The police are really looking at the black community and are really trying to serve the white community. Yeas they have to clean both communities up, but the efficiancy of cleaning up the black community has caused a backlash.
Sean
15 Things You Should Know About "The Race"
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
Sean
Obviously I don't have the statistics in front of me, but if you think black people commit more crime because they are black rather than it being as a result of where they live, and that there is a growing resentment that only is going to get worse then carry on.
Sean
Well Race is what created all the things you mentioned in the first place; so, yes, it is race.
sean
If you are personaly bennefitting from the crimes of the past then you are responsible. That would include living on Indian land.
Sean
Thae slaves were stripped of their culture, the Other groups were not.
Sean
I must have misunderstood either what you said or what you were replying to there, ToD.
Hopefully you can elaborate on how the Jews slaughtered in their millions in the camps were not stripped of humanity let alone culture.
Hopefully you can elaborate on how the Jews slaughtered in their millions in the camps were not stripped of humanity let alone culture.
I've studied the US Civil War, it's causes, effects and whatnot for 20 years. I'm often called a racist when I get involved in those discussions by those who've not studied it beyond the Official Histories. I've studied the causes and fallouts of 2 World Wars, the Nazi Holocausts that left 6+ million Jews and 6+ million others dead. Stalin's purges that left 20+ million more dead. Race, Religion, both have slain billions.
Yes the jews had it very bad; however, other than the six million plus lives that were taken, they were not robbed of their culture. Once the black people were taken to America, they were converted to Christianity, taught a new language, and have been treated as second class citizens every since. There is a difference.
Sean
Remember that hittler wanted the Jews erradicated. He was not interested in converting them to Luthernaism. The Jews that lived were still carrying on the Faith. The Black people that survived Slavery were free to carry on Christianity.
Sean
Ah, yes. I do see the distinction you are drawing there.
Doesn't this give rise to a problem of it's own tho'? That being that any emigre (forced or not) segment of a society must assimilate into their host society in the long term. If there is a refusal to do that then the problems we are seeing now are the result.
Even over here in Britain, where the strains are a lot less severe (and many, I'm sad to say, are caused by the false adoption of American attitudes seen in the media
) there is a rising tide of opinion that I heard very rudely and succinctly expressed recently:
"Send the buggers back. They're not the ones we want".
I might not like the sentiment but I do understand it.
Our problems are different from America's and harder to cope with in some ways because the 'chip on the shoulder' attitudes of our second/third-generation families are very largely 'inherited' from across the Pond. It's harder to deal with 'assumed' wrong-doings than real ones in some ways.
Doesn't this give rise to a problem of it's own tho'? That being that any emigre (forced or not) segment of a society must assimilate into their host society in the long term. If there is a refusal to do that then the problems we are seeing now are the result.
Even over here in Britain, where the strains are a lot less severe (and many, I'm sad to say, are caused by the false adoption of American attitudes seen in the media
) there is a rising tide of opinion that I heard very rudely and succinctly expressed recently:"Send the buggers back. They're not the ones we want".
I might not like the sentiment but I do understand it.
Our problems are different from America's and harder to cope with in some ways because the 'chip on the shoulder' attitudes of our second/third-generation families are very largely 'inherited' from across the Pond. It's harder to deal with 'assumed' wrong-doings than real ones in some ways.
Yes it causes problems. By the Jews not assimilating they find themselves subject to occasional hollocosts. The Christian soldiers would even practice for the crusades by attacking Jewish settlements. The Russians would simply take their food to feed their armies. The seperation of cultures has always been a problem. Ask a single one of them to give up their faith, however.Ah, yes. I do see the distinction you are drawing there.
Doesn't this give rise to a problem of it's own tho'? That being that any emigre (forced or not) segment of a society must assimilate into their host society in the long term. If there is a refusal to do that then the problems we are seeing now are the result.
Even over here in Britain, where the strains are a lot less severe (and many, I'm sad to say, are caused by the false adoption of American attitudes seen in the media
"Send the buggers back. They're not the ones we want".
I might not like the sentiment but I do understand it.
Our problems are different from America's and harder to cope with in some ways because the 'chip on the shoulder' attitudes of our second/third-generation families are very largely 'inherited' from across the Pond. It's harder to deal with 'assumed' wrong-doings than real ones in some ways.
Sean
OP
OP
Big Don
Sr. Grandmaster
Returning to the original subject, a quote from Senator Obama's speech at La Raza's national convention:
Another quote:
A third quote, this one reminescent of the race baiting panderings of Jesse Jack$on and Al "Tawana Brawley" $harpton:
Those 12 million people are CRIMINALS, Senator. They are "in hiding" if you can call it that, because they entered the country In Violation of The LAW. These are not innocents being "terrorized" by ICE because of their race, rather, they are CRIMINALS being pursued by Law Enforcement Officers. To state that ICE terrorizes is a slap in the face of every LEO.
Another quote:
Note that the Senator, although he certainly should know better, omits the pertinent fact that the "new immigrants" he speaks of are in the country illegally
Enforcing the law (Equal rights under the law) is "hateful rhetoric"
Insisting that people obey the laws of the country "has no place in this great nation" Holy crap, are you serious? This guy is a mental midget. The man running for the presidency of the United States said that!
A third quote, this one reminescent of the race baiting panderings of Jesse Jack$on and Al "Tawana Brawley" $harpton:
One final quote:
Um, he does know Bush isn't running again, doesn't he?
Ninjamom
2nd Black Belt
My grandfather came to the United State in 1908 to work in the Pennsylvania coal mines under the 'Bounty Sytem'. This was a system of indentured servitude where those working in the mines received a 'bounty' to send for their relatives in the 'Old Country', who unbeknownst to them, then had to work for years to pay back the bounty and passage to the New World. The system remained well into the 1900's. It was legalized slavery, so that when my grandfather tried to run away, he was arrested and forced back into the coal mines. He and the other miners were paid bare subsistence wages, and often paid in coupons which could only be redeemed at the mine's Company Store, where prices were artificially high, making savings or thoughts of leaving the mine next to impossible.
My grandfather came to this country at age 16 with the clothes on his back, never having set foot in a school, unable to read or write his native Polish, and unable to read, write, or speak English. He worked in unsafe conditions (many friends and family members were killed in mine cave-ins; my grandmother's only notice of her brother's death was when his body was unceremoniously dumped onto the front yard one evening) until black-lung disease made him unable to work anymore. He scraped and saved and managed to buy a small farm to keep the family fed during the Depression, while still working in the mines.
No one greeted him with programs to help learn English or another trade. He worked all his life to provide his children with the opportunity to go to school. And they had no benefit beyond a bare opportunity, either. Everyone worked. There were no scholarships. Even the high school guidance counselor said not to worry about applying for college, "Because the only jobs for you 'hunyoks' (Polish equivalent of the n-word) is in the coal mines anyway".
Now, you might be thinking that I am about to start in about how there is no such thing as 'white privilege', and how "my family climbed the ladder without any help and you should just get over yourself and do the same thing, too". But the truth is, even though my family started in this country as low on the social scale as any minority living here today, things are really different for me. My grandparents' and parents' generations of hard work purchased for me opportunity that I recognize and that I am grateful for, but that I know I didn't earn.
You see, unlike some other minorities, you wouldn't know that I was 'different' unless I chose to tell you. You might be a racist lout who wouldn't hire me, lend me money to buy a house, let me in your college, or let me date your son if you knew that my mother was Polish/Jewish, or that I was one of those 'hunyoks'. But if you are a racist lout, you can't help but notice the color of the skin on the guy standing next to me. Looking at the example of skin color: since whites are in the majority (especially at the top of the financial ladder), simple statistics indicate there are probably more white racists than black racists in positions of power where they could withold jobs, loans, scholarships, and other opportunities based on their personal prejudices. This puts a blocked door in the path of many minorities, no matter how much they work, save, strive, etc. Those of us who are white, whether we consider ourselves 'privileged' or not, have our collective heads stuck in the sand if we ignore this fact and assume that somehow racism just doesn't exist or doesn't affect people today. We don't have any guilt because of the past, nor do we have a responsibility to 'pay for the sins' of past generations. We do, however, have a responsibility to do what we can to right a serious wrong, the same responsibility we have to respond to any need.
OK, so now you might be thinking that I'm about to go on about how Affirmative Action is a 'must' and you've got to be a serious racist to question it at all. Actually, however, I think 'Affirmative Action' as currently practiced in the US is an extremely lame attempt to find a 'quick fix' to a serious problem, is itself racist, and quite frankly, if the intent is to end generational racism, flat-out doesn't work. In fact, 'Affirmative Action' not only alienates the majorities (as mentioned before on this thread), but it seriously denigrates the minorities and perpetuates negative stereotypes. In cases where 'Affirmative Action' involves accepting lower test scores or performance factors to accomodate gender, race, or ethnicity, it says in effect, "We recognize your accomplishments, and while they are not that great, they are pretty good, considering you are a .... (fill in the blank with a specific race/gender/ethnic group). How humiliating! How condescending! How presumptively arrogant! I would rather eat bugs than accept any position or any scholarship or any 'favor' based on that line of thinking, simply for being a woman, and I think many members of other 'target groups' feel the same way - this type of 'Affirmative Action' is an assault on my basic dignity and worth as a human being.
(Note to CuohngNuka - please check the history of the term 'White Man's Burden' - it was actually an acknowledgement by the very privileged wealthy at the time - the JP Morgan's, and the Carnegie's, and the Ford's, who all started trusts and endowments and foundations to help others - that they had been the recipients of such undeserved opportunity and wealth that they had the responsibility to help those less fortunate than themselves. It was actually far less racist and much more in keeping with actually doing something to end generational poverty and racism than current efforts called 'affirmative action'.)
OK, so I have rambled long enough to basically say that I disagree with everybody
I believe there is a serious problem regarding race in this country. I believe it is far more difficult for my friend's son to succeed than for my son to succeed today, simply because of their respective skin colors. I also believe that quota-based 'affirmative action' (or any plan that lowers performance requirements) is a failed racist sham of an attempt to fix the problem superficially.
So, what do we do to address the problem? I have some ideas, but I have gone on too long already in one single post. What would you recommend to provide true 'equal opportunity' for all?
My grandfather came to this country at age 16 with the clothes on his back, never having set foot in a school, unable to read or write his native Polish, and unable to read, write, or speak English. He worked in unsafe conditions (many friends and family members were killed in mine cave-ins; my grandmother's only notice of her brother's death was when his body was unceremoniously dumped onto the front yard one evening) until black-lung disease made him unable to work anymore. He scraped and saved and managed to buy a small farm to keep the family fed during the Depression, while still working in the mines.
No one greeted him with programs to help learn English or another trade. He worked all his life to provide his children with the opportunity to go to school. And they had no benefit beyond a bare opportunity, either. Everyone worked. There were no scholarships. Even the high school guidance counselor said not to worry about applying for college, "Because the only jobs for you 'hunyoks' (Polish equivalent of the n-word) is in the coal mines anyway".
Now, you might be thinking that I am about to start in about how there is no such thing as 'white privilege', and how "my family climbed the ladder without any help and you should just get over yourself and do the same thing, too". But the truth is, even though my family started in this country as low on the social scale as any minority living here today, things are really different for me. My grandparents' and parents' generations of hard work purchased for me opportunity that I recognize and that I am grateful for, but that I know I didn't earn.
You see, unlike some other minorities, you wouldn't know that I was 'different' unless I chose to tell you. You might be a racist lout who wouldn't hire me, lend me money to buy a house, let me in your college, or let me date your son if you knew that my mother was Polish/Jewish, or that I was one of those 'hunyoks'. But if you are a racist lout, you can't help but notice the color of the skin on the guy standing next to me. Looking at the example of skin color: since whites are in the majority (especially at the top of the financial ladder), simple statistics indicate there are probably more white racists than black racists in positions of power where they could withold jobs, loans, scholarships, and other opportunities based on their personal prejudices. This puts a blocked door in the path of many minorities, no matter how much they work, save, strive, etc. Those of us who are white, whether we consider ourselves 'privileged' or not, have our collective heads stuck in the sand if we ignore this fact and assume that somehow racism just doesn't exist or doesn't affect people today. We don't have any guilt because of the past, nor do we have a responsibility to 'pay for the sins' of past generations. We do, however, have a responsibility to do what we can to right a serious wrong, the same responsibility we have to respond to any need.
OK, so now you might be thinking that I'm about to go on about how Affirmative Action is a 'must' and you've got to be a serious racist to question it at all. Actually, however, I think 'Affirmative Action' as currently practiced in the US is an extremely lame attempt to find a 'quick fix' to a serious problem, is itself racist, and quite frankly, if the intent is to end generational racism, flat-out doesn't work. In fact, 'Affirmative Action' not only alienates the majorities (as mentioned before on this thread), but it seriously denigrates the minorities and perpetuates negative stereotypes. In cases where 'Affirmative Action' involves accepting lower test scores or performance factors to accomodate gender, race, or ethnicity, it says in effect, "We recognize your accomplishments, and while they are not that great, they are pretty good, considering you are a .... (fill in the blank with a specific race/gender/ethnic group). How humiliating! How condescending! How presumptively arrogant! I would rather eat bugs than accept any position or any scholarship or any 'favor' based on that line of thinking, simply for being a woman, and I think many members of other 'target groups' feel the same way - this type of 'Affirmative Action' is an assault on my basic dignity and worth as a human being.
(Note to CuohngNuka - please check the history of the term 'White Man's Burden' - it was actually an acknowledgement by the very privileged wealthy at the time - the JP Morgan's, and the Carnegie's, and the Ford's, who all started trusts and endowments and foundations to help others - that they had been the recipients of such undeserved opportunity and wealth that they had the responsibility to help those less fortunate than themselves. It was actually far less racist and much more in keeping with actually doing something to end generational poverty and racism than current efforts called 'affirmative action'.)
OK, so I have rambled long enough to basically say that I disagree with everybody
I believe there is a serious problem regarding race in this country. I believe it is far more difficult for my friend's son to succeed than for my son to succeed today, simply because of their respective skin colors. I also believe that quota-based 'affirmative action' (or any plan that lowers performance requirements) is a failed racist sham of an attempt to fix the problem superficially.
So, what do we do to address the problem? I have some ideas, but I have gone on too long already in one single post. What would you recommend to provide true 'equal opportunity' for all?
Twin Fist
Grandmaster
now I know you are just making stuff up.
second class citizens? newsflash this aint the 60's anymore.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Not quite. It was the title of a Kipling poem published in 1899.
"Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child."
The phrase was held to be about the duty of the European colonizers to civilize, protect and educate their "new-caught, sullen peoples,/half-devil and half-child." Needless to say, many of the natives with full grown organic cultures dating back thousands of years would take umbrage at being described as sullen children. Not that the Europeans were of a mind to ask.
The phrase was used as a justification for colonialism, as a way to add a noble patina to what was otherwise simple economic exploitation.
I agree... however, I was responding to CuongNhunga's statement that one could tell the descendants of slaves by their skin color, and pointing out that not all people with dark skin are descendants of slaves. Perhaps if you read the whole post and responded in context, rather than just reading the response, you'd have caught that point? :uhyeah:
Ah... so it's okay to slaughter cultural, religious, and racial groups en masse, as long as you don't attempt to assimilate them? An interesting viewpoint that I admit I do not understand. Why is it more acceptable to kill than to convert? I am in no way condoning slavery - I think it's vile - but I see slavery/conversion as being as bad as wholesale slaughter. What good does it do one to be allowed to keep one's convictions, if one is tortured and then slaughtered, or tortured, forced to observe torture, and then attempt to rebuild one's life... being allowed to maintain one's culture simply because the butchers had not reached one yet hardly seems a lesser offense.
CuongNhuka
Senior Master
States rights.... to keep Slaves. There are differnit arguments about the cause of The Civil War, and the vast majority of them link back to slavery. Also, I never said that all blacks are the descendents of Slaves. So, please don't call me a racist, or imply that I am one.
Kacey, you said that what the differnit groups went through in the Holocaust was horrid, it was. I never said otherwise. You asked when time/atrocity would make it needed for reperations, I don't know. But, I do know that the Holocost lasted for much less time then the period of Slavery in the U.S, and directly affected fewer generations of people. There are estimates that put three dead Africans for every one slave brought to the US. There are also estimates that place the number of Slaves in the US at the end of the Civil War as being around 2 million. God only knows how many Blacks were killed or enslaved in the 310 years of De Facto/De Jure slavery in the US becuase of said slavery.
Here is another good quote: "The slaves were stripped of their culture, the Other groups were not.
Sean "
Do the victims of the Holocost deserve compensation? Yes. Is it possible to provide it? Sadly, no. One could assume that most (not all, but most) minoritys are the victim of De Facto or De Jure slavery (which, like I said ended in 1964). But, there is no effective way of telling who was or who was not a victim of the Holocost (no records were kept of who died that I am aware of). Also, Jews were Hitlers major target (he killed almost as many Gypsies, I know, but his major target were Jews), and if you may have noticed, it was shortly after the end of WWII that Israel was founded. Seems like compensation to me.
For refernce, my family were victims of the Holocost. I'm Russian/Ukranian/Romainin/Slavic. I'm also pretty sure I have family who were members of other groups targetted by Hitler. But, because I cann't really prove it, it is imppossible for me to collect any compensation (if any were to be provided).
Ok, nothing in my statement could reasonably lead you to the conclusion that I believe black people commit more crimes because they are black.
What I said was that depending on the community, the statistics will point out who does the crime. As an example, I used the community in which I serve. In that community, the majority of crime suspects are black or hispanic. That means that I can either spend my time looking for the few white guys so that I can be fair, or I can be efficient and get the vast majority of offenders. Who, in that community, are black or hispanic.
But, I am tired of hearing people complain about how Black people are always followed by the police or security personnel. It just is not as prevelant as the few sensationalist stories make it out to be.
If anyone is seriously interested, read the book “Are Cops Racist?”, by Heather MacDonald.
Ok, now you are just being ridiculous.
Black people did not exist in savery, de jure or otherwise, until 1964. The fact of the matter is, that slavery ended when the Civil War was over. It put Black people on the footing of the majority of other white folks.
Consider that the Poles, Jews, and Irish were treated in much the same way as Blacks after the Civil War. They were denied jobs, kept out of affluent neighborhoods, etc. The only differece is that Blacks were never able to congregate, and therefore find a niche.
Of course, when talking about how racist white folks are, we always seem to leave out Asians. What about the Chinese, who were forced to build railroads in the west, among other things. They were often treated like slaves. But you do not see them asking for reparations now do you.
And, they are obviously different then white folks. A white person can look at them and say, “Hey, he is definately not like me.” So why the difference in treatment?
I will contend that the difference is largely cultural, and this bears out across different countries. In countries where the various ethnic groups assimilate with the culture of the host country, there are very little (I will never say absolutely none) transitional issues.
But in the United States, no one wants to assimilate, least of all the majority of Black Americans. It is seen as a sign of weakness to “act white.” And this, unfortunately, includes getting an education, wearing clothes that fit, not being loud or boisterous. I could go on, but you get the point. And yes, I am being very stereotypical, but for a reason as you shall see.
Now, I am a business owner / human resource manager. I have to hire someone to fill a position, and I have two candidates who, on paper, appear equal, who am I going to pick? Probably the one who is most like me culturally. Why? Because I have a better likelyhood of that person fitting in with the overall set of the company.
And often, because people would probably use a similar set of rules to govern their social life as they do business when choosing associates, the only way that I would know the culture of another group is generally through the media (including film, comedy, documentaries) and informal settings (walking through the mall, at the beach, etc.). And quite frankly, Black Americans as a whole have not necessarily made the best impression.
Now, all of this can be rectified, at least on an institutional level. But it will never be rectified if Americans do not have a set of nationwide community standards and social values. Nor will it be rectified if we coddle Black-Americans if we keep telling them that they do not do well in school because the man is keeping them down, or they have to have Affirmative Action programs just to succeed.
States' rights refers to the idea, in U.S. politics and constitutional law, that U.S. states possess certain rights and political powers in relation to the federal government.
states' rights, in U.S. history, doctrine based on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The term embraces both the doctrine of absolute state sovereignty that was espoused by John C. Calhoun and that of the so-called strict constructionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves to the state governments all powers not specifically granted by that document to the federal government. A states' rights controversy is probably inherent in the federal structure of the United States government.
states' rights, in U.S. history, doctrine based on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The term embraces both the doctrine of absolute state sovereignty that was espoused by John C. Calhoun and that of the so-called strict constructionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves to the state governments all powers not specifically granted by that document to the federal government. A states' rights controversy is probably inherent in the federal structure of the United States government.
