 1815-some estimates put it as low as 500,000, and some as high as 3.5 million. In any case, are they comparing whichever number they were using against all voluntary African emigration throughout U.S. history, or simply against the current 840,000 African immigrants in the U.S. listed by the 2010 census?



billcihak said:


> ( having been sold to the Europeans by other Africans ).



And we again have this chestnut of ignorance: those "other Africans" were of no relation to the peoples they preyed upon-it's, at best, like calling the English putting Scottish into slavery, "slavery of Europeans by other Europeans"-however factual, it is diingenuous, and glosses over the fact that one people treated another as chattel;it in no way excuses it.



billcihak said:


> I thought that was an interesting thing to know.



Well, of course you did-you can put it right up there next to the whole "Nazis were socialists" collection of history books on your apparently less than plumb bookshelves.



billcihak said:


> I think it goes a long way to dismiss the whole America is a racist country myth.



Except that it doesn't. 



billcihak said:


> Is there racism in America? Sure.



Finally, a fact in your post.



billcihak said:


> Is America a racist country? No.



And if you are the object of racism noted in the previous sentence, in what way is the second one not true? Just askin', mind you-I don't think America is any more racist than anywhere else I've been, and it's a lot less racist than Japan-though Japanese racism is more akin to plain old ignorance and a product of their homogeneity.



billcihak said:


> If you doubt me, point me to the European country that has had a minority prime minister. We've been around as a country less than the other European countries and have already elected the first minority President. Not bad.



Interestingly, Stephen Dershowitz used GOOGLE and the election of Obama to demonstrate just how racist America is in this paper, and this op-ed in the New York Times.




billcihak said:


> I have found that Adam Corolla is a really smart, wise, man and has a great deal of sense that is not common anymore.



I've enjoyed some of his viewpoints from time to time-seems like a nice guy, someone I wouldn't mind sharing a beer with, while drooling over his car collection, hopefully.

Clearly,though, he's at his smartest when noting just how not smart he is:



> The God's honest truth is that I'm probably funnier, *but he's smarter*. *Here's the thing about Stern -- he's really a smart guy*. He's nutty. He's outrageous. He's all those things, but he's also a very smart guy.&#8221;


:lfao:



billcihak said:


> If you have a chance, look up his podcast on I tunes. It is the most listened to podcast on the internet, or so he claims, and he isn't shy about his opinions.



It's in the Guiness Book of World Records.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2012)

frank raud said:


> As long as we are remembering, remember that at the time slavery was completely legal, and widely practiced throughout the world. It is despicable to our standards now, but most labour practices which helped builded North America(slavery, indentured servants, child labour) were the norm at the time, not only in North America, but in the European countries where most of our immigrants and settlers came from. If you think horrible working conditions were limited to those of African descent, take a look at the plight of the Irish or Scottish. Many a country was built on the backs of slaves and serfs, none of whom had the "right" to decide their own fate.



Whilst we're remembering all of that, it should also be noted that , slaves in North America during the colonial period had the right to own property, families were kept together, and, while it wasn't often able to be exercised, had they had the ability, as my ancestors did, to buy their freedom. The abolition of the slave trade in 1815 created a somewhat uniquely cruel institution in the southern part of the U.S.-at a time when various states and colonies were abolishing slavery altogether, the south was built on maintaining slavery, and the status of the slaves-at a time when there were black freemen in other states, it had long been illegal for such a thing to exist in some southern states, and various other laws made certain that blacks were "less free" than their white counterparts in instances where they were freed from slavery-for example, a white landowner in Kentucky could go to a free black family and take away a child for "apprenticeship," for "the child's own good." 



billcihak said:


> I always think it is odd that as slavery is condemned it is often glossed over and completely ignored that actual Africans had to go out and capture, transport and then actually sell their fellow Africans into slavery.



Largely because of ignorance, I'd imagine. I mean, you do realize that Africa is a continent, of many nations and tribes, don't you? To speak of one tribe or country of the time thinking of another as "their fellow Africans" is, as I posted earlier, much like expecting the British to cut their "fellow Europeans" _the *French*_ some slack, when, in fact, both nations spent a great deal of time in enmity-just as African and Arab nations and tribes did.

_"Fellow Africans_."  :lfao:


----------



## billc (Jun 11, 2012)

Hmmm...



> and glosses over the fact that one people treated another as chattel;it in no way excuses it.



Yes elder, that is exactly what I did, I excused it by reinforcing the point in another post that slavery was a world wide trade and not just a problem in the European colonies, and that it is still being practised on the african continent while it has been abolished in the United States.

And yes elder, the nazis were socialists.  No matter how you try to deny it you are still wrong on that count.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 11, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They were, White National Socialists. That means something a little different than your run of the mill socialism. I'm just saying. 
Sean


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes elder, that is exactly what I did, I excused it by reinforcing the point in another post that slavery was a world wide trade and not just a problem in the European colonies, and that it is still being practised on the african continent while it has been abolished in the United States.



Well, it's good that you can see that. One would have to wonder, otherwise, why you (over)stated the historically obvious, if not in some attempt to obviate the inherent wrongness of America's legacy of slavery.



billcihak said:


> I think it goes a long way to dismiss the whole America is a racist country myth.



In any case, the entire premise of your original post is flawed: to equate African immigration to the U.S. today with a lack of racism in the U.S. is nothing but a string of sloppy thinking: several erroneous assumptions and leaps in logic strung together, in that the number of African immigrants to the U.S. only speaks of those immigrants seeking opportunities here, whether political, educational, socio-economic, religious or otherwise (pro athletes could fall into socio-economic, for example, but that's not a common opportunity).

It also completely discounts that most of sub-Saharan Africa's countries are, in one way or another, roiling s***holes.Of course Africans come here.

What it really discounts, though, is what sort of reception those immigrants receive here-whether or not they are the object of prejudice and racism on American shores-not to say that they do or don't, but it totally doesn't take the most basic measure of what it implies into account, which is whether or not said immigrants are the objects of racism, and instead assumes that they are welcomed here with open arms.

Stupid, really. Just stupid.

In fact, you might be surprised to know that black African immigrants meet no small degree of prejudice and racism from African Americans.

And I'm not the only one to tell you-you've heard it before-but so's this:



billcihak said:


> And yes elder, the nazis were socialists. No matter how you try to deny it you are still wrong on that count.



For the last time: Germany socialized medicine under the Kaiser, long before Hitler was born. The Nazis killed all "left-leaning" members on The Night of Long Knives. The Nazis abolished trade-unions in 1933. They received their principle financing and support from corporations, like Seimens, Krupp and Daimler-Benz.All of which are hardly indicative of any degree of "socialism" whatsoever.

The Nazis were capitalists. The Nazis were capitalists.The Nazis were fascist, _right-leaning_,* capitalists.*


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 11, 2012)

Billi btw hi Little Right Wing One. little pet   how are ya? 

and just cause people immigrate into your country doesnt mean its not racist. You'd have to provide more evidence than that.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 11, 2012)

K-man said:


> But, I don't think that Kim Campbell was actually elected as leader by the electorate. She succeeded Mulroney but never actually sat as PM in parliament. She held the position for just over four months, then the voters chucked her out of office and right out of parliament, at the general election.



she wasnt elected. You're right


----------



## granfire (Jun 11, 2012)

Blade96 said:


> she wasnt elected. You're right



She still made it to the top of the political ladder t be considered a replacement....a couple of steps up from a bad joke....


----------



## Golden Crane (Jun 11, 2012)

frank raud said:


> As long as we are remembering, remember that at the time slavery was completely legal, and widely practiced throughout the world. It is despicable to our standards now, but most labour practices which helped builded North America(slavery, indentured servants, child labour) were the norm at the time, not only in North America, but in the European countries where most of our immigrants and settlers came from. If you think  horrible working conditions were limited to those of African descent, take a look at the plight of the Irish or Scottish. Many a country was built on the backs of slaves and serfs, none of whom had the "right" to decide their own fate.



Just want to point out that Irish and Scottish were not bought here in chains. Just sayin'...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2012)

Golden Crane said:


> Just want to point out that Irish and Scottish were not bought here in chains. Just sayin'...




Actually, Scottish and Irish convicts, as well as conscripted civilians, were sent to the colonies like Jamaica and Barbados, by England, as early as 1627-some put it as early as 1617, and they were sent in chains....in many cases, the first language that imported African slaves learned wasn't English-it was Gaelic or Scottish-it's to these languages that Jamaicans and other "English speaking" Carribbean islands owe their distinctive patois....


----------



## frank raud (Jun 11, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Actually, Scottish and Irish convicts, as well as conscripted civilians, were sent to the colonies like Jamaica and Barbados, by England, as early as 1627-some put it as early as 1617, and they were sent in chains....in many cases, the first language that imported African slaves learned wasn't English-it was Gaelic or Scottish-it's to these languages that Jamaicans and other "English speaking" Carribbean islands owe their distinctive patois....



My dear Elder, you are not making it easy to maintain the level of "white guilt" some folks think we should be displaying. Of course, we could also mention how Australia was used as a convict colony, which most certainly means a large percentage of its original English/Irish/Scottish settlers arrived in chains.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2012)

frank raud said:


> My dear Elder, you are not making it easy to maintain the level of "white guilt" some folks think we should be displaying. Of course, we could also mention how Australia was used as a convict colony, which most certainly means a large percentage of its original English/Irish/Scottish settlers arrived in chains.



Or the state of Georgia. 

I don't care one way or the other about "white guilt." It mostly doesn't exist, really-billi's posts are often ample "proof" of that.

What I *do* care about is the truth: historic, factual, statistical, and logical accuracy-all of which seem to be in short supply in certain "copypasta" posts of a demagogic nature......:lol:


----------



## billc (Jun 11, 2012)

Hmmm...

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/trade_unions_nazi_germany.htm



> Therefore, trade unions were banned in Nazi Germany and the state took over the role of looking after the working class.



For added emphasis...



> state took over the role of looking after the working class.





> Hitler announced that the German Labour Force, headed by Robert Ley, would replace all trade unions and would look after the working class. The title was chosen carefully. The new organisation was deliberately cloaked in patriotism, as it was now a German entity as was seen in its title. The working class was now a &#8216;labour force&#8217;. The Nazi Party did all that it could to ensure the workers felt that they were better off under the guidance of the Nazi Party via the German Labour Front.
> 
> 
> They had to be brought onto the side of the Nazis as Hitler had major plans for the workers. There were simply too many of them to brutalise into submission, so the workers were offered the &#8216;Strength Through Joy&#8217; movement (Kraft durch Freude&#8217 which offered them subsidised holidays, cheap theatre trips etc.
> ...


Sounds like capitalism to me....

Elder, the nazis were socialists.  No massaging of the facts will change that.  The state was in control of the means of production...they were socialists...


----------



## billc (Jun 11, 2012)

How about those unions in communist russia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_Soviet_Union



> Unlike labor unions in the West, Soviet trade unions were, in fact, actually governmental organizations whose chief aim was not to represent workers but to further the goals of management, government, and the CPSU. As such, they were partners of management in attempting to promote labor discipline, worker morale, and productivity. Unions organized "socialist competitions" and awarded prizes for fulfilling quotas. They also distributed welfare benefits, operated cultural and sports facilities, issued passes to health and vacation centers, oversaw factory and local housing construction, provided catering services, and awarded bonuses and prepaid vacations.
> Although unions in the Soviet Union primarily promoted production interests, they had some input regarding production plans, capital improvements in factories, local housing construction, and remuneration agreements with management. Unions also were empowered to protect workers against bureaucratic and managerial arbitrariness, to ensure that management adhered to collective agreements, and to protest unsafe working conditions. However, strikes were illegal.



Switch out Nazi and communist and you have the same dynamic.  The nazis were socialists.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Elder, the nazis were socialists. No massaging of the facts will change that. The state was in control of the means of production...they were socialists...



Yeah, you're just as right about that as you are about African immigration disproving American racism. What was I thinking? I _*bow*_ before your superior logic and grasp of historical fact.
 



> Never argue with an idiot, because they will only bring you down to their level and beat you by experience-*John Guerrero
> *Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference-*Mark Twain
> *If you argue with an idiot, there are two idiots&#8221; &#8211;* Robert Kiyosaki*



So, billi, this is_ me.....not arguing with *you.*_:lfao:


----------



## billc (Jun 11, 2012)

As to the socialist nature of the nazis, this guy might know a little something about that...



> *Friedrich August Hayek* CH (German pronunciation: [&#712;f&#641;i&#720;d&#641;&#618;ç &#712;a&#650;&#815;&#609;&#650;st &#712;ha&#618;&#815;&#603;k]; 8 May 1899 &#8211; 23 March 1992), born in Austria-Hungary as *Friedrich August von Hayek*, was an economist and philosopherbest known for his defense of classical liberalism. In 1974, Hayek shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (with his political rival, Gunnar Myrdal) for his "pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and... penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena." He considered the efficient allocation of capital to be the most important factor leading to sustainable and optimal GDP growth, and warned of harms from monetary authority manipulation of interest rates. Interest rates should be set naturally by equilibrium between consumption of goods or capital stock.[SUP][1][/SUP]
> Hayek is considered to be a major economist and political philosopher of the twentieth century.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP]Along with his mentor Ludwig von Mises, he was an important contributor to the Austrian school of economic thought. Hayek's account of how changing prices communicate information which enable individuals to coordinate their plans is widely regarded as an important achievement in economics.[SUP][4][/SUP]He also contributed to the fields of systems thinking, jurisprudence, neuroscience and the history of ideas.



http://carrefoursagesse.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/friedrich-von-hayek-nazism-is-socialism/

Hayek on the socialism of the nazis...



> [h=1]Friedrich von Hayek: Nazism is Socialism[/h]





> One of the main reasons why the socialist character of National Socialism has been quite generally unrecognized, is, no doubt, its alliance with the nationalist groups which represent the great industries and the great landowners.  But this merely proves that these groups too, as they have since learnt to their bitter disappointment, have, at least partly, been mistaken as to the nature of the movement.  But only partly because, and this is the most characteristic feature of modern Germany, many capitalists are themselves strongly influenced by socialistic ideas, and have not sufficient belief in capitalism to defend it with a clear conscience.
> But, in spite of this, the German entrepreneur class have manifested almost incredible short-sightedness in allying themselves with a movement of whose strong anti-capitalistic tendencies there should never have been any doubt. A careful observer must always have been aware that the opposition of the Nazis to the established socialist parties, which gained them the sympathy of the entrepreneur, was only to a very small extent directed against their economic policy.


----------



## billc (Jun 11, 2012)

It's about time you did elder.  It's okay to be wrong, don't be too hard on yourself.


----------



## billc (Jun 11, 2012)

More Hayek on the socialism of the nazis...



> The persecution of the Marxists, and of democrats in general, tends to obscure the fundamental fact that National &#8220;Socialism&#8221; is a genuine socialist movement, whose leading ideas are the final fruit of the anti-liberal tendencies which have been steadily gaining ground in Germany since the later part of the Bismarckian era, and which led the majority of the German intelligentsia first to &#8220;socialism of the chair&#8221; and later to Marxism in its social-democratic or communist form.



The racism and eugenics of the nazis had a long history on the socialist left as well...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2012)




----------



## WC_lun (Jun 12, 2012)

Racism isn't as bad as it used to be in the US, but by no means has it disapeared.  Just the fact that having a black president was such a big deal is a testimate to that.  The first black "slaves" were actually endentured servants who gained thier freedom after seven years.  Over time, laws were passed making slavery of those not white legal.  The south ran with that as an easy source for agriculture labor.  Though obviously not the same, today's comparison would be cheap labor of migrant farm workers.

Even whites have suffered racism in this country.  Ask anyone who is up to date on Irish and Italian-American history.  Seems in our history we have spread the hate around.  Though admittedly, whites suffered far less than non-whites when it comes to racism.

While slavery exsisted throughout the world, when we started it many other countries were ending its' legality.  We were the last major country to do so and it took a civil war in which a significant amount of the US male population died.  We were also one of the last first world countries to end codified racism in our laws.  So to say everyone else was doing it just isn't quite accurate.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 12, 2012)

> [h=2]*African migration to U.S., now more than slavery...*[/h]



A pampas statement of White benevolence or a shivering, tail-tucking, bed-wetting indication of White fear?  That it actually needed to be mentioned at all, clearly illustrates the latter.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 12, 2012)

Now, now.  You want some salt to go with that chip on your shoulder? :lol:

Joking aside, the 'problem' will never go away unless people either stop bearing generational grudges for something done to their ancestors (or imagined happened) or stop feeling unnecessary guilt for something done by those who are nothing to do with themselves.  Both feelings give rise to anger in the end and nothing useful comes of that.

After all, my ancestry probably has within it more slaves than many African-American's who bear the enslavement of their forebears as some blazing cross that gives them immunity from the consequences of their actions or words.  You have to let it go - I've forgiven the Romans' after all ... not the Norman's tho' .  If you don't let it go then it defines you and perpetuates the enslavement.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2012)

If by definition the first black slaves were indentured servents then the very first slaves were taken across with the Pilgrim Fathers as they took indentured servants with them, I suspect they may had little choice about being one  of the first 'settler's, for various reasons. http://www.ushistory.org/us/5b.asp


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 12, 2012)

Now, now Sukerkin.  May I offer you a tax exemption for all of that paternalism?


----------



## Golden Crane (Jun 12, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Racism isn't as bad as it used to be in the US...


 
And the "not a bad as it used to be" part totally depends on who you ask and where you live. Just because it's not all lynch mob-ish and "Die N*gger!" doesn't mean we're all holding hands and singing Kumba-ya. All racists don't wear white hoods. Some wear business suits and ties.



WC_lun said:


> Just the fact that having a black president was such a big deal is a testimate to that.



Not really. My parents - products of a segregated south - never thought they'd live to see an African-American president (and sadly, they didn't); The "big deal" is that electing a Black person it took so bloody long. The legacy of African slavery and the diaspora it created is long-reaching, I'm hear to tell ya.



WC_lun said:


> The first black "slaves" were actually endentured servants who gained thier freedom after seven years.



Actually the first SLAVES here were endentured servants, reportedly. Around 1680 or so, fewer Europeans were crossing that big ol' pond and those in need of cheap labor began to...umm..."import" more Africans to take up the slack. About 20 years later, it became illegal to be (gasp!) white and enslaved (gasp again!) - that wonderful distinction being reserved most exclusively for folks of African and Native American descent and those born to slave mothers. But let's go back: from the 16th to 19th centuries, it has been estimated that 12 million Africans were shipped as slaves to the Americas (meaning that all of them didn't end up in the USA but elsewhere as well). I just read that according to the 1860 census, the slave population in the good ol' USA was four million.

A reminder: we are barely a generation removed from the segregated "separate but equal" laws that people had to march, sit-in and protest against to have stricken from the books. Please don't be naive and think that Preident Obama's election makes racism and racist tendencies a thing of the past. It doesn't quite work like that.


----------



## Golden Crane (Jun 12, 2012)

And then there's this:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 12, 2012)

:nods:  Of course you may, *Wo*.  I could always use some more cash .  Not sure it's fair to call history, or at least my view of it, paternalism mind you but it's not an argument I want to have tonight (too long for the time I have available sadly).


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 12, 2012)

> A reminder: we are barely a generation removed from the segregated "separate but equal" laws that people had to march, sit-in and protest against to have stricken from the books. Please don't be naive and think that Preident Obama's election makes racism and racist tendencies a thing of the past. It doesn't quite work like that.



Ironically if you go back and study the history of "perceptions", America's "majority" in the 1850s through the late 1960s did not believe that there were problems with either inequality--racial or otherwise.  

The USS Denial is proving a pretty big ship to turn around.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 12, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> :nods:  Of course you may, *Wo*.  I could always use some more cash .  Not sure it's fair to call history, or at least my view of it, paternalism mind you but it's not an argument I want to have tonight (too long for the time I have available sadly).



The paternalism is asserting and expecting that the "problems" are best solved if _these_ people will get over it and shut up already, and _those_ people will stop feeling so guilty about.  It's not up to you to be the parent in the room.  

But I'll keep the rest of my powder dry for tomorrow.  Have a good night's rest.


----------



## harlan (Jun 12, 2012)

I'd like to add one point to the discussion: slavery was actually established in the New World during the conquest of the Americas. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Spanish_New_World_colonies


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 12, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> The paternalism is asserting and expecting that the "problems" are best solved if _these_ people will get over it and shut up already, and _those_ people will stop feeling so guilty about.  It's not up to you to be the parent in the room.
> 
> But I'll keep the rest of my powder dry for tomorrow.  Have a good night's rest.



Back in quick for I have enough time to say that, aye, I understand your point and I didn't mean to imply that I was saving up for a stand-up fight on the morrow .

I do genuinely think that the only way onwards is to not bear grudges in the present but I also acknowledge that the fallout from slavery in the States is still falling because it is only a handful of generations since the legal position started to change.  

In our case over here in Britain, slavery of black Africans was over longer ago and was of a much smaller scale and so it's 'echo' is correspondingly smaller too.  The slavery of the rest of our races is even further back and so casts no shadow at all {tho' I still haven't forgiven the Normans for destroying Saxon culture :lol:}.  I am guessing too that as both the slaving and the enslaved never thought for a moment that there was anything _morally_ wrong with it, it was never as big an elephant in the room when the mode of 'doing business' changed.


----------



## billc (Jun 12, 2012)

I think that race as an issue will lose a lot of its power once the civil rights generation has gone on to its reward.  The civil rights movement was a central point of life for many people and much like those who survived the depression and world war 2, it colors everything that they see to this day.  I have no guilt, I have no hatred or dislike of anyone of any color.  The children in my family will experience even less of those things, hopefully and then we can move forward without the constant anxiety over the color of peoples skin.  Add to the fire the fact that there is money in keeping racism alive as an issue, and there will always be a remnant of it around.  

Did the English bring many African slaves to Europe?  I would think not many, so the impact of slave owning mostly impacted their colonies in the new world.  Their was less of a direct contact point for most Europeans outside of those transporting slaves from Africa to the Americas.  That probably also made it easier to end the practice without going to war.

From the above wikipedia article...


> The Spanish imported Africans as laborers to the Americas in 1502.[SUP][_citation needed_][/SUP] They continued to import African slaves, generally buying them from British and Portuguese traders (the former also were transporting slaves to the West Indies and Americas.) The Spanish finally outlawed slavery in 1820 in all colonies with the exceptions of Cuba and Puerto Rico. There it survived in a semi-legal state until being abolished in 1866 and 1863, respectively.


----------



## billc (Jun 12, 2012)

And to the silliness of the "Race" machine...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/06/12/obama-hollywood-cool



> [h=2]Well here&#8217;s something new: The Congressional Black Caucus has now declared the word &#8220;cool&#8221; to be a racist term. They&#8217;re also accusing conservatives of using it that way.[/h]


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Joking aside, the 'problem' will never go away unless people either stop bearing generational grudges for something done to their ancestors (or imagined happened) or stop feeling unnecessary guilt for something done by those who are nothing to do with themselves.  Both feelings give rise to anger in the end and nothing useful comes of that.



That won't happen until certain other people no longer feel the need to dismiss, minimize, justify, or diminish by comparison one of the greatest crimes in history.


----------



## granfire (Jun 12, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> That won't happen until certain other people no longer feel the need to dismiss, minimize, justify, or diminish by comparison one of the greatest crimes in history.



Or profit from it.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 12, 2012)

> I think that race as an issue will lose a lot of its power once the civil rights generation has gone on to its reward.



Race as an issue is not and never has been a "power" held by people of color who somehow stumbled fortuitously into victimhood.  Sure, some people resent that generation/group of Americans for gaining empowerment through innocent victimhood, but too bad.  

Race as an issue will always be with us until all of our words match all of our deeds.  And we'd better take care of business quickly; the numbers are changing.


----------



## billc (Jun 12, 2012)

I agree Empty hands, people shouldn't dismiss, justify, minimize or diminish the death of close to 100 million people by communists around the world from 1917 onwards.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I agree Empty hands, people shouldn't dismiss, justify, minimize or diminish the death of close to 100 million people by communists around the world from 1917 onwards.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 12, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I agree Empty hands, people shouldn't dismiss, justify, minimize or diminish the death of close to 100 million people by communists around the world from 1917 onwards.



Can't make a cogent point?  Change the topic.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 13, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> That won't happen until certain other people no longer feel the need to dismiss, minimize, justify, or diminish by comparison one of the greatest crimes in history.



My apologies - that was not my intention.


----------



## Master Dan (Jun 13, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Whilst we're remembering all of that, it should also be noted that , slaves in North America during the colonial period had the right to own property, families were kept together, and, while it wasn't often able to be exercised, had they had the ability, as my ancestors did, to buy their freedom. The abolition of the slave trade in 1815 created a somewhat uniquely cruel institution in the southern part of the U.S.-at a time when various states and colonies were abolishing slavery altogether, the south was built on maintaining slavery, and the status of the slaves-at a time when there were black freemen in other states, it had long been illegal for such a thing to exist in some southern states, and various other laws made certain that blacks were "less free" than their white counterparts in instances where they were freed from slavery-for example, a white landowner in Kentucky could go to a free black family and take away a child for "apprenticeship," for "the child's own good."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I wish people would just be honest and say they are a racist for what ever reason instead of trying to post threads that say in a polite way gee isn't that interesting hoping to have a few fellow white sheeters join into the conversation. The fact that Africans assisted in capturing other Africans from other tribes has nothing to do with America being or having current racist attitudes even institutional racism? What a Crock how does that add anything positive to the issue of race relations or descrimination in our nation? You try saying that to a person of color who is being descriminated for work or housing or fear of personal safety related to thier color? You may as well start saying to women who are being descriminated against related to health care or equal employment Well you know back in the day men used to just club women and drag them to the cave, it was legal then and they even got some women to help?  

Elder you are being way to nice I think the OP should try take his position with Media and see how long it is before he runs for the door while she grabs for her purse


----------



## Master Dan (Jun 13, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> My apologies - that was not my intention.



Don't you find this thread a racist baiting rhetorical question? The OP should stop hidding behind others and other unrelated historical facts dubious data and just say he thinks America is just fine except for the fact that people of color are all wrong when it comes to thier feelings and reports of unfair treatment. It was quoted the other day that prior to the civil war and I think it was CNBC nearly a Trillion dollars of our total nations net worth was based on owning slaves. 

Capitolism depends on the labors of many benefiting the profits of the few. We are killing and maiming our youth to support the oil companies and worse yet TV says Clean Coal that is killing rivers communities and people so that the majority of us can have cheap power?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 13, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> My apologies - that was not my intention.



Oops, darn internet.  I wasn't aiming that at you Sukerkin, just making a general point.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 13, 2012)

billcihak said:


> I agree Empty hands, people shouldn't dismiss, justify, minimize or diminish the death of close to 100 million people by communists around the world from 1917 onwards.



No, they shouldn't.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 13, 2012)

What's the term for Hating a Culture... not its people, not the skin color, not the origin of the person but the practice of the Culture itself?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> Elder you are being way to nice I think the OP should try take his position with Media and see how long it is before he runs for the door while she grabs for her purse




No, I'm not. Given the content of the OP, I have to conclude that the source of it is either an outright racist or an outright moron. 

I simply choose to treat the post as though the source _isn't_ an outright racist.



Cryozombie said:


> What's the term for Hating a Culture... not its people, not the skin color, not the origin of the person but the practice of the Culture itself?



Well, it might be something like "cultural hatred," but only because someone doesn't want to call it what it is.

_*Racism*_


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 13, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> What's the term for Hating a Culture... not its people, not the skin color, not the origin of the person but the practice of the Culture itself?



_Xenophobia_ comes pretty close, especially if the person in question is rather obvious in trying to disguise their fear or dislike of a culture when they really fear and/or dislike persons or groups within that culture.


----------



## Master Dan (Jun 13, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Race as an issue is not and never has been a "power" held by people of color who somehow stumbled fortuitously into victimhood.  Sure, some people resent that generation/group of Americans for gaining empowerment through innocent victimhood, but too bad.
> 
> Race as an issue will always be with us until all of our words match all of our deeds.  And we'd better take care of business quickly; the numbers are changing.



Yes the white over 50 group is very threatened and realiizes they are becoming a monority but more important the 90% are going to have to learn to work together since they have lost 40% of net worth and soon to loose even more including any ability to effect change by voting


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 13, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Race as an issue will always be with us until all of our words match all of our deeds.



That's a "quoted for truth statement" there :nods:.


----------



## Master Dan (Jun 13, 2012)

elder999 said:


> No, I'm not. Given the content of the OP, I have to conclude that the source of it is either an outright racist or an outright moron.
> 
> I simply choose to treat the post as though the source _isn't_ an outright racist.
> 
> ...


 First I congradulate you on your two choices and yes cultural hatred is just another dishonest polite way of trying to serve up the same dish of racism on the menu. I think the base for many peoples hatred of what could be called hatred of practicing cultural values is thier frustration with that culture to infact act or perform like them related to behavior, work performance, entitlements and such. I live in a 50% native community but surounded by 15 villages of 90% native and one thing I will admit I find agrevating is the constant term Traditional values and that would imply active current committment and use of those values while in actual practice the majority no longer practice them which to be accurate it should be historical values. Due to so much alcohol drugs cable internet total break down of family units elders no longer teaching language and cultural practices they are left dependant and blaiming non natives for thier plight.

Those who have had strong families and practice thier historic cultural values do very well but they are not the majority. People who work with them over the years on many levels have to be careful not to become a burn out racist and judge all in general due to the habitual famlies, individuals and organizations they work with not meeting thier expectations?


----------



## billc (Jun 13, 2012)

Perhaps some on this thread should read this book...

http://www.amazon.com/Matter-What-T...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339625201&sr=1-1








*Review*

"No book I've read better captures (and documents) the utter disingenuousness of America's racial politics over the past half century&#8212;the lazy moral unctuousness of white guilt on the one hand, the shakedown mentality of today's civil rights establishment on the other. But what makes this a compelling read is the way Stein&#8212;a cultural journeyer&#8212;finds his own moral and political center by unraveling this recent history. He certainly will be called a "racist," which is why this book is so brave."

&#8212;Shelby Steele

"I sometimes hear from parents who have been appalled to learn that the child they sent away to college to become educated has instead been indoctrinated with the creed of the left. They often ask if I can suggest something to have their offspring read over the summer, in order to counteract this indoctrination.This year the answer is a no-brainer: _No Matter What... They'll Call This Book Racist_ by Harry Stein. In a little over 200 very readable pages, the author deftly devastates with facts the nonsense about race that dominates much of what is said in the media and in academia...Stein says that his purpose is 'to talk honestly about race.' He accomplishes that purpose in a fact-filled book that should be a revelation, especially to young people of any race, who have been fed a party line in schools and colleges across America."

&#8212;Thomas Sowell


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 13, 2012)

Is 'race', or the reaction to issues therein, really entwined with 'party' in America?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Is 'race', or the reaction to issues therein, really entwined with 'party' in America?



I'd say somewhat, Mark, but they're also entwined with "_*race*_."

In fact, while some think that we'd be best off discussing "race," the fact is that such discussions often lead to accusations of racism, based not on the fact of the  discussion itself, but upon one side or the others _statements and conclusions._ One side would like to portray America as some sort of mythological post-racial society, and any accusations or intimations of "racism" as racist in and of themselves, or products of a "victim mentality," whilst the other often tends to see racism almost everyhthwer it looks, having seen so much of it in actuality, it's developed a sort of "snowblindness," where the world seems to be one vast white blanket of conspiracy.

Independent, most of the time, of whether they are democrat or republican, conservative, or liberal.....for the most part.



And, of course, some people are just outright morons, really.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 13, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Is 'race', or the reaction to issues therein, really entwined with 'party' in America?



IMO, no.  The "parties" simply make it easier to trivialize the issues of race.  Be it Federalists, Whigs, Reedemers, Prohibitionists, Democrats, or Republicans, the issues of race exist regardless.  Not because of or in spite of a "party", but because of the moral failings within human nature. 

Race and racial issues are intractable, regardless of the political flavor of the month.  We're better off working to end them, than pretending they don't exist.  Mockery and ridicule won't work.  It only guarantees that the next majority will have a long(er) memory.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 13, 2012)

I was going to say that I thought we were expressing the same opinion but I'm not entirely sure we are.  

I do think we are aiming at the same goal.  

But I got the impression that you didn't agree when I said something along the lines of that I considered that the best course was for one 'half' of the equation to stop laying blame at a door where it did not belong and for the other half to stop accepting guilt for something that wasn't their doing.

Am I mistaken in that perception?

Of course, I accept that this is something of an academic excercise for me as I do not have to live in a society that is dealing with this conundrum (tho' we have a cultural one of our own presently brewing quite nastily over here in Britain).


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 13, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> I was going to say that I thought we were expressing the same opinion but I'm not entirely sure we are.
> 
> I do think we are aiming at the same goal.
> 
> ...



I think you're premise is flawed because it suggests that group A needs to stop "laying blame", and that group B did nothing for which to be blamed anyway.  I've heard it said in a song:

"_...21st century, oh what a shame; race still matters
a 'race' to what?  and where are we going?
we're in the same boat, but I'm the only one rowing._"

Point being, we've got to stop this schizophrenic approach to race where on one side of people's mouths they concede that race "exists", but out the other side of their mouths deny any responsibility (in whatever measure) for its existence.

I can appreciate that you don't see this as much of an issue in Britain.  But I know Black and Brown Brits who would politely disagree.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 13, 2012)

Master Dan said:


> Yes the white over 50 group is very threatened and realiizes they are becoming a _*monority*_ but more important the 90% are going to have to learn to work together since they have lost 40% of net worth and soon to loose even more including any ability to effect change by voting



Not to diminish the impact of your message at all but your little Freudian slip there gave me a chuckle.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 14, 2012)

I like the verse, *Wo* :nods:.

I must have my stupid head on today tho' as I cannot fully fathom what it is that you are suggesting we can do to break the cycle of bi-directional racism (for it does cut both ways and both edges draw blood).  

It sounds from what I see in the media and experience here in Netland that the sense of persecution has soaked into the fabric of the Black community; in the same way the sense of being held to account for things they didn't do has soaked into the White community.  Both of those trends give rise to anger and resentment and when a person who has one side of that equation butts up against a person who has the other then sparks fly and positions become ever more reinforced.

So, how can that be stopped?  There has to be a way, or so I hope for American societies sake.  Otherwise it's going to go catastrophically "Boom!" at some point.  The heartbreaking thing, as was said long ago by someone wiser than me, is that it is absolutely nonsensical to read a persons character from the colour of their skin.


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 14, 2012)

How it stops is people get enough compassion and empathy to start seeing the world from the other guys perspective.  Its really hard to hate a guy when you realize how much you share with him.  However, I am not holding my breath for this to happen.  Seems a lot of people like having thier hate on.


----------



## billc (Jun 14, 2012)

Here is a column on the idea of trying to silence rather than deal with the problem of race...

http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/06/13/racism-or-silence-whats-wrong-with-this-picture/



> Now before I react, let me reiterate what I&#8217;ve said here before.  I believe racism as a philosophy is knuckleheaded pseudo-science and  moral idiocy. It is the kind of half-smart thinking I expect from  leftists, and goes entirely against the respect for the individual that  is at the heart of conservatism.
> 
> That said, what struck me about the video above was not the opinion  of the interviewee &#8212; who is an honest person on the ground reporting the  facts as he sees them &#8212; but the reaction of the interviewer from local  TV station WIVB-TV. He (sounds like a kid) is clearly shocked by the  man&#8217;s direct response to his questions and keeps asking, &#8220;Don&#8217;t you see  something wrong with what you&#8217;re saying?  Mightn&#8217;t this be offensive?  Isn&#8217;t there a bias to your opinion?&#8221;
> Advertisement


 


> Really? Is that the problem?
> This is what the left teaches us. It&#8217;s not the actual facts that are a  problem &#8212; it&#8217;s speaking your observations out loud, that&#8217;s where the  real difficulty lies. This guy may not have the whole story. He may be  misinterpreting his observations. We all do that sometimes. But if he  isn&#8217;t allowed to report honestly what he sees and express his opinions  about it, how is anyone ever going to find out what&#8217;s happening?  This  interviewer is essentially suggesting the man shut up and stop answering  his questions. He wants his own interviewee to stop relaying his point  of view! Maybe instead, this intrepid reporter should &#8212; oh, just for  instance &#8212; listen to the man! And then maybe check out whether or not  his opinion is widespread and whether or not it has any basis in truth.
> I personally believe that poor black (and many poor white) Americans  have had their lives degraded by leftist policies and ideas that  discourage the formation of complete families, relieve people of the  need for industry and self-care, teach them that they are hated and  helpless victims of society and undermine their faith in God. It would  not surprise me at all to find that the results of that degradation  showed up in this guy&#8217;s life in ways that made him hold these opinions.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Here is a column on the idea of trying to silence rather than deal with the problem of race...
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2012/06/13/racism-or-silence-whats-wrong-with-this-picture/




1) That guy in the video is a racist *and* a moron.:lol:

2) When we moved into the suburbs, out of NYC, back in 1968, a lot of people in our upper-middle class Westchester neighborhood thought like this, that, at the very least, our very presence would bring down property values because of the widely held misperception.

I say misperception because property values didn't come down, we didn't ruin the neighborhood, and the one or two more black families that moved in didn't ruin the neighborhood either-though it was close to 3 years later before the Joneses and the Morgans moved in. In that time, some people moved out-one even told my mom something to the effect of how they liked us, but just thought we'd bring down property values!Y _*Morons

*_Years later, we found out from several other families that there'd been a movement by some in the neighborhood to buy the house out from under my parents, when they heard that a "colored" family was buying it. We found out, because those very people each approached us, told us the story, said they were wrong-and apologized-those were meaningful conversations abuot race.

So, Andrew Klavan thinks this guy thinks this way because _he's_ a victim? That a black family had their house deliberately burned down because "black families ruin neighborhoods when they move in," and that they should "keep to their own side of Buffalo?"

And *that* constitutes "discussion" about race?

*Moron.*




:lfao:


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 14, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> I like the verse, *Wo* :nods:.
> 
> *I must have my stupid head on today* tho' as I cannot fully fathom what it is that you are suggesting we can do to break the cycle of bi-directional racism (for it does cut both ways and both edges draw blood).
> 
> ...



While you don't come across as "stupid"--you actually carry on a decent conversation without the juvenile need to rely on copy-and-pasting as a means of dialog--you are approaching this subject from a position of ignorance.  Not a malicious ignorance, but simply from a vantage point of disinterested observer.  You see the issues of race from a media and internet perspective.  It's not something that you live with or are required to navigate through.  To suggest that Black Americans suffer from a persecution complex is to presume that you possess a depth and breadth of knowledge of the Black American experience that is equal to that of Black Americans.  You and I know that such isn't the case.  If you're relying on media to educate you on the entirety of the Black experience, you'll never get it.  That's like discussing the Chinese experience with a Chinese American person, while only knowing of their culture through contemporary and tabloid-esque media and "netland".  

Do yourself a real favor.  When you have the opportunity to discuss the issues of race from the perspective of someone who has actually lived and dealt with and understands it, empty your cup.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 14, 2012)

I hear that man.  I got fired from a summer job because "that N-word in the bag room is stealing from the guests."  Two weeks later they found all the stuff in the trailer of the two white interns from Penn State.  When some guys at a gas station call your economist step dad "boy."  Or hows about dudes adjusting their confederate caps when they see you walking out on the street.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 14, 2012)

Oh aye, I am completely aware of the fact that I am addressing a topic from the position of one looking in from the outside.  

I can assure you that I am not trying to 'argue' with you or trying to figure out a way of saying you are wrong; I am genuinely interested in learning to hold a more solidly grounded view on this extremely troublesome and, inevitably, dangerously divisive, matter.  

I am also hopeful that by holding up a 'mirror' to reflect back the image gained from far away and by asking the 'stupid' questions, that noone born in America would feel the need to ask, that some 'light' might scatter around that help everybody see better.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 14, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Well, it might be something like "cultural hatred," but only because someone doesn't want to call it what it is.
> 
> _*Racism*_





Wo Fat said:


> _Xenophobia_ comes pretty close, especially  if the person in question is rather obvious in trying to disguise their  fear or dislike of a culture when they really fear and/or dislike  persons or groups within that culture.



Wait... sorry I don't mean like a Racial Culture... I mean like say, I hate everyone who participates in "sports culture"  or "Ghetto Street Culture" or "Steampunk Culture"

That's not really a racial thing as it transcends race...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Wait... sorry I don't mean like a Racial Culture... I mean like say, I hate everyone who participates in "sports culture" or "Ghetto Street Culture" or "Steampunk Culture"
> 
> That's not really a racial thing as it transcends race...



_Taste_......"sports are not to my taste." 

"I hate Steampunk; it offends my aesthetic."

"Ghetto Street Culture is far too ostentatious and loud, and I can't understand a damn thing they're saying, _know what I'm sayin'_?; I hate it."


----------



## Master Dan (Jun 14, 2012)

elder999 said:


> 1) That guy in the video is a racist *and* a moron.:lol:
> 
> 2) When we moved into the suburbs, out of NYC, back in 1968, a lot of people in our upper-middle class Westchester neighborhood thought like this, that, at the very least, our very presence would bring down property values because of the widely held misperception.
> 
> ...



Elder thank you my 7.75 year old daughter enjoyed and understood your post looking over my shoulder. Great graphics glad you and others have positive rebutal to the Moron Factor


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 14, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Oh aye, I am completely aware of the fact that I am addressing a topic from the position of one looking in from the outside.
> 
> I can assure you that I am not trying to 'argue' with you or trying to figure out a way of saying you are wrong; I am genuinely interested in learning to hold a more solidly grounded view on this extremely troublesome and, inevitably, dangerously divisive, matter.
> 
> I am also hopeful that by holding up a 'mirror' to reflect back the image gained from far away and by asking the 'stupid' questions, that noone born in America would feel the need to ask, that some 'light' might scatter around that help everybody see better.



Oss


----------



## frank raud (Jun 14, 2012)

Omar B said:


> I hear that man.  I got fired from a summer job because "that N-word in the bag room is stealing from the guests."  Two weeks later they found all the stuff in the trailer of the two white interns from Penn State.  When some guys at a gas station call your economist step dad "boy."  Or hows about dudes adjusting their confederate caps when they see you walking out on the street.



Or when I get ignored when I walk into a roti hut, or the assumption made about me because of my skin colour when I go to certain parties. I probably have the most racially diverse family on this thread. I am lily white, my wife is half-Arabic, and our adopted kids are African-American. I see racism from all sides, black women asking if my daughter is a "half breed", my kids being given a hard time in malls, me not being fully accepted at Jamaican parties cuz I dont fit in(but my wife is OK, no double standard there). People that dont know my family say all kinds of things to me that are racist, unfortunately that is the way lots of folks are.


----------



## billc (Jun 14, 2012)

My first encounter with racism happened when I was in basic training with the Illinois Army national guard at Fort Benning Georgia in 1984. On the ride back to our barracks from a night fire firing range we were in tractor trailors, which we called cattle cars, for the ride.  There were no lights on inside the cattle car so the only light came from openings near the top of the car and we were packed in so tight we all had to stand up, no sitting.  All of a sudden we hear screaming coming from the middle of the car.  The truck eventually pulled over to the side of the road, the Drill Segeants ordered us out of the truck.  We milled around outside for about 10 minutes, the Drills ordered us back on and off we went.  We found out what happened when we piled out into the common area.  Three black privates had attacked and beaten a white private with their helmets, we called them "steel pots" back then, Kevlar wasn't out yet.  Two of the guys were from New York, the other guy, was from New Jersey.  The guy from New Jersey grabbed the white private from behind in a choke hold, and the other two guys took off their helmets and hit him in the face and head with them.  It was lucky for the guy that we were packed in like sardines because the three idiots could have killed him.  They couldn't get real good swings in because there just wasn't any room.  In the end the three guys received Article 15s and that was the end of it.  They went on to finish training and we all graduated.

These three idiots started other fights with the other white soldiers, cut in the chow line when the Drill Sergeants weren't around during A.I.T. and did other things that indicated that they didn't "like" the white guys in our platoon.  I realize that these three guys were goons, and it didn't change my attitude about people in general, but that was my first encounter with racism, at 17, having come from white suburbia, serving in a mixed race national guard unit.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 14, 2012)

cute puppy 

and billi and thomas sowell.......

get a room


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2012)

billcihak said:


> *These three idiots *started other fights with the other white soldiers, cut in the chow line when the Drill Sergeants weren't around during A.I.T. and did other things that indicated that they didn't "like" the white guys in our platoon. I realize that these three guys were goons, and it didn't change my attitude about people in general, but that was my first encounter with racism, at 17, having come from white suburbia, serving in a mixed race national guard unit.




Yes, billi-*morons* is what they were, and I could give a variety of conjectured *reasons* for their behavior, but it wouldn't be an _excuse_. Sad that the military didn't wash them out......
_
Hmmmmm.....




_Until I was 8 years old, I led a fairly sheltered life, as far as racism goes. We lived in NYC-my dad was one of the parish priests at St. Augustine's Church, on the Lower East Side, and we lived on the very top, 20th floor of a very nice apartment building, _in a dee-luxe apartment, in the sky-hy-hy..._...:lfao:. I went to Grace Church School, where I took French in kindergarten, first and second grade....when I wasn't sick at home, that is-Manhattan was fairly diverse at the time, and blacks,Puerto Ricans, Italians, Orthodox Jews, Irish and Germans all mixed down there on the lower east side, without much thought (it seems to me, now) as to their differences: my dad regularly went into the nearby kosher bakery for pastries and bread, and we were favorites of the proprietor at a kosher deli down on Delancey St. We could walk-the whole family, even with my infant sister, from our apartment to Chinatown, to 17 Mott St. for "Chinese food," and stop at Carvel on the way back......

All that changed when I was eight: we moved to the suburbs, and my parents explained to me what that word n*i*g*g*e*r was about, and my dad started teaching my brother and me how to fight: how to box, and some of the judo and karate he'd learned in the Navy.When we got to our new home, some people welcomed us, and some really didn't, and I had to fight....._I liked it_-I found out I liked it bloodying Robby Brass's mouth, on his lawn (at the school bus stop) with his dad cheering him on to "kick the little ******'s ***!" And smacking his son to the ground once he'd clearly lost. THe Brasses moved later that year....like a lot of people. I was 8 years old, and that wasn't even my first encounter with racism: we'd moved in close to the end of summer, and I'd made actual friends of nearby neighbor boys, like the kid next door, Scott O'Donnell. Scott moved away to Colorado in 6th grade; he's a lawyer in Denver, now, and we're still friends. 

My first encounter with "racism" was one of our  third grade teachers, Mrs. Marantz, telling me I'd have to be a janitor when I grew up. 

Of course, she didn't know what she was dealing with: I'd been taking French since kindergarten, after all, was  reading at a 6th grade level, and had probably been told that I was going to college since the day I was born, so I just laughed at her, *hard*. :lfao:

Of course, she made me stand in the corner, and, the next day, after I'd gone home and told the tale to my mom, she and my dad went into school and about tore George Washington Elementary down.....

I've dealt with things like that all my life, billi-and-until I moved to New Mexico-not a week went by when I didn't have to do an ugly kind of mental calculus, and determine whether I was dealing with a racist, or simply a moron, and what it was I was going to do about it, if anything-sometimes, of course, it's really not worth doing anything......


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 15, 2012)

Experiences like those recounted above are the sort of thing that I had in the back of my mind when I was talking about breaking the cycle of racist interaction. It is also what I had in the back of my mind when I spoke of a sense of persecution percolating down into the social fabric of the Black American community and a sense of unjustifed recrimination being felt by their White American counterparts.

I understand, re-reading what I wrote earlier, why the impression was given that I was almost saying that Black people were imagining discrimination - that wasn't what I was trying to say. I just want to be clear that I wasn't saying that they did not encounter real racism, for I am sure that they have many examples, like *Elder*'s, to draw on.

What I was getting at is that despite the negative forces that shape perceptions, that cycle has to be broken somehow. Otherwise we will carry on as we are with experiences of discrimination 'educating' those people, both White and Black, with an inclination to do so, to distrust and hate each other. It is when that negative reaction becomes an automatic reflex rather than a judgement of the individual that the real socially damaging problems arise; it's that situation we have to resolve.

It's hard to know how, tho'.  For if a person encounters harmful behaviour through their formative years, then they are going to react badly to people who look like the ones who hurt them even when they are grown to adulthood.  Likewise, those they react badly too are in turn not going to try to reach out a friendly hand if they receive abuse and aggression from the outset.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jun 15, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Experiences like those recounted above are the sort of thing that I had in the back of my mind when I was talking about breaking the cycle of racist interaction. It is also what I had in the back of my mind when I spoke of a sense of persecution percolating down into the social fabric of the Black American community and a sense of unjustifed recrimination being felt by their White American counterparts.
> 
> I understand, re-reading what I wrote earlier, why the impression was given that I was almost saying that Black people were imagining discrimination - that wasn't what I was trying to say. I just want to be clear that I wasn't saying that they did not encounter real racism, for I am sure that they have many examples, like *Elder*'s, to draw on.
> 
> ...



Your wisdom is spot-on.  We have to get moving in a much better direction.  The demographics of our society are changing.  We can either get with it and start honoring and respecting each other without regard to who does and doesn't deserve "head-of-the-table" status, or we can become more balkanized and tribalized.  The latter is a bad option.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 15, 2012)

Sukerkin, if you want a British parallel look at Northern Ireland and the divide between the Catholics and the Protestants. While the names would seem to denote a religious divide it's far more, being also a racial one due to the history of the country. Discrimination, violence, forced resettlement and *slavery etc mean* these two communities are divided horrendously however there are organisations and people who are seeking to reconcile people so that it becomes one community not two.
Irish slavery. http://www.dailypaul.com/236558/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves


----------

