Racism - Ignored?

  • Thread starter s0nny80y
  • 775 comments
  • 32,310 views
MrktMkr1986
Working against it, and getting over it are two separate things in my opinion. Maybe that's why I misunderstood what you were saying... To me, "working against it" means acknowledging that it continues to have an effect on our society and fighting against it. "Getting over it" on the other hand (again, in my opinion) means that because slavery ended 150 years ago, so did any and all of its negative effects; because de jure segregation ended 50 years ago, so did any and all of its negative effects.

Hmm...Ok.

Well, I think that thought that racism stems from slavery is totally misguided. I understand that slavery happened. But there was racism that goes on against many other people then just blacks.

I'm getting over it because I'm not going to let it rule my life or my actions. And I'm working against it by being succesful and helping others(of all races) do the same.

I think we pretty much agree. I jsut don't like to give the racist people any credit for what they try to do. :mischievous:
 
Swift has a good point here. Hispanics, asians, germans, jews, blacks, and whites have all been the victims of racism. Blacks were the only ones of that group that were once enslaved. So to claim that slavery is the origin of racism is something that, at best, is unproven and, at worst, totally wrong.

Racism exists in America today. But the vast majority of the racism that exist in America is anti-white or pro-minority.
 
danoff
Racism exists in America today. But the vast majority of the racism that exist in America is anti-white or pro-minority.

Racism is not "pro-minority" or "anti-white". Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another.
 
MrktMkr1986
Racism is not "pro-minority" or "anti-white". Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another.

Or inferior to another. Depending on your point of view.

But that infact makes you anti-(insert race here) or pro-(insert race here)
 
danoff
What the hell are you talking about? A woman is not capable to control a boy when he reaches 14? I'm losing you quickly.

What Im saying is a boy gets away with ahell of alot more with their mothers than they would do with their fathers and at say 14 the boy will slowlys starting taking more and more liberties and soon the mother who loves her son to death and will always defend him even when hes in the wrong will have trouble to control him. Woman dont fully undertsnad what boys get up to and how easily it is for them to become part of the wrong ways of society.

For example once a bit older a boy living with his mother could stay out later at night as she will deem him to be safe as hes male and doesnt have to worry of such things as paedophiles. However there are so many other things that the boy can slip into and only a man can fully understand from experience and he would make sure that his son doesnt stay out all night.

Even if the mother does want him to come home at say 11 but he comes in at 1 in the morning she would be pretty upset and probably attempt to tell him off but a boy would probably just argue back saying he's safe and basically disregarding what she has to say. However if the boys father was around he wouldnt tolerate and from a early age he would have disciplined his son so that he knows that he comes beneath him and his mother and not to argue back. Even though If say at 16 the son could beat his father up he wouldnt attempt to do so has the father is the top dog of the house.

Im having difficutly explaining this but I can tell you from experience a mother doesnt have the same control as father and Im sure several members here can vouch for this. Just look at say a school enviroment. A male teacher has control over a bunch of rowdy boys allot better than that of a female teacher.
 
Swift
Or inferior to another. Depending on your point of view.

But that infact makes you anti-(insert race here) or pro-(insert race here)

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but almost everything Dan says sounds like propaganda now. By saying "pro-minority" and "anti-white", I'm reading "I want to get rid of Affirmative Action NOW!" -- despite the fact that affirmative action benefits whites as well.

yw
Im having difficutly explaining this but I can tell you from experience a mother doesnt have the same control as father

I strongly disagree with your assertions. I'm Black, my parents divorced when I was 9, I lived with my mother and I have no priors. It depends on the person... not whether they're male or female.

A male teacher has control over a bunch of rowdy boys allot better than that of a female teacher.

I've seen the exact opposite in my schools. Again, it depends on the person and not whether they are male or female.
 
Duke
I would simply like to point out the fact that, historically, the vast majority of African slaves who were sold into the European/American slave trade were originally captured and enslaved by other Africans. Tribal wars had been settled for centuries if not millenia by the victors enslaving the losers.

Yes this is true but what you forgot to mention is that the deal was that they captureslaves for the white man and in return their villages and people would be left alone.

Slaves would even laugh at the new slaves who would arrive to jamaica and saw them as above the new slaves because they spoke english etc which was instilled into their minds by the white man to create further divids and so lessen the chances of bigger uprisals as the newest slaves were the most likely to try and break free.
 
One last thing I would like to point out and hopefully also discuss is that jewish people got reparations for the holocaust, I also belive the native americans got a bit of money but black people havent gotten a penny yet for the slavery days OR the black holocaust that happened alongside the jewish holocaust.

I have a whole article sitting next to me about it yet iits the first time Ive ever heard of it and well I read newspapers daily, watch the news daily and often watch documentaries on the holocaust and World Wars and did have history lessons on both the world wars and the holocaust yet Ive never even heard of it before? Are black people not as important as jewish people because they dont have money and were pretty much still slaves?
 
Young_Warrior
One last thing I would like to point out and hopefully also discuss is that jewish people got reparations for the holocaust, I also belive the native americans got a bit of money but black people havent gotten a penny yet for the slavery days OR the black holocaust that happened alongside the jewish holocaust.

Don't forget about the reparations given to the Japanese living in the US during WW2 -- because of internment.

Are black people not as important as jewish people because they dont have money and were pretty much still slaves?

It would seem that way, but I don't believe that this is the case.
 
Black people have gotten a ton of money for the slave days...hell when they were released they were given stuff too. But, ancestors didn't go through it, so therefore they aren't entitled to anything.
 
Driftster
who bought them?

Rich white Americans vying for states' rights, limited government, and unlimited property rights.

Joey
Black people have gotten a ton of money for the slave days...hell when they were released they were given stuff too.

Do you have any evidence supporting this claim? Not that I don't believe you but I'd like to see where this information came from. As far as I know, Blacks did not get anything after they were freed.

...I'm beginning to like this word "entitlement" more and more...
 
MrktMkr1986
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but almost everything Dan says sounds like propaganda now. By saying "pro-minority" and "anti-white", I'm reading "I want to get rid of Affirmative Action NOW!" -- despite the fact that affirmative action benefits whites as well.



I strongly disagree with your assertions. I'm Black, my parents divorced when I was 9, I lived with my mother and I have no priors. It depends on the person... not whether they're male or female.


I've seen the exact opposite in my schools. Again, it depends on the person and not whether they are male or female.
1
Well you and most black people on this site are in a minority. You are a succesful black man and there are alot of black kids out there living with their mums who turn out great. But I can see it with my friends who live with their mums. For example two of my friends who were 15 at the time were selling drugs and their mums found out about it. Did they stop after? No even though theyre mothers beggedt screamed and shouted at them to stop. I asked one of them "so what you aint gonna stop now that your mom knows?" "No, the only way I'll stop is if I get caught or my dad finds out". And this kid hasnt seen his dad for like a year and occasionally talks to him on the fone and yet he still has more power than his mum.

Another example which is bullet proof is this. A mother is in a shopping centre with her young kids. theyre messing about and she has occasionally told them to stop it and behave. They fail to listen to which the mother then say behave now or when we get home Im going to tell your daddy. Kids soon shutup and behave.


2
Well there were exceptions but if a strong male raised his voice he would get much better results than that of a strong female.
 
Well I can't find my history book at the time being, but I'm almost certain when the slaves were freed they were given land, money, something. I can't remember to tell you the truth since its been a real long time since I've been in a history class that has dealt with issues before 1887.

I know now a days blacks have been filling suits to get reperations, which I don't agree with. I mean they haven't felt any affects of it. But I do think the blacks who suffered the during the 50's and 60's southern United States hate crime have a case to get reperations since the people it affected are still living.
 
Young_Warrior
1
Well you and most black people on this site are in a minority. You are a succesful black man and there are alot of black kids out there living with their mums who turn out great.

True.

But I can see it with my friends who live with their mums. For example two of my friends who were 15 at the time were selling drugs and their mums found out about it. Did they stop after? No even though theyre mothers beggedt screamed and shouted at them to stop.

Probably wasn't the best approach (on the part of the mothers that is) but I see what you're saying.

I asked one of them "so what you aint gonna stop now that your mom knows?" "No, the only way I'll stop is if I get caught or my dad finds out". And this kid hasnt seen his dad for like a year and occasionally talks to him on the fone and yet he still has more power than his mum.

2
Well there were exceptions but if a strong male raised his voice he would get much better results than that of a strong female.

Very interesting.

Another example which is bullet proof is this. A mother is in a shopping centre with her young kids. theyre messing about and she has occasionally told them to stop it and behave. They fail to listen to which the mother then say behave now or when we get home Im going to tell your daddy. Kids soon shutup and behave.

This scenario assumes the family is strongly patriarchal -- but yes, I see what you're saying.

Joey
Well I can't find my history book at the time being, but I'm almost certain when the slaves were freed they were given land, money, something. I can't remember to tell you the truth since its been a real long time since I've been in a history class that has dealt with issues before 1887.

Ok, cool. When you find something, send me a PM because I'd be very interested in reading about this topic.

I know now a days blacks have been filling suits to get reperations, which I don't agree with.

Neither do I...

I mean they haven't felt any affects of it.

Here, I disagree.

But I do think the blacks who suffered the during the 50's and 60's southern United States hate crime have a case to get reperations since the people it affected are still living.

Again, I disagree... I don't think direct reparations are the answer to past injustices. Regulations to prevent that sort of thing from happening again are what is called for.
 
Thats not quite how it went down I belive.Black people wernt given land but were allowed to work on land in return of rent.

Its like when I was being taught slavery in school and then in the textbook and the teacher started talking about how it wasnt all bad. "We gave the slaves roads" Well who built the roads? The slaves did and you didnt exactly make them build the roads out of the kidness of their hearts. This is back in the west indies not america. Infact to say such a thing is a insult as African people are more than capable of building their own damn roads if they wanted to but instead the text book was goign on as it was a secret being passed down.

Another form of racism that is seemingly starting to creep up is that of white people who seemingly think that more than enough is/was being given to black people and therefore are starting to resent them.
 
MrktMkr1986
Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but almost everything Dan says sounds like propaganda now. By saying "pro-minority" and "anti-white", I'm reading "I want to get rid of Affirmative Action NOW!" -- despite the fact that affirmative action benefits whites as well.

The difference between us Brian is that I don't care who racism benefits, it's wrong. It shouldn't be practiced by any publicly owned entity.
 
An interesting take on some elements of history, Young-Warrior.

I don't want to say that your points are inaccurate, for the simple reason, if no other, that I wasn't there, so I can't possibly know.

However, there are other interpretations that exist and they are the ones that I've uncovered through my historical studies.

Very few 'races' are more tribally divided than those on the African continent (just look at the atrocities that go on today because of those divisions). As such, with the arrival of White Men on their shores, with much superior weaponry, some tribes took advantage of that military leverage to get rid of their enemies i.e. it wasn't fear for their own that motivated them but politics that would've been readily understood by Machiavelli.

I'm sure that some of those traders were more than unscrupulous enough to take what was offered and then also take those who they were supposedly dealing with in a sad case of profit margin overriding morality. That's an entirely seperate moral issue, however, and there were cases where other traders were upset with those that operated in such a fashion because it 'queered the pitch' for everyone else.

As to the teaching of English to slaves, I agree that it possibly did serve to create sub-divisions within the slave population (hiearchies will grow in any social organisation) but it was also an entirely pragmatic process. If you want someone to do something for you, it's much easier if they understand you.

Now, like I said, I'm not gainsaying the 'spin' you put on these facts, just putting an alternative view.

Likewise, to take things a step further, I'm certainly not an apologist for slavery but I do think that overlaying 21st Century, developed world, liberal sensibilities, over events that happened in what amounts to a different socio-political environment, is a mistake. It causes a great deal of ill-feeling and resentful animosity that is very misplaced because we then apply our moral standards to a time where they do not apply.

Just to reiterate, in case I wasn't clear enough, I, personally, think that slavery is an abhorence and I wish it were something that Western society had not partaken of.

But, in the period in which it happened, it was not widely seen to be 'wrong'. Dominant cultures had always used slaves and, at the time, it seemed like they always would. It's only the advent of the industrial revolution (and other economic pressures) that meant that the West could have an empire that didn't need slave labour to make it work.

I think that the media hasn't helped in laying to rest the spectre of racism as nothing sells a minor altercation as a news story better than the suggestion that it's racially motivated.

Likewise, the Hollywood dramatisation of the era of slavery in America has also hindered the ability of time to sooth the wounds, so to speak. Even such a good one as "Roots", based on the memories of a man whose family was part of the tale, plays up the deliberate cruelty of the White Southern Slave Owners.

The economic reality was very different. I'm positive that there were wealthy owners who mistreated their slaves, because there are always small souls who delight in the excercise of absolute power. But most could not afford to maltreat their labour pool - it made just as little sense as beating your draft horses so badly that they couldn't work.

Research into the actual living standards of the time shows that a significant portion of the poor, white, population was much worse off than the black slaves. Of course, they had the blessing of being 'free' ... but in their case it meant free to starve and free to die of treatable diseases or other maladies caused by the work they had to do (because their traditional niche of agricultural labour had been usurped by the slaves). True, working the cotton plantations was no picnic but it beat sleeping rough and having no food.

Anyhow, wandering off the point again - my apologies. It's typing it all into this tiny window that does it :embarrassed:. Plus, there's a lot to say and, as I've pointed out in another thread today, the net doesn't lend itself to deep discourse. It tends to devolve into sound-bites and shallow 'truths', very much like politicians talking (and if there's something that history isn't, it's shallow :D).

Time to eject ...
 
sukerkin
True, working the cotton plantations was no picnic but it beat sleeping rough and having no food.

There is a categorical difference between slaves and free people. When a white person from that time period suffered poor conditions it was his own responsibility. It was within his power to change that situation... not so with slaves. Control over one's life is more important than anything else - and if someone personally comes to a different conclusion, then they should have the control over their lives to do something about it.

Bottom line, I'd rather have been a poor white person in that time period than a slave in the most comfortable household in the nation.
 
danoff
The difference between us Brian is that I don't care who racism benefits, it's wrong.

More propaganda...

Affirmative action is not racist. Again, racism is the belief that one race is intrinsically better than another (i.e. black supremacist, white supremacist etc...). Affirmative action is arguably discriminatory, but only as a means of offsetting discrimination towards minorities and women. By your definition, then, affirmative action is both "racist" and "sexist" -- but it's not.
 
The debate is going on nicely and sukerkin you make some good points. Wonder what swift has to say about all this. Will give a propper reply tomorrow but sadly its my bed time.

If only I lived with my mom in a broken home I could stay here longer.
 
I hate to say this but Young Warrior is starting to sound more and more like an ultra-conservative with statements like:

yw
If only I lived with my mom in a broken home I could stay here longer.

Conservatism is like a virus... it's insidious, spreads quickly and most people don't even realize they have it -- until it's too late.
 
MrktMkr1986
More propaganda...

Affirmative action is not racist. Again, racism is the belief that one race is intrinsically better than another (i.e. black supremacist, white supremacist etc...). Affirmative action is arguably discriminatory, but only as a means of offsetting discrimination towards minorities and women. By your definition, then, affirmative action is both "racist" and "sexist" -- but it's not.


Dictionary.com definition #2 for racist
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
 
danoff
There is a categorical difference between slaves and free people.

I agree and I think I was making that point whilst at the same time saying something that rather undermines:

danoff
When a white person from that time period suffered poor conditions it was his own responsibility. It was within his power to change that situation... not so with slaves
.

That's really not how things were in centuries past, my friend.

Even in America, your social postion was much more solid than it was fluid. An individuals 'power' to override their circumstances, if born into poverty, was so limited as to be, for all practical purposes, non-existant. It's exactly the same misfortune many slaves found themselves in when Emancipated - they were 'free' from formal bonds but found themselves bound by the same economic fetters that tied everyone not from the more priveledged strata of society.


danoff
Bottom line, I'd rather have been a poor white person in that time period than a slave in the most comfortable household in the nation.

I'd like to believe I'd say the same thing but a nagging practical voice in the back of my mind says 'better a live mouse than a dead lion' :D.

Anyhow, that's a discussion for another thread don't you think?

I'm sensing another hidden hook here to bring the discussion around to what appears to have become termed Libertarianism here at GTP (altho' Nietsche would've recognised it immediately I reckon :)).
 
danoff
Dictionary.com definition #2 for racist
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

That's a vague definition. In the same way that "non-initiation of force" is a vague definition of liberty.

...and like I said... it's arguably discriminatory -- I never said it was.
 
sukerkin
Even in America, your social postion was much more solid than it was fluid. An individuals 'power' to override their circumstances, if born into poverty, was so limited as to be, for all practical purposes, non-existant.

What do you base this on?

That's a vague definition.

Racism is a vague thing.
 
Young_Warrior
One last thing I would like to point out and hopefully also discuss is that jewish people got reparations for the holocaust, I also belive the native americans got a bit of money but black people havent gotten a penny yet for the slavery days OR the black holocaust that happened alongside the jewish holocaust.

All jewish people didn't get money. Holocaust survivors got money. Same with the Japanese internent survivors.

sukerkin
Likewise, the Hollywood dramatisation of the era of slavery in America has also hindered the ability of time to sooth the wounds, so to speak. Even such a good one as "Roots", based on the memories of a man whose family was part of the tale, plays up the deliberate cruelty of the White Southern Slave Owners.

Research into the actual living standards of the time shows that a significant portion of the poor, white, population was much worse off than the black slaves. Of course, they had the blessing of being 'free' ... but in their case it meant free to starve and free to die of treatable diseases or other maladies caused by the work they had to do (because their traditional niche of agricultural labour had been usurped by the slaves). True, working the cotton plantations was no picnic but it beat sleeping rough and having no food.

OK, now if you would've said hip hop music or some other form of current entertainment, I would've agreed with you. But in the case of a book/movie like Roots, it's simply wrong. That is a look into the saga of an American family. It's history and the way things were. If people get upset about it then that's great! The challenge is what do they do with that anger? Do they work harder to breakdown the stupidity of racism or do they just stay angry and blame everything on the man?

The reason I have a problem with what you said here is that you put history and hip hop on the same field and they don't even belong in the same zip code. I ALWAYS get extremely angry when I look at historic happenings like Roots, Malcolm X and other documentaries that go into the travesties that this country has committed. But it doesn't make me feel superior or inferior to anyone on basis of their skin tone.

While it was true that some poor white people had it worse then slaves. But do you know why? Because the slaves had filled the majority of the jobs that the poor whites would have taken. So their extreme poverty was a product of the society directly.

The challenge is that we are ALL free people. So we can't possibly understand what it's like to not have our freedoms. Hence, there is very little point at saying that being a slave with some food but NO chance of being free is better then starving and being free with SOME chance of bettering your condition.
 
MrktMkr1986
Until you've experienced it.

I have experienced it. My sister especially has been a major victim of racism. She wanted to go to a certain publicly funded college as long as I can remember. But when it came time to get in, she was essentially turned away because of the color of her skin. Of course they had other "official" reasons, but that was basically the reason.

It's very frustrating to deal with racism, especially from an institution that you paid taxes to. I'd bet I've experienced more racism than you have.
 
danoff
What do you base this on?

A good and fair question, Dan.

18th and 19th Century American history isn't really my area of interest and I can't at present point you to a specific source. It's been a long tale of years since I covered the economic viability of the Southern Slave States at university.

However, the generally accepted historical view is that fluidity in the economic strata of America wasn't anything like as liquid as emigres would've like'd to believe. If you had money, then you could make money, if you were poor then you tended to stay poor. I'm obviously not talking about the periods of westward expansion here but the time where the mobility of the population calmed down and the social strata of of States began to settle out again.

If I get time, I'll try to research something more 'solid' for you but I wouldn't hold my breath as Demon Work forever demands his due (damnation to those two hundred or so relatives I don't know who stand in the path of my inheritence :D).

I realise that without proper references, what I said is just an assertion, so feel free to dismiss it - which all hinges back to my favourite harp for the day, that you simply cannot discourse a serious topic on the net.
 
Back