Black History Month is Ridiculous?
- Thread starter 7starmantis
- Start date
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
'American Values' are about hard work and determination, not free government giveaways. That's probably why you're so confused.mantis said:
I love it when people throw around catch phrases that they don't even begin to understand.
Do you have the slightest clue how much money we've thrown at the inner-city problem? Billions. Is it better?! No. Why? Because you can't fix an internal problem from outside. What about that DON'T you understand?
I keep talking about individuals, and you keep SEEING race...race, race, race, race, race. What's the definition of racism again? Oh, yes, defining the quality of every individual purely by what race he happened to have been born in to. It's time the racism died, man.
'What we have here, is a failure to communicate...some men you just can't reach'
mantis
Master Black Belt
whites are evil mansgtmac_46 said:
(just kidding)
if the people decide that this is a problem to be solve, i.e. racism
then no more "whites" exists in the issue.
it's ALL AMERICANS now
unfortunately the mentality has to change, as well as terminology
it takes some "getting used to" but it's doable.
shouldnt be done out of guilt anymore, but should be thought of as hey we have a group that encounters problems, let's fix em up!
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
I think I already pointed out how to do that. Stop referring to black anything. Everyone is an individual, responsible for their own actions, both positive and negative. They don't get a free ride because of race, they don't get a pass because of race, and they don't get persecuted because of race. Martin Luther King Jr's dream made reality.mantis said:
If a black man is lazy, stop saying it's because he's black, or it's because of racism. It's because he is a lazy man. If a white man is lazy, same thing. If a black man is successful, he is a successful man, if a white man is, same thing. Make black and white no different than brown suit and blue. Judge men by their character.
If you don't make excuses for WHITE criminals...STOP making excuses for BLACK CRIMINALS!!! Little things like that.
I've been wondering for years where this self-flaggation, this 'white guilt', started in white america, this desire to punish ourselves for the deeds of our ancestors. It's certainly enough to simply not use skin color as a thing to judge people by. We don't need to be punished for the sins of the father.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Lazy man, black has nothing to do with it....except that people tend to identify themselves as part of groups based on their perceived likeness (i.e. skin color) as such, there really is no unified black race, but there IS a black culture (several, actually).mantis said:
Inner city black culture, for the most part, embraces a mentality that is self-destructive. However, unlike race and skin color, culture is changeable. You can choose to embrace a different cultural view.
Somewhere along the lines, many of us got taught in America, that is wrong to judge someone because of the color of their skin. Well, some of us learned the wrong lesson, which was 'It's wrong to judge anyone if their skin color is different than mine'. You can still judge people. You just shouldn't use skin color as the criteria. It's ok to make value judgements based on behavior. If someone is a criminal, it's ok to call them that, REGARDLESS of skin color. We just shouldn't use skin color as a factor in our judgement.
So, if a sub-culture encourages self-destructive behavior, it behooves us to point that out, clearly, and do our best to encourage a cultural change. That was what Bill Cosby was talking about, when he started getting labelled an Uncle Tom, because those that embrace that mentality don't want to change, and they most ESPECIALLY, don't want to acknowledge that the mentality has anything to do with their failing communities. What's more, a great deal of the current segregation is self-imposed, as many inner-city blacks want to insulate themselves from the larger society.
As for ending racism, you might have to keep in mind that racism is, by all current evidence, an evolutionary adaptation of social man. It has, in the past, served an evolutionary function in that it allowed the individual to identify with the in-group, be it a tribe or a larger society, and defend it from out group threats.
So, an end to racism, entirely, is a slow process. All of us are subject to in group/out group judgements. Even if you think you are devoid of this type of mentality, you might find that you make judgements based on all kinds of differences with other people. 'All Republicans are fascists', 'Red socks fans are morons', 'Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc, are a bunch of religious nuts', we tend to view differences as threatening.
However, social psychology teaches us the quickest way to group reduce competition is to unite the groups under a common cause. The military is a wonderful example of this. Men may join the military, never even having held a conversation with a member of another race or ethnic group. However, the required team mentality, the requisite of close cooperation for a common goal, tend to bring men together. The more difficult the challenge, and the harder they have to work toward common goals, the more closely nit they become.
So, the answer to unifying us, is to stop accentuating our differences, stop referring to ourselves as African Americans, Irish Americans, Asian Americans, Martian Americans, etc, and simply be Americans. Then, unite toward a common goal, and forget the problems of the past.
Fortunately, though racism is an evolutionary adaptation, we have developed, as Richard Dawkins points out, 'the ability to turn against our creators', because developed rational intellect.
Couple of interesting articles about racism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html
I find the idea of a diagnostic criteria for racism in the DSM-VI amusing, but, then, there were some good points that many things listed with diagnostic criteria, like depression, are things everyone feels to some extent, so, who knows.
Bob Hubbard said:
I'm not familiar with that. I gather it had little practical effect?
As to the U.S. govt. not actually importing slaves itself, I doubt this argument would succeed from Colombia ("We don't grow cocaine--heck, we outlawed it! But what can we do if our people choose to export it on their own?") or the like. In addition, by regulating the activity, the U.S. made it clearly legal.
No one should feel embarrassed about the 3/5 Compromise?
But, words can have an effect too. Why such opposition to adding to what's been done over the past 100 years with one apology?
sgtmac_46 said:
So...is the "current" U.S. govt. obligated by treaties the "older" one entered into? Is the "current" U.S. govt. obligated to accept legal tender that the "older" one printed? Did Americans who served in WWII serve in the armed forces of some other country than ours? Can Argentina get out of all its debts by declaring itself a new govt. and assigning the debts to the older one?
Why do we call George W. Bush the 43rd president of the U.S. rather than the 1st president of whatever govt./nation you think this is?
This is a simple matter of fact, folks...there isn't an issue to debate here. The government may fall in a parliamentary system, but that focus on the indivuals is a lower-ranked meaning of the word (#5, vice #2-4). The U.S. is the same nation it was 200 years ago, as a legal entity. Just as Tookie Williams was responsible for the acts his body committed many years earlier even though he had changed, the U.S. remains responsible for its actions also.
I believe it was Vermont who first abolished slavery in that state.
Laws flipped back and forth for 200 years in "fairness". Keep in mind laws were also passed that strictly forbid women the right to vote. Should they also get an apology?
As to the treaty concept....ask the Sioux, Comanche and the Apache what the value of a US treaty was.
Laws flipped back and forth for 200 years in "fairness". Keep in mind laws were also passed that strictly forbid women the right to vote. Should they also get an apology?
As to the treaty concept....ask the Sioux, Comanche and the Apache what the value of a US treaty was.
Bob Hubbard said:
That's state level...the issue here pertains to the federal govt. Whether individual states should apologize would be a whole separate issue...though in the case of S.C., for example, I'd say "Hell Yes."
As to whether we should apologize to women, I take no stand. But...is there a ration on apologies? Are we limited? What's the purpose of that question? Of course the issue could eventually be drawn down to an absurd point, but there's only one group at question here.
But that's beside the point. Are we legally bound by them, or no? Are we the nation that made those treaties? Whether we honor our obligations is another point...though I think you undercut your argument that the U.S. is now doing things right and injustices are all in the distant past.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
No, actually, the US government is not obligated to accept older legal tender.arnisador said:
And what's more, Argentina only owes what we are able to collect, as debts and collections are arbitrary, abstract concepts. Do you owe a debt your great grandfather owed?
No, what I said was that the single entity MOST responsible for the Atlantic slave trade IS the British Crown, an entity that is continuous as well.arnisador said:
Since you seem determined to take a legalistics perspective on responsibility, then it is certainly is admissible to point out what nation is MOST responsible for the Atlantic Slave trade (if you want to point fingers).
The difference is that Tookie is a continuous real, tangible, concious entity. He personally fired the shots that murdered 4 people. The US government is an abstract concept, unless you want insinuate the buildings in Washington DC are what allowed the slave trade. Show me the concious entity alive at the time of slavery and responsible for it.
There IS not body of the US government that existed at the time of Slavery...except the buildings themselves and a few documents. If that's the argument, then Italy is still responsible for the actions of Imperial Rome, so long as the architecture and literature still stand.
Of course, all of this is moot. The entire subject of 'abstract' accountability is irrelavent. It only applies if we accept it...and I don't. So, again, arnis, you can argue until you are blue in the face that WE owe an apology, and it really amounts to nothing except your personal opinion that we should apologize dressed up in a clever argument. We aren't going to. I don't buy in to the whole 'White man's guilt' sins of the father argument, it's petty, trite and it creates a cycle where we are responsible for long dead people, in perpetuity. It's bogus.
Moreover, nobodies addressed my simple question...how will it improve anything? I think i've laid out an argument that has yet to be addressed that it is more harmful than helpful.
Actually, the Texas articles of sucession were the worst, IMO. An ignored fact was that the Confederacy had made the importation of new slaves illegal from the start, and had several things in motion that may (I say may) have made race relations a lot better had they gone through. Much of the hostility after the WONA was a result of property owners who were angry at the illegal theft of their property (ie farms) by the puppet governments which was supposed to be divied up among former slaves, but often was sold for the profit of "carpet baggers". They took their rage out on what had become the symbol of the war...the slaves.
As to the "questions", no, there is not just 1 group in question, but many. If we are apologizing to "former slaves", are we only doing it to black, or are we also apologizing to white, red and yellow? Are former black slave owners also included in this apology, or are they excempt? When, after this apology is issued and the begging hands come out, who gets the funds? Where do those funds come from? What new taxes will be raised to cover it? Will we have a blanket "national apology fee" added to our debts?
As to Are we bound to them, no. They are overturned regularly, as evidenced by numerous actions by the last few presidents.
As to the "questions", no, there is not just 1 group in question, but many. If we are apologizing to "former slaves", are we only doing it to black, or are we also apologizing to white, red and yellow? Are former black slave owners also included in this apology, or are they excempt? When, after this apology is issued and the begging hands come out, who gets the funds? Where do those funds come from? What new taxes will be raised to cover it? Will we have a blanket "national apology fee" added to our debts?
As to Are we bound to them, no. They are overturned regularly, as evidenced by numerous actions by the last few presidents.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Bob Hubbard said:
Yes, those who say 'the government is responsible' fail to comprehend (or to care) that WE are, for all intense and purposes, the government and provide ALL it's funding. So, if anyone is going to pay for it, WE THE PEOPLE are going to pay for it.
Therefore, despite ALL the protests that 'we aren't demanding you, personally, are responsible' that is, indeed, what is being said.
There seems to be belief in this country that government is some HUGE nebulous 'other', that exists outside of us. I think that mentality creates HUGE problems in the long wrong, as this discussion indicates.
sgtmac_46 said:In case you haven't heard, my friend, governments don't produce profits, ours produce deficits. If a company operated like most governments, they'd be bankrupt and their CEO's eating in a soup kitchen.
That you believe they ARE profit making is only an indication of how out of touch you apparently are.
If you substituted Governments for the company I work for, you would have an example of how a company can loose lots of money.
And I really wonder how the CEO stays in with these huge loses.
I apologize for being off topic for the above in dealing the original thread.
As to Black Histroy Month, it has been said in other words by others. I think the history should be taught and that it should not be candy coated for it will let people forget what has gone before.
I also agree that as long as we separate people on the cantent of "Melon" in their skin, their religion, their country of origin, then there will be an issue of differences.
Peace
OP
OP
arnisador said:
Really? What group is that? Surely your not ignoring the death sentence slavery was to the Native Americans and simply "going with the flow" and claiming only african americans are due an apology? If one group deserves it many do. You can't seperate and say this group does and this one doesn't.
7sm
