White Privilege

[PocketZeven]

I've gone into great detail on this one. Great detail. This amounts to plugging your ears.



Yes I can. It was the slaveowners that received that labor, and many of them lost everything (property, families, and their own lives) in the war. Northern families, where slavery was abolished, paid for the war on the side of the Union... they did not get reimbursement from the south.

Where would you move the abolition of slavery to. 10 years earlier? 20 years? the entire history of the nation? It doesn't matter where you move it to, we'd have benefited from having gotten rid of it at that time. If it had been 10 years sooner, the US would have done better as a nation. 20 years? Even better. There was no point in our nation's history where we'd have been worse off for having gotten rid of it.

Sorry I may have overlooked the particular post.

I fundamentally disagree with that notion that the cost of war somehow paid for all the benefits?. Am I interperting your argument wrong perhaps? If the slaves did live today, they dont deserve reparations since the benefits the slaveowners gained were eradicated anyway? Or am I misunderstanding the point you are trying to make?

 

[Danoff]

I fundamentally disagree with that notion that the cost of war somehow paid for all the benefits?

The United States did not benefit from slavery. It was an albatross that we shook later than we should have.

Am I interperting your argument wrong perhaps? If the slaves did live today, they dont deserve reparations since the benefits the slaveowners gained were eradicated anyway?

I said exactly the opposite. Here (emphasis added):

I do wish that reparations had been made immediately following the war. But, and here is the critical point, it's not for unpaid labor. It is for unjust law. The moral argument is not "the US got an unfair benefit and so owes". The moral argument is "the US is complicit in wrongdoing by standing behind unjust laws up to the civil war".
...
The debt to the soldiers of the war and to the people enslaved before it could never be repaid. They could never be made whole. But I think the reason that reparations were offered to the freed slaves is because there was a recognition that they had nothing, the reason they had nothing was prior US law, and that they could use something to get started. No amount of reparations would ever make up for their loss. But even a small gesture would have helped. The country owed them more than just to set them free, but what it owed them could never be repaid. This is no less true of the dead and maimed soldiers, who were also in some cases essentially enslaved themselves. Draftees were paid, but that does not make up for their loss of freedom.

Again, it's not for labor. The fruits of their labor was consumed in the war, and the fruits of their labor was less because of slavery than it would have been otherwise. It was for the role of law in destroyed lives and families.

 

[PocketZeven]

The United States did not benefit from slavery. It was an albatross that we shook later than we should have.



I said exactly the opposite. Here (emphasis added):

I just realised that there maybe is a misunderstanding an a different interpertation on whom were benefited in the quote. The "USA" as in the country or as in its people. I interpeted as people, since the whole US economy benefited from slavery in one way or the other. Cotton, tabacco etc were a significant part of its economy. So benefited in economic growth.

 

[Danoff]

I just realised that there maybe is a misunderstanding an a different interpertation on whom were benefited in the quote. The "USA" as in the country or as in its people. I interpeted as people, since the whole US economy benefited from slavery in one way or the other. Cotton, tabacco etc were a significant part of its economy. So benefited in economic growth.

Nope.

Economic growth would have been better in the absence of slavery. You're seeing growth + slavery = benefit. I'm seeing growth + slavery = suboptimal growth.... in otherwords, cost compared to a lack of slavery.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Nope.

Economic growth would have been better in the absence of slavery. You're seeing growth + slavery = benefit. I'm seeing growth + slavery = suboptimal growth.... in otherwords, cost compared to a lack of slavery.

Is the implication here that slavery benefited enormously a very small group of people at the expense of the slaves as well as the opportunity for a diversified and more substantial economic network?

 

[Danoff]

Is the implication here that slavery benefited enormously a very small group of people at the expense of the slaves as well as the opportunity for a diversified and more substantial economic network?

Yes.

Would the US have been better off if we had held on to slavery another 10 years? Another 20? Until present day?

The flawed reasoning suffers from pre-civil war periods as well. Because some states had abolished slavery prior to the civil war. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, before it was even a state. Presumably all of those northern states that abolished slavery did so at their own peril. They did so at great economic sacrifice, leaving themselves unable to compete against the economic powerhouse of the south, which would be able to sustain and win any war against the North. Especially a war in which they could over and over have the advantage of being in a defensive, fortified position.

Oh wait...

The industrial revolution occurred sooner in the north than the south... I suppose that didn't have anything to do with the availability of slave labor...

Even in the agricultural sector, Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.

The industrialization of the northern states had an impact upon urbanization and immigration. By 1860, 26 percent of the Northern population lived in urban areas, led by the remarkable growth of cities such as Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Detroit, with their farm-machinery, food-processing, machine-tool, and railroad equipment factories. Only about a tenth of the southern population lived in urban areas.

Free states attracted the vast majority of the waves of European immigration through the mid-19th century. Fully seven-eighths of foreign immigrants settled in free states. As a consequence, the population of the states that stayed in the Union was approximately 23 million as compared to a population of 9 million in the states of the Confederacy. This translated directly into the Union having 3.5 million males of military age - 18 to 45 - as compared to 1 million for the South. About 75 percent of Southern males fought the war, as compared to about half of Northern men.

The Southern lag in industrial development did not result from any inherent economic disadvantages. There was great wealth in the South, but it was primarily tied up in the slave economy. In 1860, the economic value of slaves in the United States exceeded the invested value of all of the nation's railroads, factories, and banks combined. On the eve of the Civil War, cotton prices were at an all-time high. The Confederate leaders were confident that the importance of cotton on the world market, particularly in England and France, would provide the South with the diplomatic and military assistance they needed for victory.

As both the North and the South mobilized for war, the relative strengths and weaknesses of the "free market" and the "slave labor" economic systems became increasingly clear - particularly in their ability to support and sustain a war economy. The Union's industrial and economic capacity soared during the war as the North continued its rapid industrialization to suppress the rebellion. In the South, a smaller industrial base, fewer rail lines, and an agricultural economy based upon slave labor made mobilization of resources more difficult. As the war dragged on, the Union's advantages in factories, railroads, and manpower put the Confederacy at a great disadvantage.

Nearly every sector of the Union economy witnessed increased production. Mechanization of farming allowed a single farmer growing crops such as corn or wheat to plant, harvest, and process much more than was possible when hand and animal power were the only available tools. (By 1860, a threshing machine could thresh 12 times as much grain per hour as could six men.) This mechanization became even more important as many farmers left home to enlist in the Union military. Those remaining behind could continue to manage the farm through the use of labor-saving devices like reapers and horse-drawn planters.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Anyone catch the documentary on Netflix called American Factory?

An overarching theme of the doc is that the Chinese managers perceive the American workers as lazy and entitled and highly inefficient compared to their Chinese equivalents. Just imagine if they were also not being paid. I imagine the inefficiencies of slave labor were quite high.

 

[Danoff]

Yes.

Would the US have been better off if we had held on to slavery another 10 years? Another 20? Until present day?

The flawed reasoning suffers from pre-civil war periods as well. Because some states had abolished slavery prior to the civil war. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, before it was even a state. Presumably all of those northern states that abolished slavery did so at their own peril. They did so at great economic sacrifice, leaving themselves unable to compete against the economic powerhouse of the south, which would be able to sustain and win any war against the North. Especially a war in which they could over and over have the advantage of being in a defensive, fortified position.

Oh wait...

The industrial revolution occurred sooner in the north than the south... I suppose that didn't have anything to do with the availability of slave labor...

I'm going to come around and hit this point even harder, because I like beating dead horses apparently.

It's not just that the North was doing better without slavery, advancing faster without slavery, or that slaves are inefficient, and don't benefit the economy as a whole, or that slaves didn't get to fulfill their potential as leaders, entrepreneurs and inventors by being enslaved. It's not just that the US would have been better if we could magically have given up slavery earlier, as early as possible. It's not just that we spent so much time arguing among the states, and fighting, over which new territory was going to be free or slave. It's not just that it destroyed larger moral understanding, and held back a broader healthier cultural growth.

It's also that slavery caused the civil war. It caused the murder of over half a million people, destroyed cities, property, and lives, and maimed countless more. Not only would slavery have to be somehow more effective for the US than a lack of slavery (which it wasn't), but it would have to be so effective that it makes up for the rampant destruction that it caused in years of horrific battle.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nope.

Economic growth would have been better in the absence of slavery. You're seeing growth + slavery = benefit. I'm seeing growth + slavery = suboptimal growth.... in otherwords, cost compared to a lack of slavery.

The wall on Wall Street was literally built by slaves. 40% of cotton revenue went through New York businesses. Slavery didn't create wealth just in the South.

It's also that slavery caused the civil war. It caused the murder of over half a million people, destroyed cities, property, and lives, and maimed countless more.

I quite agree. Are you offsetting human life as a financial, fiduciary item in the balance sheet? That probably doesn't work given that the settlement of the US involved the removal and near-eradication of whole cultures and peoples. You might argue that the US is permanently in deficit.

Not only would slavery have to be somehow more effective for the US than a lack of slavery (which it wasn't), but it would have to be so effective that it makes up for the rampant destruction that it caused in years of horrific battle.

The other problem with putting things that cause wars in the Expenditure column is that you probably have to put most historical human endeavour in there. Do you get a double-negative from the removal of rival clans from the west coast of Africa? What about Independence? Mexico? 1812? Do you get a positive when urban battles kill the poorest, most disenfranchised sections of society who "coincidentally" happen to majoritively be part of the most oppressed race in American history?

Denying the wealth that slavery produced for countries like Britain or the USA by arbitrarily offsetting it against later arguments is, in my opinion, quite disingenuous.

 

[Danoff]

The wall on Wall Street was literally built by slaves. 40% of cotton revenue went through New York businesses. Slavery didn't create wealth just in the South.

Cotton revenue also came from abolitionist states (I quoted it earlier). Also, cotton revenue would have existed (and I'd argue been improved) without slavery in the first place.

I quite agree. Are you offsetting human life as a financial, fiduciary item in the balance sheet? That probably doesn't work given that the settlement of the US involved the removal and near-eradication of whole cultures and peoples. You might argue that the US is permanently in deficit.

I thought we were discussing slavery.

The other problem with putting things that cause wars in the Expenditure column is that you probably have to put most historical human endeavour in there. Do you get a double-negative from the removal of rival clans from the west coast of Africa? What about Independence? Mexico? 1812? Do you get a positive when urban battles kill the poorest, most disenfranchised sections of society who "coincidentally" happen to majoritively be part of the most oppressed race in American history?

We're trying to assess the cost of slavery vs. the benefits. I'm arguing that the US would have been better without it. If you want to make an argument that battles which kill the poorest members of society benefit society (not sure exactly what the welfare state was in 1865, but I'm guessing it wasn't much) then be my guest.

Denying the wealth that slavery produced for countries like Britain or the USA by arbitrarily offsetting it against later arguments is, in my opinion, quite disingenuous.

I do, wholeheartedly and completely deny it.

Slavery came at great cost socially across the board. It came at costs to progress of science, morality, art, leadership, economic development, engineering, blood, and "treasure". It came at that cost because people who wanted to own slaves took a short-sighted greedy position. Slavery is individual greed harming progress. It should not have been allowed to happen because human rights should have been protected, but even from a wholesale progress perspective, it was negative.

It wasn't just that slavery caused the destruction of a wide swath of the US, it was that slavery was a loser the entire time. Northern states did well by abolishing it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Anyone catch the documentary on Netflix called American Factory?

An overarching theme of the doc is that the Chinese managers perceive the American workers as lazy and entitled and highly inefficient compared to their Chinese equivalents. Just imagine if they were also not being paid. I imagine the inefficiencies of slave labor were quite high.

I dont fully understand what your point was. Could you explain? Are your referring to chinese or american workers?

 

[Sander 001]

Anyone catch the documentary on Netflix called American Factory?

An overarching theme of the doc is that the Chinese managers perceive the American workers as lazy and entitled and highly inefficient compared to their Chinese equivalents. Just imagine if they were also not being paid. I imagine the inefficiencies of slave labor were quite high.

The Chinese are more productive and efficient yet are much closer to slave conditions than the Americans.

 

[Danoff]

Denying the wealth that slavery produced for countries like Britain or the USA by arbitrarily offsetting it against later arguments is, in my opinion, quite disingenuous.

I dont fully understand what your point was. Could you explain? Are your referring to chinese or american workers?

The Chinese are more productive and efficient yet are much closer to slave conditions than the Americans.

Feudalism is a system of government in which lower "classes" create wealth for higher classes. Kinda like living in a never-ending pyramid scheme, where you have no hope of climbing the rungs. The wealthy create little or nothing, and benefit from the efforts of the indentured. They get rich (and the nation gets rich, because ultimately that's what the upper class is - the governing body), on the backs of the poor.

Nations do not "benefit" from Feudalism, they suffer under it. Feudalism is always a poor alternative to Capitalism (within a constitutionally-limited democratic republic), creating relative misery and poverty. Some people may be better off under Feudalism than Capitalism, especially those lucky enough to be born into power. The entire time that Feudalism is practiced, it is practiced at the expense of what the population could otherwise do, and when it is finished, and a new system of government is adopted, it measures behind what it "should" have been, which it "might" have been, if a better system of government had been practiced.

The practice of slavery in the US in the south prior to the civil war is not that different from Feudalism - although I grant that slaves would have preferred to be Feudal serfs, the serfs were still slaves in most respects. Like the upper feudal classes, a plantation owner benefited from his slaves, and lived an aristocratic lifestyle created for him (let's face it, it was primarily for the male) from their labor. Just like Feudalism, the aristocracy had a romantic quality to it, that the people loved. The outward practice of chivalry and nobility was appealing and beautiful at times. But make no mistake, the practice of slavery was for the benefit of the slave owner, and was carried out at his discretion. It was the southern aristocracy of plantation owners that was created by slavery, and it was that that was destroyed.

Capitalism thrives as a whole from the value created by the individuals within it. When individuals are free to chase their own pursuits, they create more economic value. When they are free to make their own lives better they create more economic value. At any moment had the slaves been set free, Capitalism benefits, because their efforts would become better aligned with their personal interests and well being. The value they create will grow, not shrink, and will create robustness and stability. Furthermore economic incentives are more completely aligned with the interests of the population. A real recognition of the cost (not to the nation, to individuals) of labor better aligns engineering and science efforts, resulting in the industrial revolution.

Slavery was a portion of the US being saddled with a kind of internal Feudalism. A backward, counter-productive sub-structure that created malinvestment, disincentives, and reduced economic expansion. This occurred because a few people were allowed to violate the rights of their fellow man, and did so at everyone's expense but their own. The Northern states that threw off slavery did not do so at their own economic demise, they did so to their great benefit. The United States did not shake slavery at its own economic demise (aside from the catastrophe that was the war), it did so to its own economic benefit. You cannot outpace Capitalism with slavery.


TL;DR
A free person will create more value for themselves than a slave will for their master.

 

[Dotini]

I think it is mostly true that white males are more responsible for mass shooting than any other group. It may be equally true of young males, and is certainly true of males in general. IMO, probably these males feel a frustrated sense of biological, social or economic entitlement, a.k.a. privilege.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...ite-males-responsible-more-mass-shootings-an/

Accordingly, as a long-term solution, it might make some sort of sense to reduce the numbers - even the percentage - of males in the population as a whole.

 

[PocketZeven]

Anyone catch the documentary on Netflix called American Factory?

An overarching theme of the doc is that the Chinese managers perceive the American workers as lazy and entitled and highly inefficient compared to their Chinese equivalents. Just imagine if they were also not being paid. I imagine the inefficiencies of slave labor were quite high.

I watched the docu a few days ago. In my opinion the docu actually tries to politically neutral and accurately tells both sides of the story. An important take-away does show a large difference between productivity in the 2 different cultures. I also noticed, were that there were many US workers overweight.

I dont see how this has to do with slave labor anyway. The chinese workers get paid, are free to choose their place of work, are not viewed as property of the owner. I always cringe when people accuse china as having slavelabor, which is just not true. It is just not comparable to real slavelabor.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I watched the docu a few days ago. In my opinion the docu actually tries to politically neutral and accurately tells both sides of the story. An important take-away does show a large difference between productivity in the 2 different cultures. I also noticed, were that there were many US workers overweight.

I dont see how this has to do with slave labor anyway. The chinese workers get paid, are free to choose their place of work, are not viewed as property of the owner. I always cringe when people accuse china as having slavelabor, which is just not true. It is just not comparable to real slavelabor.

That wasn't my intent in bringing it up. Rather, more simply, that unrewarding work (I presume factory work is pretty unrewarding, I could be wrong) encourages inefficient workers even if they are being paid. The documentary seemed to present evidence that lower pay = lower efficiency - in the context of the American workers who worked at the same factory under different ownership and pay. If they are not being paid and being compelled to do unrewarding work (slaves) I imagine that the efficiency would be very low.

China is something else...with factory workers motivations tied in a whole host of things like nationalism fear/respect of the state. That's only a guess though.

 

[PocketZeven]

That wasn't my intent in bringing it up. Rather, more simply, that unrewarding work (I presume factory work is pretty unrewarding, I could be wrong) encourages inefficient workers even if they are being paid. The documentary seemed to present evidence that lower pay = lower efficiency - in the context of the American workers who worked at the same factory under different ownership and pay. If they are not being paid and being compelled to do unrewarding work (slaves) I imagine that the efficiency would be very low.

China is something else...with factory workers motivations tied in a whole host of things like nationalism fear/respect of the state. That's only a guess though.

The thing is the chinese were motivated by their management through their feeling of pride and patriotism, thus making it rewarding work. The American workers got paid more then the chinese, for essentially the same (or arguably more) work. Perhaps if the company was an american company the US workers could have been more motivated. (alsop a guess)
I believe the docu primarily points out the cultural differences rather perhaps exploitation of workers. Perhaps I am biased, but I did not see it the same way you did?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I answered here as it seemed more on-topic than the original Canada thread.

Many people may not like hearing it but usually if a stereo type exist and continues to exist for a long period of time then there very well may be behaviors or traits among higher numbers of a group that support the reason that they are perceived to be that way.

Or the people who push the stereotypes continue to do so through conscious/unconscious bias.

It could be physical attributes, mental capacities, general behaviors and not only exist because of an individuals race but could also exist because of ones nationality, area of residence or even religion. But it still goes back to how a higher overall percentage of one group behaves or acts that causes such perception to exist.

I think you're missing something very obvious in your own point there - you're weighting perception (and thereby expectation) and linking it to "physical attributes, mental capacities". There's no racial element to those unless somebody tries to enforce one, e.g. Eugenics. We've definitely had a lot of discussion around that at this forum, you should read up on some of the facts and views.

I love how it always seems to come back to "white" privilege but yet as far as world human population numbers are concerned the white race is not a dominating percentage of that population by a long shot.

I'm not sure why you love it, and that's worrying in itself, but you're wildly misunderstanding what "white privilege" means. Black people can enforce white privilege too, in case you weren't aware. This is a good thread on the subject.

Should the white race be ashamed that the societies they have built have been successful as compared to the societies that may have been built by other races?

You have a peculiar obsession with race, that's for sure. Perhaps you should wonder if the practices of white Colonial nations are something we accept were wrong? Because we should. How we deal with that today is another matter of course.

Perhaps it is high time that the other races that claim to be affected quit blaming other races for their lack of success or even lack of respect and started engaging in behaviors and actions that earned them the recognition and respect they seem to crave so much rather than whining pointing fingers and blaming others over and over for their failures and shortcomings.

Those other races, just who do they think they are?

Respect and equality are traits that are earned through a persons actions and abilities

Respect, yes. Equality, no. Equality is earned by being another human, not just one who makes it through your assessed gatekeeping. That person can go on to lose respect but you can't tie that to equality so easily.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Those other races, just who do they think they are?

Could it be possibly whichever it is of the other races that make up the 80% or so of the worlds population that is not made up of the white race and for some reason always wants to blame the white race as not treating them equal?

I think you're missing something very obvious in your own point there - you're weighting perception (and thereby expectation) and linking it to "physical attributes, mental capacities". There's no racial element to those unless somebody tries to enforce one,

I think you overlook the obvious. such as "The Dinka people are often cited as being the tallest people on average in the world. A study conducted in 1995 found that Dinka men and women had a mean height of 5 feet 9 inches. This includes Manute Bol, who, at 7 feet 7 inches, was one of the tallest people to ever play for the NBA."
That height would be attributed to who they are as a race of people.

The British people are generally known worldwide for having bad teeth, both crooked and in a bad state of repair. Does that mean all British have bad teeth or only that a large enough percentage of the population exhibit such a trait that it is something that they as people are known to have in common with with their national population.

Those would be racial and ethnic group classifications I would believe.

In America Blacks make up roughly 13% of the total population of the country.

FACT: Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of the total homicides and crime in the United States.

Funny how that it is always said that racism against blacks is prevalent in the U.S. which makes the black crime rate and black prison population biased and appear unfairly weighted against the black race.

Seems that this chart of crime rates/ race/arrest and prison populations seem to show the exact same results and not being or having any of the influences of bias that SUPPOSEDLY the blacks in the U.S. are subjected too.


Racism against Blacks?
The myth of white privilege says that the police and the court system in the United States is guilty of systemic racism and bias and unfairly arrests and prosecutes blacks. Fortunately, there is an easy way to prove this isn’t true by looking at the population and crime records of another developed first world county that doesn’t have any of the biases the US system is accused of. Looking at the ethnic breakdown of the United Kingdom (England) we can see that blacks makeup 2.8% of the population. (The ethnic population of England and Wales broken down by local authority / archive)

The UK Government doesn’t provide a table of data the way the FBI does, they only present a graph, however by looking at it you can see the crime statistics are almost an exact match for the US statistics. The top graph is a representation of the total population, and blacks are represented by the small light blue sliver. The next line represents arrests, and you can see the light blue sliver is much bigger here, almost three times as big. The next line which represents convictions and the light blue sliver representing blacks is again almost three times the size of the first line. (Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2014 / archive)

UK Crime Statistics By Race
When we eliminated the US Justice System, which is accused of giving whites privilege and having a systemic racial bias, blacks still committed crimes disproportionally higher than their percentage of the population. The disproportionate rate that crimes are being committed in the US is almost identical to the rate it is in the UK, proving there is no bias in the US Criminal Justice system.

You have a peculiar obsession with race, that's for sure. Perhaps you should wonder if the practices of white Colonial nations are something we accept were wrong? Because we should. How we deal with that today is another matter of course.

Again you want to talk about "Colonial Whites" behavior but yet you tend to ignore the current modern day behaviors of many other races.
Why not look at the violence against the citizens that is currently taking place by the governments and rebel forces in Africa, the governments and drug cartels and gangs in South America, and the violence against certain tribes of people in the middle east countries because their beliefs may differ somewhat from another faction.
How about places like North Korea and or China where a person can be thrown in prison or even executed because they dare have a thought that does not align with the governments. Or they are physically detained under the threat of death of leaving the country period!

So lets forget about the Colonial times ********, the white privilege that 18% of the worlds population total supposedly has over the other 80% of the entire world population and concentrate on just why is it then that those that want to complain about how they are treated by such white population in such white dominated countries want to come to those white countries in droves and then complain they are mistreated.

This white privilege garbage and rhetoric has flat out gotten old! If you want to succeed then work your ass off and do it like the rest of the normal folks have done whether they are white, brown, yellow or black. Whining the white man is keeping you down and is not fair is not going to get you anywhere.

If the white man is so racist head back to one of the countries the white man does not run and does not have dominate population numbers, that will end you dealing with white privilege real quick.

But you do not want to do that, you want access to the success and prosperity that comes with living in the white dominated country while crying WHITE PRIVILEGE!

You want respect and equality go to work and earn it period!

 

[Danoff]

If the white man is so racist head back to one of the countries the white man does not run and does not have dominate population numbers, that will end you dealing with white privilege real quick.

But you do not want to do that, you want access to the success and prosperity that comes with living in the white dominated country while crying WHITE PRIVILEGE!

Donald? Is that you?

 

[ryzno]

Donald? Is that you?

He technically does have a point.
I've wondered for a good while why "white civilizations" have almost been destroyed by disease, enslaved ourselves and almost killed ourselves over god knows how many times and still come out doing better in the long run.
I've not wanted to bring this up and I don't know how to say this and not sound racist but, we must be doing something right...

I'm sure I'll lose a friend or two over this...

 

[Joey D]

If the white man is so racist head back to one of the countries the white man does not run and does not have dominate population numbers, that will end you dealing with white privilege real quick.

I mean Asia is a place. Japan, Singapore and South Korea all are pretty legit countries that are both prosperous and have a good quality of life. Isreal, for all its flaws, does have a pretty high Human Development Index as well.

I've wondered for a good while why "white civilizations" have almost been destroyed by disease, enslaved ourselves and almost killed ourselves over god knows how many times and still come out doing better in the long run.
I've not wanted to bring this up and I don't know how to say this and not sound racist but, we must be doing something right...

And yet "non-white" civilizations are older and have withstood the test of time longer. China alone is roughly 4,000 years old.

 

[Sander 001]

Could it be possibly whichever it is of the other races that make up the 80% or so of the worlds population that is not made up of the white race and for some reason always wants to blame the white race as not treating them equal?


I think you overlook the obvious. such as "The Dinka people are often cited as being the tallest people on average in the world. A study conducted in 1995 found that Dinka men and women had a mean height of 5 feet 9 inches. This includes Manute Bol, who, at 7 feet 7 inches, was one of the tallest people to ever play for the NBA."
That height would be attributed to who they are as a race of people.

The British people are generally known worldwide for having bad teeth, both crooked and in a bad state of repair. Does that mean all British have bad teeth or only that a large enough percentage of the population exhibit such a trait that it is something that they as people are known to have in common with with their national population.

Those would be racial and ethnic group classifications I would believe.

In America Blacks make up roughly 13% of the total population of the country.

FACT: Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks commit around half of the total homicides and crime in the United States.

Funny how that it is always said that racism against blacks is prevalent in the U.S. which makes the black crime rate and black prison population biased and appear unfairly weighted against the black race.

Seems that this chart of crime rates/ race/arrest and prison populations seem to show the exact same results and not being or having any of the influences of bias that SUPPOSEDLY the blacks in the U.S. are subjected too.


Racism against Blacks?
The myth of white privilege says that the police and the court system in the United States is guilty of systemic racism and bias and unfairly arrests and prosecutes blacks. Fortunately, there is an easy way to prove this isn’t true by looking at the population and crime records of another developed first world county that doesn’t have any of the biases the US system is accused of. Looking at the ethnic breakdown of the United Kingdom (England) we can see that blacks makeup 2.8% of the population. (The ethnic population of England and Wales broken down by local authority / archive)

The UK Government doesn’t provide a table of data the way the FBI does, they only present a graph, however by looking at it you can see the crime statistics are almost an exact match for the US statistics. The top graph is a representation of the total population, and blacks are represented by the small light blue sliver. The next line represents arrests, and you can see the light blue sliver is much bigger here, almost three times as big. The next line which represents convictions and the light blue sliver representing blacks is again almost three times the size of the first line. (Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2014 / archive)

UK Crime Statistics By Race
When we eliminated the US Justice System, which is accused of giving whites privilege and having a systemic racial bias, blacks still committed crimes disproportionally higher than their percentage of the population. The disproportionate rate that crimes are being committed in the US is almost identical to the rate it is in the UK, proving there is no bias in the US Criminal Justice system.
Again you want to talk about "Colonial Whites" behavior but yet you tend to ignore the current modern day behaviors of many other races.
Why not look at the violence against the citizens that is currently taking place by the governments and rebel forces in Africa, the governments and drug cartels and gangs in South America, and the violence against certain tribes of people in the middle east countries because their beliefs may differ somewhat from another faction.
How about places like North Korea and or China where a person can be thrown in prison or even executed because they dare have a thought that does not align with the governments. Or they are physically detained under the threat of death of leaving the country period!

So lets forget about the Colonial times ********, the white privilege that 18% of the worlds population total supposedly has over the other 80% of the entire world population and concentrate on just why is it then that those that want to complain about how they are treated by such white population in such white dominated countries want to come to those white countries in droves and then complain they are mistreated.

This white privilege garbage and rhetoric has flat out gotten old! If you want to succeed then work your ass off and do it like the rest of the normal folks have done whether they are white, brown, yellow or black. Whining the white man is keeping you down and is not fair is not going to get you anywhere.

If the white man is so racist head back to one of the countries the white man does not run and does not have dominate population numbers, that will end you dealing with white privilege real quick.

But you do not want to do that, you want access to the success and prosperity that comes with living in the white dominated country while crying WHITE PRIVILEGE!

You want respect and equality go to work and earn it period!

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I mean Asia is a place. Japan, Singapore and South Korea all are pretty legit countries that are both prosperous and have a good quality of life. Isreal, for all its flaws, does have a pretty high Human Development Index as well.

Actually I did leave out the wording "black" concerning a non white run or population dominated country.
I forgot that here with those involved, although the conversation has been almost exclusively about white privilege and racism by whites against the black race that if you do not spell it out exactly someone will try to twist it around!

And your little pie chart represents what? That whites a much larger percentage of the population are a larger percentage of the drug users, and that most laws in this country target those that Distribute drugs instead of the users and your chart again only proves that blacks even though a much smaller percentage of only 13% the population in this country are apparently the majority being arrested and convicted for illegal drug distribution in this country.

Again that just points out and verifies that by the numbers that a higher percentage of the black population sell more drugs and gets busted for it.
Nothing to lay blame or charge racism in that.

I know in my area every time that a major undercover drug sting is pulled off in neighboring cities and counties that roughly 80% of those arrested when they show the pictures on the evening local news are of blacks that have been arrested in the drug sting. This is not a one off, one time or one locality deal but repeated across the board and year after year. That is a result of choice in activity of those arrested and race has nothing to do with it. I do not think they give white people an undocumented pharmacist license either.

The excuses are getting old, own the behavior and the consequences that comes with the decision to follow the path you choose. That is the same regardless of what color you are!

 

[Joey D]

Actually I did leave out the wording "black" concerning a non white run or population dominated country.
I forgot that here with those involved, although the conversation has been almost exclusively about white privilege and racism by whites against the black race that if you do not spell it out exactly someone will try to twist it around!

I can't read your mind, I was only responding to what you typed out.

But if you're solely going with "blacks", I assume you mean sub-Sarahan Africa. There's a reason why those countries haven't really made a go of it yet and it has to do with colonialism. If you think about it, nearly the entire continent was "owned" by a European nation up through the 1970's.

It's kind of hard to turn a country around in a matter of 50 years when you've essentially been owned for hundreds of years, had your resources exploited, had your population sold into slavery, etc. Africa is an emerging continent and will probably be in good shape in 50 years time or at the very least by 2100.

There are a few sub-Sarahan African nations that are considered "high" on the HDI too, which is a pretty good indication things are going somewhat well for them.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I can't read your mind, I was only responding to what you typed out.

But if you're solely going with "blacks", I assume you mean sub-Sarahan Africa. There's a reason why those countries haven't really made a go of it yet and it has to do with colonialism. If you think about it, nearly the entire continent was "owned" by a European nation up through the 1970's.

So using that line of thought why was it the white explorers seemed to always be more advanced and always took over the black populated nations? Why were not some of the black nations the dominating forces that took over white nations?
Also we have Asian and Middle Eastern societies from back in the biblical times and they seemed to have held their own with the white race.
So are we again making yet even more excuses for the black race not succeeding as compared to the other races and now it is just not being blamed on the U.S. and slavery within that country but now it is the white mans fault WORLDWIDE and has been since the beginning of time! I appreciate the laugh I got out of that one!

 

[Joey D]

So using that line of thought why was it the white explorers seemed to always be more advanced and always took over the black populated nations? Why were not some of the black nations the dominating forces that took over white nations?

White civilizations weren't always more advanced. That's a bunch of crap early anthropologists pushed because they thought these civilizations were "savages". I won't get into all of it because it's not exactly the most exciting topic.

But in short, there were several advanced civilizations in sub-Saharan Africa. The Nok culture is considered to be fairly advanced for its time. There are several others too if you want to Google "African Kingdoms". And the reason European nations ended up taking them over is that one side had guns, cannons, armour, and disease while the other had spears, bow/arrows, and no resistance to European illnesses. It's pretty easy to invade and take over a population when you can just roll in and mow them down with muskets.

Also we have Asian and Middle Eastern societies from back in the biblical times and they seemed to have held their own with the white race.

No, they haven't. Even in recent history, this is completely false. The British alone held India, Singapore, Hong Kong, most of the Pacific Islands, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Aden (Yeman), and a ton of other places. Places not owned by the British were colonized by the French, Dutch, and other, predominantly white European nations.

So are we again making yet even more excuses for the black race not succeeding as compared to the other races and now it is just not being blamed on the U.S. and slavery within that country but now it is the white mans fault WORLDWIDE and has been since the beginning of time! I appreciate the laugh I got out of that one!

I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said, but you're wrong here too. Blacks, as in Sub-Saharan Africans, have had numerous civilizations that have been successful. The reason modern Sub-Saharan Africa isn't on par with say, Europe, is due to colonization and exploitation of resources. It takes time to recover and you're going to end up with some terrible leaders as a result.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

White civilizations weren't always more advanced.

And the reason European nations ended up taking them over is that one side had guns, cannons, armour, and disease while the other had spears, bow/arrows, and no resistance to European illnesses. It's pretty easy to invade and take over a population when you can just roll in and mow them down with muskets.

You say out of one side of your mouth that white civilizations were not always more advanced and then your next statement contradicts that saying that the whites had more advanced weapons and mowed them down.
If you are blaming the whites technology for the reason they ruled the blacks then I would say the whites were a more advanced civilization.
Then you blame it on European illnesses as if the Europeans did not face tropical illnesses that they were not immune to catching visiting non native to them foreign lands.

No, they haven't. Even in recent history, this is completely false. The British alone held India, Singapore, Hong Kong, most of the Pacific Islands, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Aden (Yeman), and a ton of other places. Places not owned by the British were colonized by the French, Dutch, and other, predominantly white European nations.

Well now it even gets more interesting as if these other races were subjected to the same rule in their early times as the blacks why are they now successful but yet there are still excuses being made for the blacks lacks of success?

I'm not sure how you got that out of what I said, but you're wrong here too. Blacks, as in Sub-Saharan Africans, have had numerous civilizations that have been successful. The reason modern Sub-Saharan Africa isn't on par with say, Europe, is due to colonization and exploitation of resources. It takes time to recover and you're going to end up with some terrible leaders as a result.

Well above you claim the Asians, Pacific Islanders, India Indians were subjected to the same as the Sub Saharan Blacks but yet the again the other groups and races seem to have come much further than the black race. And of course you are still blaming the whites for the blacks failures or lack of success so are you then I guess giving the whites credit for the others successes?

According to you the whites apparently have dictated all the economies of the entire world since the beginning I guess. Pretty good achievement for such a small percentage of the population that traveled throughout many parts of the world with what they could carry on a few ships!
You at least need to pick one side of the equation and quit trying to play both sides against the other each time you open your mouth to say something.

 

[mustafur]

If your not from Eurasia Geography didn't work out for you for thousands of years, the Sub Saharan Africans had to cross the biggest desert on Earth just to get to Eurasia that is major Handicap for development that is still seen today.

 

[Joey D]

Since you like moving the goalposts, I'm going to ignore most of that.

According to you the whites apparently have dictated all the economies of the entire world since the beginning I guess. Pretty good achievement for such a small percentage of the population that traveled throughout many parts of the world with what they could carry on a few ships!
You at least need to pick one side of the equation and quit trying to play both sides against the other each time you open your mouth to say something.

Christ on a cracker. I'm not sure how you seem to think that I even remotely said that whites dictated the economies of anything since the beginning (whenever that was), but here we are.

European colonization of the world one really goes back a few hundred years. Given that civilizations are thousands and thousands of years old. In the past, you've made the frankly racist comment that blacks aren't capable of successfully running a country (and you implied it again a few posts ago). I'm saying the reason modern nations populated by predominately black (or more correct Sub-Saharan Africans) seem to be less successful due to colonialism from Europeans.

If you look at all of known human history, there have been several successful civilizations in Sub-Saharan Africa that worked very well, which shows "blacks" can be very successful. However, if you factor in hundreds of years of exploitation and abrupt removal of colonial power, it's easy to see why Africa has such a hard time of it now.

To suggest that blacks somehow don't work as hard as whites is asinine and frankly racist. Race has nothing to do with work ethic.