00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

deadenddraws just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Race Relations in the United States

14,812 Views | 149 Replies

With the Michael Brown shooting being in the news for the past few weeks, and the incredible aftermath (riots, protests, demonstrations, looting, vandalism), I would like to discuss race relations in our country. I would like to hear other people's opinions on the whole of racism in general.

What racial tension exists today?
Is racism exaggerated in the media?
Is it worse in some areas than others?
Is there a bias or prejudice towards certain races in our society?
Do you agree with federal intervention to stop racism (hate crimes, campaigns, Affirmative Action, etc)
Is there any special treatment or favoring of one race in our legal system?

This should be an INTELLIGENT and POLITE conversation.

Image found at www.wach.com

Race Relations in the United States


By The One And Only AKMan2

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-11-29 18:18:45


At 11/29/14 12:54 PM, AKMan2 wrote: What racial tension exists today?

It's increasingly portrayed as whites vs. everyone else. Everybody is quick to point the finger and say there is only one race that can be racist; all others are oppressed, which I think gets us nowhere.

Is racism exaggerated in the media?

No, it does exist but people look for it where it isn't.

Is there a bias or prejudice towards certain races in our society?

There are positive and negative biases for all races. Whites are positively biased as strong and powerful, but negatively biased as racist. Blacks are positively biased as cool and tolerant, but negatively biased as criminals. Asians are positively biased as hard workers, but negatively biased as too strict and bad drivers. Racism exists, but I absolutely reject the notion that some races are more racist than others.

Do you agree with federal intervention to stop racism (hate crimes, campaigns, Affirmative Action, etc)

Affirmative Action should be based off of wealth, not race. It creates false dichotomies (black =/= rich, white =/= poor.)

Is there any special treatment or favoring of one race in our legal system?

I can't say for sure, but every single race has its own privilege, whites included.

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-11-30 00:31:08


At 11/29/14 12:54 PM, AKMan2 wrote: What racial tension exists today?

Generally racial tension exists in poorer areas. Many poor people turn to crime because they are denied opprutunites.

Minority of minority turns to crime ----> Minority as a whole is judged ----> Said Minority is denied opprutunities ----> Said people cause crime because they have no other option.

Is racism exaggerated in the media?

I think that it is over-exggerated in the Ferguson case. They fail to see Ferguson is just like any other St. Louis county. They make it seem like a police state.

Is it worse in some areas than others?

Yes.

Is there a bias or prejudice towards certain races in our society?

Yup.

Do you agree with federal intervention to stop racism (hate crimes, campaigns, Affirmative Action, etc)

No. The government silencing a group (negative or positive) for their opinions is unconstitutional.

Is there any special treatment or favoring of one race in our legal system?

Definitely.


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-11-30 04:48:32


The way it looks and feels from the outside in (I am Australian) is that its ever increasing "The people" vs "Authorities". While yes it has fired up race relations again, I think the people of America are starting to become wiser when it comes to the medias magic tricks

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-11-30 10:59:16


At 11/29/14 12:54 PM, AKMan2 wrote: What racial tension exists today?

A shit ton, and it's a heck of a lot more complex than people like to believe.

Is racism exaggerated in the media?

No. If anything the media likes to smooth everything out and dull the racism.

Is it worse in some areas than others?

I'd say no. It is different in different areas, but not worse. Certain parts of the country are much more confortable with overt acts of racism. The remaining parts of the country are equally racist, but tend to act on it in more subtle, but equally harmful, ways.

Is there a bias or prejudice towards certain races in our society?

Yes. White people have numerous benefits in their lives that people of color do not. Converse to that, people of color have many obstacles that white people do not.

Do you agree with federal intervention to stop racism (hate crimes, campaigns, Affirmative Action, etc)

I see no problem with them. Hate crime legislation is important when executed properly because hate crimes are a very dangerous form of terrorism.

Is there any special treatment or favoring of one race in our legal system?

Being part of the system, I'd like to say no. However, it's difficult to disagree with the numbers.

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-11-30 14:57:15


Korriken has it right. The two biggest manufacturers of racial tension are Sharpton and Jackson, as evidenced in Ferguson. Neither of those 2 cocksuckers condemned the violence that erupted. There is such a thing as racism towards whites (no matter how much liberals try to deny it). I think there's even a black supremacist group out there.

And the media? UGH. Racism = ratings.

One things for sure: Ferguson has set race relations back about 40 years.


That's right I like guns and ponies. NO NEW GUN CONTROL.

Politically correct is anything that leftists believe.Politically incorrect is anything common sense.

BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-11-30 15:48:53


At 11/29/14 12:54 PM, AKMan2 wrote: What racial tension exists today?

I don't think that anyone can say that racism doesn't exist today. The problem it has become every other race vs. whites and the perpetual stereotype that whites are rich and everyone else is poor keeps rearing itself.

Is racism exaggerated in the media?

Yes and no. There are many race-baiters out there who are willing to use the race card in order to either "stick it to the man" or continue to promote stereotypes as an acceptable way of life. That said, we've gotten a long way from the Civil Rights era, and we are certainly ahead of the curve compared to much of the world, not by much, but still.

Is it worse in some areas than others?

I think that would be quite obvious that in the more poorer areas and some parts of the south, people tend to be more tolerant (at least in private) of racist behavior than in more urban areas, but that's not always a hard and fast rule. Cincinnati is a good example on how a modern, realitively well-off city can have turbulent racial relations. It's roughly 50/50 white and black, and although they are technically part of the Midwest, they have more of a Southern mentality towards life than everyone else (which is a big sticking point with Ohioans, but I digress) and there has been more than a few cases of race riots within the city. (2001 comes to mind)

Is there a bias or prejudice towards certain races in our society?

All races have biases towards other races, but because whites are the majority, their biases/prejudices tend to show up the most in the media.

Do you agree with federal intervention to stop racism (hate crimes, campaigns, Affirmative Action, etc)

I'm all for hate crimes and campaigns against racism, (though it does get tricky with the First Amendment in play for non-violent racism) but AA doesn't seem to be working. Admittedly, I have little knowledge on AA so i won't comment any further, but it's safe to say that it's a mixed bag.

Is there any special treatment or favoring of one race in our legal system?

Whites in general are more favored and privileged than others, but that doesn't mean that others don't have their own sets of beneficial treatment themselves. In turn, the perceived responsibilities for white people are also much higher than everyone else, though it's not a hard and fast rule.

When it comes to race relations in general, this isn't a black and white issue, (pardon the pun) and everyone has their biases and other weaknesses to address. We've gone a long way from 25 years ago, much less the CIvil Rights Era, but we still have much to do.


Just stop worrying, and love the bomb.

BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-11-30 18:11:01


those that are racist belong in the dark ages


The High Bunny Council Awaits

BBS Signature

MSNBC and Al Sharpton are responsible for the poor race relations. Next to no one watches that racist fake News channel, but I think a large portion of African Americans watch that horrible channel. They have made it a race war between whites and blacks. MSNBC is liberal propaganda and should be taken off tv. MSNBC should be held responsible for the riots that occurred in Ferguson and insurance companies should sue MSNBC for inciting riots. If I owned ann insurance company I would be suing MSNBC and Michael Brown's step-father for inciting riots.


Jesus Christ the one True God of Love and Peace.

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-11-30 20:41:49


You guys heard that right, racism in this country has nothing to do with prejudice or attitudes among white people and others, it's because Al Sharpton is telling black people that people are racist against them and it's exclusively his and MSNBC's fault that the Ferguson riots are going on. It has nothing to do with the fact that black people are more likely to get convicted for drug charges even though white people are caught more often or the fact that this isn't even the first incident in Ferguson where cops were being a bit brutally racist. It's all Al Sharpton's fault.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.

" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-11-30 21:55:11


At 11/30/14 08:15 PM, TheKlown wrote: MSNBC and Al Sharpton are responsible for the poor race relations.

Riiight....because everything was fine before they came along....*eye rollie*.

Next to no one watches that racist fake News channel,

If no one watched, it wouldn't air. So either you're too dim to grasp basic principles, or you're sensationalizing for your point, or your trolling. None of those are good.

but I think a large portion of African Americans watch that horrible channel.

Based on what exactly? This is gonna be good....

They have made it a race war between whites and blacks.

Nah, I think the continuing mistrust built off of years of hostility and the fact that one race made the other subservient for hundreds of years, then even after freeing them denied them full equality and trust after they were freed was a bigger factor then a cable news channel.

MSNBC is liberal propaganda and should be taken off tv.

If I change just a couple words, I can reverse this for conservatives too. Heavily biased propaganda channels of ALL stripes should be gone, and they certainly shouldn't be able to call themselves "news". On that, we agree.

MSNBC should be held responsible for the riots that occurred in Ferguson and insurance companies should sue MSNBC for inciting riots. If I owned ann insurance company I would be suing MSNBC and Michael Brown's step-father for inciting riots.

Again, either misinformed, troll, or just plain stupid. Which would you like to cop to? Because there is no 4th option.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-02 01:28:15


At 11/30/14 12:55 PM, Korriken wrote:
At 11/29/14 12:54 PM, AKMan2 wrote:
Depends on where you live. Some places are definitely biased towards whites, some places biased towards blacks, etc.

Take, for instance, when I lived in a town about 30 miles south of Albuqerque. It had massive crime, serial killers, drug cartels-men, etc. They even fired all of the police force back in 2009. The town was about 80% Hispanic, and most of the whites were old ww2 vets, so growing up there, I was a minority in school. I'm not going to tl;dr post but to sum up, a lot of the students treated me like a second-class citizen.

There were about 5 major families which most people belonged to. If you got in a fight with a Chavez, you could guarantee you'd make 200+ enemies, who have access to guns. The police were often incompetent and corrupt, even before the crisis..

The staff in the schools, being part of the big 5, often were extremely corrupt themselves. They also singled me out all the time because I was very unpopular (being non-religious in a 90% catholic town), along with being the computer nerd, when most of the students were in poverty..

For instance, back in 07 one of my best friends, Aaron was this short, akward African American bloke. One of the ghetto scumbags punched him in the nose, causing severe bleeding. It took 6 minutes for staff to get the situation addressed. The douchebag who broke his nose, he only got 3 days suspension, when he should've been sent to jail.

Caucasians have our history of racism, and it's still alive in the south lol, but everywhere else it's not much of a problem at all anymore. Plus you got liberals who white knight minorities like crazy.
Anyways, hate crime policies serve to protect minorities, but I bet you green money if I got socked by a ghetto thug from Los lunas noone would be defending or standing up for me.

TL;DR, every race is capable of racism obviously, and in 'new' mexico, it is especially prevalent.

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-04 17:34:01


At 11/30/14 08:41 PM, Warforger wrote: It has nothing to do with the fact that black people are more likely to get convicted for drug charges even though white people are caught more often

No proof this is due to racism, and it's this kind of idiotic knee-jerk tribalistic reaction that is the problem in the first place.

or the fact that this isn't even the first incident in Ferguson where cops were being a bit brutally racist.

Excuse me? How exactly have the cops acted "brutally racist"?


BBS Signature

Of course the poor state of race relations in America is not single-handedly down to Al Sharpton (or anyone else for that matter), but his kind of rhetoric is extremely toxic and the more influence people such as himself have the worse the racial situation will become.

A lot of anti-white progressives would otherwise be sympathetic to this were it not for their hatred of white people and their belief that white people are to blame for everything bad that happens to minorities. So to illustrate the toxicity of people like Sharpton, in addition to the violently tribalistic mindset of many black people, let us look at the Crown Heights race riots:

On Monday 8/19/91 a station wagon driven by Yosef Lifsh hit another car and bounced onto the sidewalk at 8:21 p.m. The station wagon was part of a 3-car motorcade carrying the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Schneerson. The Rebbe was in a different car. The station wagon struck two black children, 7-year-old cousins, Gavin and Angela Cato, who were on the sidewalk. Lifsh immediately got out of his car and tried to help the children, but the gathering crowd started to attack him.

Within minutes, an ambulance from the Hasidic-run ambulance service and two from the city's Emergency Medical Service arrived. The gathering crowd became more unruly. The police who showed up radioed for backup, reporting the station wagon’s driver and passengers were being assaulted. Police officer Nona Capace ordered the Hasidic ambulance to remove the battered Yosef Lifsh and his passenger from the scene.

The injured children went by separate city ambulances to Kings County Hospital. Tragically, Gavin Cato was pronounced dead; his cousin survived.

A false rumor began to spread that the Hasidic ambulance crew had ignored the dying black child in favor of treating the Jewish men. This falsehood was later used by Al Sharpton to incite the crowd.

Other rumors sprang up; some said Lifsh was intoxicated (breath alcohol test administered by the police proved his sobriety). More falsehoods circulated; Lifsh did not have a valid driver's license; he went through a red light; the police prevented people including Gavin Cato's father, from assisting in the rescue.

Charles Price, an area resident who had come to the scene of the accident, incited the masses with claims that, "The Jews get everything they want. They're killing our children." Price later pled guilty for inciting the crowd to murder Yankel Rosenbaum.

Ignited by the falsehoods, resentment exploded into violence. Groups of young black men threw rocks, bottles and debris at police, residents and homes. According to the New York Times, more than 250 neighborhood residents went on a rampage that first night, mostly black teenagers, many of whom were shouting "Jews! Jews! Jews!"

Three hours after the tragic crash, 29-year-old Australian Jewish scholar Yankel Rosenbaum was attacked by a gang of Black teens. He was stabbed four times. Cops quickly arrested Lemrick Nelson, who was identified by Rosenbaum as his attacker. Rosenbaum's wounds were not fatal; he was expected to recover. Mayor Dinkins visited Rosenbaum at the hospital. But Rosenbaum died at 2:30 a.m. Tuesday because the hospital staff missed one of his knife wounds. Despite some claims, Al Sharpton had nothing to do with the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum.

he next evening, according to the sworn testimony of Efraim Lipkind, a former Hasidic resident of Crown Heights, Sharpton started agitating the crowd.

“Then we had a famous man, Al Sharpton, who came down, and he said Tuesday night, kill the Jews, two times. I heard him, and he started to lead a charge across the street to Utica.”

With each passing hour the violence worsened. Jewish leaders began to desperately complain about the lack of protection to the authorities. They said the rioters were being allowed to rampage unchecked, too little force was being brought to bear, and too few arrests were being made. Area Jews felt the police were under orders by the City’s first black mayor to hold back, that the police were not allowed to fight against the black rioters, who continued to grow bolder in their anti-Semitic attacks as they sensed the appeasement.

New York City Mayor David Dinkins responded to the riot immediately by deploying 2,000 police officers and making a personal visit to the troubled neighborhood under a hail of rocks and epithets hurled at him by fellow blacks. Dinkins has spoken of his own mishandling of the riots, admitting he “screwed up Crown Heights.”

“I regret not saying to the police brass sooner whatever you guys are doing is not working.” It was then they altered their behavior and they were able to contain the ravaging young blacks who were attacking Jews … I will forever be accused of holding back the police and permitted blacks to attack Jews. However that did not happen; it is just inaccurate.”

In all, the street violence against the Crown Heights Jews lasted three days/four nights starting with the evening of the accident. On Thursday evening, the police finally restored order, although sporadic violence against Jews continued for weeks after the riot was contained.

Yankel Rosenbaum wasn't the only person murdered by the rioters. On September 5th, Italian-American Anthony Graziosi, was dragged out of his car, brutally beaten and stabbed to death because his full beard and dark clothing caused him to be mistaken for a Hasidic Jew. During the funeral of Gavin Cato on August 26th, Al Sharpton gave an anti-Semitic eulogy, which fueled the fires of hatred.

“The world will tell us he was killed by accident. Yes, it was a social accident. ... It's an accident to allow an apartheid ambulance service in the middle of Crown Heights. ... Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights. The issue is not anti-Semitism; the issue is apartheid. ... All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise, no meetings, no kaffe klatsch, no skinnin' and grinnin'. Pay for your deeds."

Regarding the Mayor's call for peace, Sharpton pontificated:

"They don't want peace, they want quiet."

Sharpton and the lawyer representing the Cato family counseled them not to cooperate with authorities in the investigation and demanded a special prosecutor be named.

When Sharpton was asked about the violence, he justified it:

“We must not reprimand our children for outrage, when it is the outrage that was put in them by an oppressive system," he said.

The first Sabbath after the funeral Sharpton tried unsuccessfully to kick up tensions again by marching 400 protesters in front of the Lubavitch of Crown Heights, shouting “No Justice, No Peace." Sharpton called for the arrest of Lifsh, the driver of the station wagon. He stated this despite the fact that more than twenty similarly accidental vehicular deaths had occurred in Brooklyn since 1989 without a single arrest, several involving local Hasidim run down by blacks. The agitator’s pressure triggered Charles Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney, to convene a grand jury.

continue reading here


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-04 18:56:18


At 11/30/14 12:31 AM, coaliscool42 wrote: Minority of minority turns to crime ----> Minority as a whole is judged ----> Said Minority is denied opprutunities ----> Said people cause crime because they have no other option.

1. Blacks commit more crime than other races per captia even when you control for income, employment and education. Black crime rates are higher in america than those of many people in other countries who are much poorer.

2. Poor black males commit the highest rate of forceful rape in america per capita, are you saying that their relative lack of wealth/opportunity means they have "no option" but to rape women? Because that's kind of disturbing and misogynistic to me.

3. To the extent that blacks have less opportunity, its largely due to their own choices such as committing higher rates of crime, having children outside of marriage etc. Their relative lack of wealth causes white people to offer more opportunities to blacks because they feel sorry for black people


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-04 19:18:52


At 12/4/14 06:56 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
At 11/30/14 12:31 AM, coaliscool42 wrote: Minority of minority turns to crime ----> Minority as a whole is judged ----> Said Minority is denied opprutunities ----> Said people cause crime because they have no other option.
1. Blacks commit more crime than other races per captia even when you control for income, employment and education. Black crime rates are higher in america than those of many people in other countries who are much poorer.

Do you think there could be a reason for this. The white European immigrants who came to America in the early 1900s were some of the poorest people in America for a long time. They were judged and denied opportunities because of this. Would Al Capone have turned to crime if he was born into an upper middle-class family? Probably not.

Can you name a country where a similar amount of blacks live compared to the general population? Can you also give me data on the crime committed by the blacks?

2. Poor black males commit the highest rate of forceful rape in america per capita, are you saying that their relative lack of wealth/opportunity means they have "no option" but to rape women? Because that's kind of disturbing and misogynistic to me.

I never said what they do is justified. I said they were more likely to do said things because of the way they grew up/live. I am not saying committing crime is okay.

3. To the extent that blacks have less opportunity, its largely due to their own choices such as committing higher rates of crime, having children outside of marriage etc. Their relative lack of wealth causes white people to offer more opportunities to blacks because they feel sorry for black people

Yeah, i'm sure Africa being colonized was "their fault". Its not like the people who colonized Africa were better off because of luck. I'm sure Africans being sold into slavery was "their fault". They should have just invented guns to shoot back. I'm sure being forcefully taken to America was by choice. Segregation was their fault.

Blacks are 33% less likely to get a job interview if they have a enthinicly black name. Keep in mind white names (with the same qualifications on resumes) were more likely to get an interview.

But i'm sure its because its "there fault".

Don't deny black people opportunities by judging them as a whole.


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-04 20:03:03


At 12/4/14 07:18 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Do you think there could be a reason for this. The white European immigrants who came to America in the early 1900s were some of the poorest people in America for a long time. They were judged and denied opportunities because of this.
Would Al Capone have turned to crime if he was born into an upper middle-class family? Probably not.

Capone actually came from a good, albeit, lower-class, family. Capone became a criminal for wealth and power.

Can you name a country where a similar amount of blacks live compared to the general population? Can you also give me data on the crime committed by the blacks?
I never said what they do is justified. I said they were more likely to do said things because of the way they grew up/live. I am not saying committing crime is okay.

You're saying they have no option but to rape. Why?

Yeah, i'm sure Africa being colonized was "their fault".

What on earth does that have to do with modern-day african americans?

And colonization has made Africa and its populations much wealthier than it/they ever would have been even if you oppose it for non-economic reasons.

Its not like the people who colonized Africa were better off because of luck.

yes they were able to conquer nearly the entire planet due to 'luck'.

I'm sure Africans being sold into slavery was "their fault".

They were sold into slavery by Africans so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

They should have just invented guns to shoot back.

Yes god came down from heaven and gave europeans their advanced technology.

I'm sure being forcefully taken to America was by choice. Segregation was their fault.

Blaming slavery for the current conditions faced by african-americans is dumb and without logical foundation.

As for segregation: Compared with today, black had lower illegitimacy, lower incarceration and higher business ownership. You can oppose segregation but I'm not sure how it could possibly be used to explain the current situation of African-americans.

Blacks are 33% less likely to get a job interview if they have a enthinicly black name. Keep in mind white names (with the same qualifications on resumes) were more likely to get an interview.

Black people are more likely to get into top colleges than other races with the same qualifications. But I'm sure this is actually secrectly part of the racist conspiracy, somehow.


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-04 20:57:36


At 12/4/14 08:03 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
At 12/4/14 07:18 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Do you think there could be a reason for this. The white European immigrants who came to America in the early 1900s were some of the poorest people in America for a long time. They were judged and denied opportunities because of this.
Would Al Capone have turned to crime if he was born into an upper middle-class family? Probably not.
Capone actually came from a good, albeit, lower-class, family. Capone became a criminal for wealth and power.

He was also treated like a scum because he was Italian. Many Italians in Brooklyn were making 4$ a month working shitty unskilled labor jobs.

Can you name a country where a similar amount of blacks live compared to the general population? Can you also give me data on the crime committed by the blacks?

(You ignored this)

I never said what they do is justified. I said they were more likely to do said things because of the way they grew up/live. I am not saying committing crime is okay.
You're saying they have no option but to rape. Why?

No, I said they were more likely because of external forces. I'm not saying every black person is a crack dealing rapist.

Yeah, i'm sure Africa being colonized was "their fault".
What on earth does that have to do with modern-day african americans?

A lot. Its the reason segregation happened, and racism against blacks exists today.

And colonization has made Africa and its populations much wealthier than it/they ever would have been even if you oppose it for non-economic reasons.

Correction: It made the people who settled there wealthier.

Before colonization, the Congo, held many tribes who were free to live happly in individual societys. During Belgian colonozation not so much.

In fact, the Congo had a bloody civil war in the 00s that killed 2.7-5.4 MILLION people. About the population of Norway.

Its not like the people who colonized Africa were better off because of luck.
yes they were able to conquer nearly the entire planet due to 'luck'.

Yeah, I agree. It's not like Europeans were severely advantaged because of good agriculture, surplus, and sea ports.

</sarcasm>

Heres an example from the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Many people assume Haiti is not as well off as the Dominican Republic because there just stupid islanders.

The reason the Dominican Republic is better off than Haiti is because of a mountain range. Water flows off the mountain range to the Dominican Republic side and not to Haiti therefore creating good farming for one side. The other side not so much.

This lead Haiti to become the poor nation it is today because of its bad luck in placement. Society are based on luck.

I'm sure Africans being sold into slavery was "their fault".
They were sold into slavery by Africans so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

To bring up the Congo again, many Africans were mutilated for not picking crops fast enough by the belgians (not the Congolese).

But I do see your point here, some (key word some) were sold by tribe leaders.

They should have just invented guns to shoot back.
Yes god came down from heaven and gave europeans their advanced technology.

They were in the right circumstances to make them because of luck and surplus.

I'm sure being forcefully taken to America was by choice. Segregation was their fault.
Blaming slavery for the current conditions faced by african-americans is dumb and without logical foundation.

Are you saying it has no effect today? It is pretty much the absolute basis of racism against African Americans today.

As for segregation: Compared with today, black had lower illegitimacy, lower incarceration and higher business ownership. You can oppose segregation but I'm not sure how it could possibly be used to explain the current situation of African-americans.

People are racist. They in turn deny blacks opportunities, they become unsuccessful.

Blacks are 33% less likely to get a job interview if they have a enthinicly black name. Keep in mind white names (with the same qualifications on resumes) were more likely to get an interview.
Black people are more likely to get into top colleges than other races with the same qualifications. But I'm sure this is actually secretly part of the racist conspiracy, somehow.

You know why that is? Racism. Colleges under value disadvantaged blacks and assume they can't be successful. They have conformation basis by few blacks applying.

People get mad because few blacks apply. They then choose to accept under qualified because it shows they value "diversity".

I don't really believe are opinions are going to change on this. I suggest you read this.


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-05 11:37:35


First off, don't argue with SadisticMonkey about racism. He wholeheartedly believes black people are the cause of all of the world's problems.

Second, you're having a difficult time framing the issue. You're trying to talk about white privilege without actually discussing it. I don't blame you as the term white privilege tends to bring out the dumb who cannot understand any concept more difficult than 1+1=2, as well as quick knee jerk reactions from many others. However, you cannot have an actual discussion of race in this country without talking about it.

There is a huge misconception as to what white privilege actually means. People quickly respond to the term by saying, "what about white people who have it tough?" and "So that means white people did not earn what they got?" Both of these statements are wrong and do little other than reflect a lack of understanding about how it works. I will not deny that there are some on the minority side who want it to mean this.

What white privilege means is that life is hard, but whtie people have numerous benefits all along the way in this country. White people do not have to worry about racial profiling. White people have easier social interactions with the majority of Americans (e.g. they rarely face the "let's cross the street to avoid these people" interaction). White names are treated better in housing, hiring, and promotion. White people aren't expected by many to have a broken family. The list goes on.

What this does NOT mean is that white people have it good, or that white people don't earn anything. There are tons of white people who have it shitty. I know, these sorts represent the bulk of my client base. Life is really difficult, and no amount of white privilege can change that (though certain other privileges can, like wealth). What privilege means is that if a white person and a black person had the same exact life and made the same exact choices at the same exact times, the white person would end up better off (though, not necessarily by much). Privilege does not take away from accomplishments (well, most accomplishments) that the privilege class achieves. This only means that the opportunities the privileged class has may be greater. Privilege does not detract from what one does with the opportunities they are given.

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-05 23:40:57


At 12/4/14 05:34 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No proof this is due to racism, and it's this kind of idiotic knee-jerk tribalistic reaction that is the problem in the first place.

So black people getting convicted more often for a crime for which white people are caught more often has nothing to do with racism.

Excuse me? How exactly have the cops acted "brutally racist"?

Well let's see.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html

Perhaps police brutality is a better word. But then again these aren't the brightest tools in the shed we're dealing with.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.

" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature

At 12/4/14 08:57 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Many Italians in Brooklyn were making 4$ a month working shitty unskilled labor jobs.

Compared to what though?

What a dumb analogy.

No, I said they were more likely because of external forces.

No, idiot, you literally said they "have no option".

A lot. Its the reason segregation happened, and racism against blacks exists today.

Wtf?

Before colonization, the Congo, held many tribes who were free to live happly in individual societys. During Belgian colonozation not so much.

I said economically better and you disprove this by pointing to a bunch of primitive tribes who lacked any kind of industrialization whatsoever?

In fact, the Congo had a bloody civil war in the 00s that killed 2.7-5.4 MILLION people. About the population of Norway.

So yeah, that supposedly idyllic pre-colonial life was existent because of a lack of technology and a lack of centralized state which which to control the country. Not really Europeans fault except in the same sense as it being an adults fault if a child hurts themselves with a dangerous toy given to them by the adult.

Yeah, I agree. It's not like Europeans were severely advantaged because of good agriculture, surplus, and sea ports.

</sarcasm>

So the differences between European and African environments were enough to mean the difference between the most advanced civilization in history and a lack of civilization altogether, but remarkably they were not different enough to provide any difference in selective pressures whatsoever (beyond the simply cosmetic). Nice logic.

The reason the Dominican Republic is better off than Haiti is because of a mountain range. Water flows off the mountain range to the Dominican Republic side and not to Haiti therefore creating good farming for one side. The other side not so much.

yes I'm sure it has nothing to do with the european admixture of the majority of the population. Funny how Europeans can go to any country in the world, even those without good conditions for farming, and make it wealthier.

This lead Haiti to become the poor nation it is today because of its bad luck in placement. Society are based on luck.

before european settlement, rhodesia was an undeveloped region populated largely by hunter-gather tribes. After European settlement, Rhodesia became known as the 'bread basket of africa' due to its agricultural output.

To bring up the Congo again, many Africans were mutilated for not picking crops fast enough by the belgians (not the Congolese).

What does that have to do with what I just said?

Are you saying it has no effect today? It is pretty much the absolute basis of racism against African Americans today.

Do you have any proof that 'racism' (whatever the heck that even means) is a serious problem faced by most blacks in america and that it is the source of their problems?

The vast majority of interracial violent crime is committed by black people against whites. Wow, whites really are awful to blacks.

People are racist. They in turn deny blacks opportunities, they become unsuccessful.

This didn't address my points. What does this have to do with segregation.

You know why that is? Racism. Colleges under value disadvantaged blacks and assume they can't be successful. They have conformation basis by few blacks applying.
People get mad because few blacks apply. They then choose to accept under qualified because it shows they value "diversity".

They assume they can't be successful because they have lower grades and other indicators of success, and so you're getting upset at colleges treating applicants equally without concern for race.


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-06 07:40:51


At 12/5/14 11:37 AM, Camarohusky wrote: First off, don't argue with SadisticMonkey about racism. He wholeheartedly believes black people are the cause of all of the world's problems.

No i don't. Blacks and progressives etc. actually literalyl do think all the world's problems are caused by white people and I explain how they're not.

Second, you're having a difficult time framing the issue. You're trying to talk about white privilege without actually discussing it. I don't blame you as the term white privilege tends to bring out the dumb who cannot understand any concept more difficult than 1+1=2, as well as quick knee jerk reactions from many others. However, you cannot have an actual discussion of race in this country without talking about it.

White privilege is unfalsifiable garbage used to rationalize the failure of civil rights in achieving racial equality. People who speak about white privilege act as though its existence as a hypothesis proves its validity and that people disagreeing with it as an accurate explanation of reality proves that they are racist.

Also, the idiotic progressive idea of wanting a 'discussion of race'. A discussion involves two sides. Progressives just want to browbeat white people into submission and prevent them from defending themselves or having a dissenting opinion. Some discussion.

What white privilege means is that life is hard, but whtie people have numerous benefits all along the way in this country. White people do not have to worry about racial profiling.

The black/white violent crime ratio is approximately the male/female violent crime ratio in america. Men undeniably receive more police attention than women because of their much greater likelihood of committing crimes. Men also have a MUCH greater incarceration rate than women and receive longer sentences than women for the same crimes. And yet, if I were to discuss this issue as being an example of 'female privilege' progressives would have a fucking aneurism.

White people have easier social interactions with the majority of Americans (e.g. they rarely face the "let's cross the street to avoid these people" interaction).

Same thing as above in regards to men vs women. But I'm not sure how people crossing the road to avoid them (no evidence is ever provided to support this claim btw) is contributes to blacks' lower socio-economic outcomes in life unless you think they're a bunch of cry-babies who can't continue after such a brutal hurting of their feelings.

If anything I'd say IMO that blacks have easier social interactions. White people are more willing to make friends with them because having black friends is really cool and hip and shows how progressive and not racist you are. They are also less likely to verbally disagree with a black person about things, will let them get away with saying stuff they would criticize or mock white friends for saying and over-exaggerate the intelligence of their black friends.

White names are treated better in housing, hiring, and promotion.

This assumes that there are no aggregate differences in black and white behavior, which is not a reasonable assumption.

Black people are charged higher interest rates on home loans and yet they have the same default rate as whites. Which means that if they were charged the same interest rates as whites then they would have a greater default rate than whites. So this "discrimination" is a result of differences in black and white behavior, not some grand racist conspiracy.

White people aren't expected by many to have a broken family. The list goes on.

Wait, so the expectation of black people having a broken family is a source of black people's lower SE-outcomes, but the much greater likelihood of blacks coming from broken families itself ISN'T? Even though for all races that empirical data shows that children without fathers have much lower SE-outcomes?

What privilege means is that if a white person and a black person had the same exact life and made the same exact choices at the same exact times,

Unfalsifiable.

Also, whites and blacks on aggregate do not make the same decisions and so even if the white privilege hypothesis were true, it would only be marginal explanation for the black/white SE-gap.


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-06 14:28:10


At 12/6/14 07:40 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No i don't. Blacks and progressives etc. actually literalyl do think all the world's problems are caused by white people and I explain how they're not.

It's generalizations like this that make it hard to take you seriously. Because it's easy enough to just go find some blacks and progressives who don't agree and then the whole generalization is shot. It's also the exact rhetoric of those who want to deny racism exists at all that result to that. That's why there is never a productive discussion about these issues really, each side begins from a defensive stance and will give no ground to the other.

White privilege is unfalsifiable garbage used to rationalize the failure of civil rights in achieving racial equality.

Lol, ok. Once again "racism doesn't exist! Whites and Blacks have the exact same opportunities!"

Also, the idiotic progressive idea of wanting a 'discussion of race'. A discussion involves two sides. Progressives just want to browbeat white people into submission and prevent them from defending themselves or having a dissenting opinion. Some discussion.

That's both sides of the line as I just pointed out. When neither side is willing to agree to the most basic principles of fact as being such, no solutions can be reached. That's a problem with any charged discussion in this country these days it seems.

The black/white violent crime ratio is approximately the male/female violent crime ratio in america.

You only picked out the last sentence of what he said and ignored the broader bit. I didn't read that section to simply be confined to treatment for whites vs. blacks in the criminal justice system. Nor should that be the only thing covered in a broader discussion about race which is what this topic is attempting to do.

And yet, if I were to discuss this issue as being an example of 'female privilege' progressives would have a fucking aneurism.

Or they'll just shake their head because saying the word "privilege" conveys a positive benefit, while yes, being incarcerated less time is positive....your still incarcerated and punished so....not even close to what people are talking about when they claim things like 'white privilege' exist. You've got a false analogy on your hands here.

Same thing as above in regards to men vs women.

Not at all. Again with false analogy and equivalency.

But I'm not sure how people crossing the road to avoid them (no evidence is ever provided to support this claim btw)

Then you don't know black people. There's tons of anecdotal evidence from just about any black person in the history of ever who can talk about a white person who either crossed the road to avoid them, looked at them funny simply because they're black, or made some sort of reflexive fear based reaction if they see two or more of them together and coming towards them. It's just how the world is.

If anything I'd say IMO that blacks have easier social interactions.

wow....just wow.

White people are more willing to make friends with them because having black friends is really cool and hip and shows how progressive and not racist you are.

There's a generalization that I can blow apart with anecdotal. The area I live in is predominantly racist. I know plenty of white racists. The NJ chapter of the KKK has it's headquarters 20 minutes down the road from me. White cops harrass blacks all the time in my area. You're as full of shit as the straw man "progressives" you rail against.

This assumes that there are no aggregate differences in black and white behavior, which is not a reasonable assumption.

No, this assumes that he can read and find statistics on the matter and that those statistics are reliable. He should have provided them because when he didn't, it opens it up to people to try and poke at the argument.

Black people are charged higher interest rates on home loans and yet they have the same default rate as whites. Which means that if they were charged the same interest rates as whites then they would have a greater default rate than whites. So this "discrimination" is a result of differences in black and white behavior, not some grand racist conspiracy.

Once again, you only pick out something that you feel agrees with your argument and ignore all other indicators, especially the indicators put forth in the piece your responding to.

Wait, so the expectation of black people having a broken family is a source of black people's lower SE-outcomes, but the much greater likelihood of blacks coming from broken families itself ISN'T? Even though for all races that empirical data shows that children without fathers have much lower SE-outcomes?

Yeah, this one I have to agree with. Broken family units are bad for ALL races, not just blacks. But blacks tend to have a higher instance of "baby daddys" to use a colloquial vs. whites. Would you like to know why? Poor education, higher poverty, all those things that have been mentioned before as being a greater problem for non-whites.

Unfalsifiable.

That isn't a word.

Also, whites and blacks on aggregate do not make the same decisions and so even if the white privilege hypothesis were true, it would only be marginal explanation for the black/white SE-gap.

Why don't they make the same decisions I wonder? This is again, a problem with the argument. You say these things, then don't seem to have an inclination to figure out WHY it is this way.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator

The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.

PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature

At 12/6/14 06:46 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
At 12/4/14 08:57 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Many Italians in Brooklyn were making 4$ a month working shitty unskilled labor jobs.
Compared to what though?

Thats not the point. Like today, the majority of minorities have been on forced to work lesser jobs that pay less to make a living. It is harder to find good jobs.

What a dumb analogy.

Okay?

No, I said they were more likely because of external forces.
No, idiot, you literally said they "have no option".

I said that about the people who were denied opportunities. Not the whole race.

A lot. Its the reason segregation happened, and racism against blacks exists today.
Wtf?

So what your saying is if blacks were not forced come to America in the 1800s there would be no diffrence? You know why racism against blacks is associated with southerns? Because they relied on slaves the most. They held a grudge and never gave blacks a chance.

Do you also think that if slavery never happened 14% of Americans would be black? Source.

Before colonization, the Congo, held many tribes who were free to live happly in individual societys. During Belgian colonozation not so much.
I said economically better and you disprove this by pointing to a bunch of primitive tribes who lacked any kind of industrialization whatsoever?

Would you advocate killing every black person in Africa so richer whites could live there? Do you think it is okay what happened to Native Americans and Aboriginals? After all North American countries have it pretty good right because of the genocides.

In fact, the Congo had a bloody civil war in the 00s that killed 2.7-5.4 MILLION people. About the population of Norway.
So yeah, that supposedly idyllic pre-colonial life was existent because of a lack of technology and a lack of centralized state which which to control the country. Not really Europeans fault except in the same sense as it being an adults fault if a child hurts themselves with a dangerous toy given to them by the adult.

Again do you argue the pillaging and forced labor of Congolese for the benefit of a "better economy" was a good thing? I would argue today that the Congo is worse off today than it worse 600 years ago when settlements began.

Another reason colonazation of the Congo was bad was because it was done so brutally. The Congo is naturally the richest country in the world with its resources worth 24 trillion along. The citizens are among the poorest in the world. Source 1Source 2Source 3Source 4.

Yeah, I agree. It's not like Europeans were severely advantaged because of good agriculture, surplus, and sea ports.

</sarcasm>
So the differences between European and African environments were enough to mean the difference between the most advanced civilization in history and a lack of civilization altogether, but remarkably they were not different enough to provide any difference in selective pressures whatsoever (beyond the simply cosmetic). Nice logic.

Its all based on luck. As I said, the Congo is theoretically the richest country in the world. They just chose not to exploit it.

The reason the Dominican Republic is better off than Haiti is because of a mountain range. Water flows off the mountain range to the Dominican Republic side and not to Haiti therefore creating good farming for one side. The other side not so much.
yes I'm sure it has nothing to do with the european admixture of the majority of the population. Funny how Europeans can go to any country in the world, even those without good conditions for farming, and make it wealthier.

So your saying the French made Haiti worse off? You said that they only make countries wealthier.

This lead Haiti to become the poor nation it is today because of its bad luck in placement. Societys are based on luck.
before european settlement, rhodesia was an undeveloped region populated largely by hunter-gather tribes. After European settlement, Rhodesia became known as the 'bread basket of africa' due to its agricultural output.

Hmmmm... So your saying because Rhodesia was so great it became the 'bread basket of Africa'.

After all, its not like Rhodesia had a civil war and eventually became Rwanda where a mass genocide took place that killed millions. If Rhodesia was so great why did this happen.

You know what would have happened if the Europeans didn't colonize Rhodesian and Rwanda? Millions wouldn't have died and suffered under Europeans.

To bring up the Congo again, many Africans were mutilated for not picking crops fast enough by the Belgians (not the Congolese).
What does that have to do with what I just said?

That the Europeans cared nothing more about exploitation of locals to get what they want.

Are you saying it has no effect today? It is pretty much the absolute basis of racism against African Americans today.
Do you have any proof that 'racism' (whatever the heck that even means) is a serious problem faced by most blacks in america and that it is the source of their problems?

Do you really think this thread and this argument would have taken place if 'blacks didn't face racism'.

The vast majority of interracial violent crime is committed by black people against whites. Wow, whites really are awful to blacks.

I have covered why this happens. Blacks are often denied opportunities causing many blacks to turn to crime.

People are racist. They in turn deny blacks opportunities, they become unsuccessful.
This didn't address my points. What does this have to do with segregation.

Are you saying during segregation blacks were not denied opportunities?

You know why that is? Racism. Colleges under value disadvantaged blacks and assume they can't be successful. They have conformation basis by few blacks applying.
People get mad because few blacks apply. They then choose to accept under qualified because it shows they value "diversity".
They assume they can't be successful because they have lower grades and other indicators of success, and so you're getting upset at colleges treating applicants equally without concern for race.

You said colleges weren't treating applicates equally. I explained why, I don't advocate it though.

EDIT: Fixed formatting and spelling.


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-06 18:20:01


At 12/6/14 06:46 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I said economically better and you disprove this by pointing to a bunch of primitive tribes who lacked any kind of industrialization whatsoever?

I guess whether or not they were economically better is irrelevant to determining if people were happier. Considering Foragers work less than people in Industrial societies and just spend most of their time with their family, something which Industrialized societies don't do.

At 12/6/14 06:46 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: So yeah, that supposedly idyllic pre-colonial life was existent because of a lack of technology and a lack of centralized state which which to control the country. Not really Europeans fault except in the same sense as it being an adults fault if a child hurts themselves with a dangerous toy given to them by the adult.

It isn't? To say Europeans had nothing do with it means you don't know anything about the Democratic Republic of the Congo beyond the fact that it's populated mostly by Black Africans. Which apparently is where most of your judgement stem from.

yes I'm sure it has nothing to do with the european admixture of the majority of the population. Funny how Europeans can go to any country in the world, even those without good conditions for farming, and make it wealthier.

Is that why Africa is one of the richest continents in the world?

before european settlement, rhodesia was an undeveloped region populated largely by hunter-gather tribes. After European settlement, Rhodesia became known as the 'bread basket of africa' due to its agricultural output.

And was there something wrong with hunter-gatherers? Because Ben Franklin thought that the lifestyle of the Native Americans was better than the Colonial one and it arguably is.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.

" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-07 09:09:07


At 12/7/14 08:17 AM, lapis wrote:
At 12/6/14 06:05 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: I would argue today that the Congo is worse off today than it worse 600 years ago when settlements began.
This is a completely nonsensical assertion: you don't know what life was like 600 years ago in the Congo because the Congolese didn't keep a written history before colonisation. You know what you know about the Congo in this period from the writings of the Portuguese, who - it should be mentioned - bought slaves off the Congo kingdom.

I said 600 years ago because many kingdoms major kingdoms/empires hadn't yet fully formed in the area. One of the biggest 'empires' in the region, the Kingdom of Kongo had not fully expanded. Neither had many of the other main 3 kingdoms.

From physical evidence we know the eastern Congolese lived in hunter gatherer tribes. Hunter gatherer societys were arguably better than industrial/agricultural societys. Hunter gatherers could move freely, had an easier time surviving, and had more free time to focus on the finer things in life like art.

Remember, written evidence is not always needed to see what happened in a given area. Associating writing with history is a Euro-centric idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo

Before colonisation in the mid-1800s, it can pretty much be assumed that life in the Congo was slightly more complex than just a bunch of tribes being "free to live happily in individual societies". Stanley's expeditions were regularly attacked by spearman and archers, and tribes militarise for a reason. It can be assumed that this was because of belligerent other tribes (many of which were cannibalistic ffs), but also largely because they had to fend off the Muslim slaver dominions (like the one of Tippu Tip) that conducted regular raids into the country.

I never said the tribes were conflict free. The Congolese were undeniably better before colonization. Also, the we are talking about the western Congo which was primarily settled. Hunter gatherers societys mainly lived in central and eastern tribes with far less conflict. The tribes outside of the Kingdoms of the Luba and Kongo had it best as they were they were exempt from the larger society where conflict arose.

Another reason colonazation of the Congo was bad was because it was done so brutally. The Congo is naturally the richest country in the world with its resources worth 24 trillion along. The citizens are among the poorest in the world. Source 1Source 2Source 3Source 4.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Maybe these riches aren't being exploited properly because the Congolose lack the organisational skills needed to do so, or to at the very least maintain some level of political stability? I mean, without colonisation the Congolese tribe would still be busy fighting each other and Muslim slavers. How rich do you think the Congolese would have been then?

In small hunter gatherer central societys in central Congo, many tribes did not need to exploit the land. With hunter gatherer society little damage was done to the environment.

I mean, look at Ethiopia, where 'colonisation' lasted a grand total of five years (1936-1941) - it is one of the poorest countries in the world today. Korea suffered a much longer and much more brutal Japanese occupation, yet South Korea is one of the richest countries in the world today. How do you explain that? You're confusing cause and effect: the fact is that the nations of Africa were colonised because they were poor and not advanced, not the other way around. Without colonisation Congo would be just as poor as it is today.

Ethiopia was definitly not just colonized for 5 years. They had contact with Europeans and Arabs from 100s of years. They were exploited a fair amount. That is a very broad reading of history to say things start at one date and absolutely ending at another.

As for Korea. Do you think Korea became a rich country it is today by itself? I would argue it would be as poor as the north if America did not get involved in the Korean war.

To refresh you on the Korean war, the USSR supported the North in taking the south and the US supported the south. The south was supported by American troupes and supplies. It almost occupied all of Korea until China stepped in and pushed back. The border was drawn and the USSR and China influnced the North. The US influenced the south.

The south would have been just as bad as the north if the US did not help. It did not happen by itself.

As for your third point, with no need of wealth there is no poor.

Really, you're peddling a noble savage myth that isn't helping anybody. All it does it foster a victimhood mentality where everything wrong with black communities worldwide is the fault of somebody else, whites in particular. If people want a "discussion" on race, one of the things to be discussed should concern groups taking ownership of the problems in their communities.

The fact is, small society are better for the individual. After the agricultural revolution humanity declined. I would rather be living in a remote Inuit society in 3000 B.C.E than in the USA in 2014.

Its all based on luck.
There's a difference between "luck is a factor" and "luck is the only factor".

Luck is the entirety of human history. You can see it by looking at yourself. Would you be able to have this argument with me if you were born in Turkmenistan?


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-09 10:09:20


Here's an example of the media doing race baiting:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=757110067678628

In the news footage they make the 4 year old sound like he wants to get a gun when he's older like a gangsta. What they cut out was the kid saying he wanted to get a gun because he wants to be a police officer.


That's right I like guns and ponies. NO NEW GUN CONTROL.

Politically correct is anything that leftists believe.Politically incorrect is anything common sense.

BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-09 20:01:23


At 12/9/14 06:54 AM, lapis wrote:
At 12/7/14 09:09 AM, coaliscool42 wrote: Hunter gatherer societys were arguably better than industrial/agricultural societys. Hunter gatherers could move freely, had an easier time surviving, and had more free time to focus on the finer things in life like art.
Romanticisation.

I don't understand your focus on European colonialism anyway; why not just go back to the root of the issue and blame the wicked Mesopotamians and Egyptians for inventing agriculture? I mean, I could be out hunting boar instead of talking to people on the Internet. Of course, if I'd get hurt there would be no hospital to go to and I'd probably just wither away in the tribe suffering from my injury all the time, but I'd at least be free to live happily in an individual society.

I agree with this statement. The agricultural revolution has lead to the decline of humanity.

Remember, written evidence is not always needed to see what happened in a given area.
I agree; I'm inferring from the behaviour of the tribes and accounts of explorers that there was war, slavery and cannibalism. What you cannot do without written history in this case is making a reasonable guess as to whether life was better 600 years ago compared to, say, life in Belgian Congo after 1908, because you cannot quantify the positive and negative effects and weigh them off against each other.
Associating writing with history is a Euro-centric idea.
Apparently so is rational thought :/

Euro-centrism strikes again.

Hunter gatherers societys mainly lived in central and eastern tribes with far less conflict.
But those tribes were geographically much closer to the Muslim slaver dominions.

Muslim slavers were colonists. I am saying that places like the Congo would be better off without colonialism. Also, can you provide me with sources that say Muslim slavers were in the Congo 600 years ago?

In small hunter gatherer central society in central Congo, many tribes did not need to exploit the land. With hunter gatherer society little damage was done to the environment.
One of the reasons that the environment is increasingly damaged is population growth, meaning that in hunter-gatherer societies many who are currently alive in Congo would have died in a hunter-gatherer society. So you're saying that hunter-gatherers would be happier, but you're not taking the happiness of all the people that would have died in hunter-gatherer societies into account.

If we all still were in hunter gatherer societys the population would not have grown to the amount it is today.

Ethiopia was definitly not just colonized for 5 years. They had contact with Europeans and Arabs from 100s of years.
You're moving the goal posts; apparently now just having "contact" with Europeans means you're somehow unable to build a prosperous society. Then again, fine; I guess you're just arguing that the big sin committed here is that the Congolese are no longer to live in hunter-gatherer societies à la the tribes in the modern-day Amazon basin, and introducing these tribes to things such as medicine and rudimentary forms of government would already violate this.

Ethiopia was exploited by Arabs and Europeans for longer than five years. The people and land were slaves to other empires.

As for Korea. Do you think Korea became a rich country it is today by itself? I would argue it would be as poor as the north if America did not get involved in the Korean war.
Okay sure, if they had ended up under the totalitarian Communism of the Kim dynasty their lives would indeed have sucked. Still, Mobutu was also supported by the US during the Cold War but whereas he and his cronies embezzled billions the South Koreans actually managed to use the money they gained from trade and aid to improve the conditions of their people.

Whats your point here? Are you saying that if the US did not get involved South Korea would have won the war?

As for your third point, with no need of wealth there is no poor.
But without medicine there is still disease.

Colonization has caused more people to die from disease than to be saved from it. Europeans had carried over countless diseases to the Americas and caused millions of innocent people to die.

In fact, hunter gatherer societys stop the spread of disease because instead of a whole country dying, a tribe dies.

I would rather be living in a remote Inuit society in 3000 B.C.E than in the USA in 2014.
And be put on an icefloe when you no longer contribute to society and there's not enough food to go around?

Senicide was never actually used as punishment. It was incredibly rare to even happen. Not all of Inuit society used it. Saying Alaskan Inuits were like Inuits from Greenland would be like saying "People from Kansas follow the same customs as people from California.

Luck is the entirety of human history.
What are you even saying? What are the full consequences of your assertion? That if I get two applicants for a job in middle management in a finance company, one from a guy who graduated from Harvard and one from someone who dropped out of high school, that I shouldn't have a preference for either because their performance will ultimately all just be down to luck anyway?

The difference is the person who went to Harvard was born into a family which motivated him and could afford to send him to Harvard.


BBS Signature

At 12/10/14 04:29 AM, lapis wrote:
At 12/9/14 08:01 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Also, can you provide me with sources that say Muslim slavers were in the Congo 600 years ago?
Settlement of the Swahili coast, from which the slaves were exported to the Arab world, had been going on for hundreds of years in 1400; Mombasa was already a mentionworthy trade port in the 12th century. Determining whether slaver expeditions had reached the Congo by then would require written history, which was not or poorly kept by both the Congolese and the Swahili people, so I find your request offensively Euro-centric.

So what your saying is that you just made up what you said about Muslim slavers? We don't have proof of the slavers being in the Congo until the early 1800s.

If we all still were in hunter gatherer societys the population would not have grown to the amount it is today.
Exactly! And why do you think that would be? Birth control? Family planning? I actually think mortality, both for adults and infants, was a big factor here. And I actually like not having to die, either directly or eventually because I become useless to the tribe, when some minor wound gets infected.

Population growth in the human race is bad for the planet. If we were able to keep it under control many of the environmental problems today would not exist.

Ethiopia was exploited by Arabs and Europeans for longer than five years. The people and land were slaves to other empires.
To give some other examples, nations like Ireland and Finland really were exploited for centuries; today they are among the richest in the developed world.

The reason why Ireland is so rich today is because all the natives were killed and english people moved in. The same case for the United States and Canada.

Finland on the other hand got support from the Allies to rebuild.

Okay sure, if they had ended up under the totalitarian Communism of the Kim dynasty their lives would indeed have sucked. Still, Mobutu was also supported by the US during the Cold War but whereas he and his cronies embezzled billions the South Koreans actually managed to use the money they gained from trade and aid to improve the conditions of their people.
Whats your point here? Are you saying that if the US did not get involved South Korea would have won the war?
What? No, I'm saying that the investment in South Korea trickled down to the people while in Congo (Zaire) it went to Mobutu and his cronies. And that the difference between those two approaches is visible today.

Im sure that the second worst holocaust in history did not effect anything in terms of advancement. It's not like the citizens of the Congo had absoulotly no say in how investments wereally used.

In south3 Korea, the citizens and government did little in the Korean war. America handled the troops, supplies, and econmy.

In fact, hunter gatherer societys stop the spread of disease because instead of a whole country dying, a tribe dies.
Actually, in isolated hunter-gatherer societies the immune systems of the tribesmen do not develop because they do not get tested (at least compared to cattle-rearing peoples), so if they then suddenly do get exposed to an exotic disease due to trade (or are you also against trade now?) they all suddenly start dying. The kind of society you're advocating is extremely fragile.

Actually their immune systems grew stronger. The immune survived and procreated creating children who were immune.

Senicide was never actually used as punishment.
I didn't say it was. I said it happened when you "no longer contribute to society.

A punishment is a penalty for a certain action. Not contributing is an action.

As I already said senicide was rarely ever used. Saying it happened every time soneone got old would be like saying everyone who commits crimes in America gets the death penalty

The difference is the person who went to Harvard was born into a family which motivated him and could afford to send him to Harvard.
Well done; what a daft way to dodge the question. Again, though, what does that mean? What are the consequences of saying that everything - everything - is down to luck?

The fact you happened to be one of 40 million sperm cells and ended up being born where you were eventally able to type your comment is proof.

Edit - fixed mistakes I made on phone.


BBS Signature

Response to Race Relations in the United States 2014-12-10 20:52:32


At 12/6/14 06:05 PM, coaliscool42 wrote: Thats not the point. Like today, the majority of minorities have been on forced to work lesser jobs that pay less to make a living. It is harder to find good jobs.

yes, it is the point because your statement lacks context. Most people were earning relatively little in those days compared to today so its a poor explanation for much.

I said that about the people who were denied opportunities. Not the whole race.

Black people denied opportunities have no option but to rape women. Yeah, that's much better.

So what your saying is if blacks were not forced come to America in the 1800s there would be no diffrence?

You said that colonization of africa is responsible for racism in america, and I'm saying the two have nothing to do with each other.

you know why racism against blacks is associated with southerns?

Because that's where most black people live.

Do you also think that if slavery never happened 14% of Americans would be black? Source.

???

Would you advocate killing every black person in Africa so richer whites could live there? Do you think it is okay what happened to Native Americans and Aboriginals? After all North American countries have it pretty good right because of the genocides.

God you're an idiot. Seriously, you can't even remember what my point was that you're arguing against. We were discussing why black people are poorer, you blamed colonization and I pointed out that colonization made them wealthier. I said:

And colonization has made Africa and its populations much wealthier than it/they ever would have been even if you oppose it for non-economic reasons."

So I wasn't making a value judgement at all, i was simply pointing out that their lack of wealth is not because of colonization, not that colonization is necessarily a good thing.

Further more, all blacks/aborigines/natives were not killed during colonization. Those who fought against colonial rule were killed, sure, but with a small number of exceptions it was not wholesale genocide. The population were largely employed in agriculture, mining etc. because it would have made no sense to kill huge numbers of people for no reason. A number of african populations were enslaved, though this was usually only in areas where slavery already existed.

You're also clinging to this archaic 'noble savage', when in reality its been strongly established that most native populations were constantly fighting each other for control of land and resources. Again, not making judgement on whether or not colonization should have occurred, just pointing out how your understanding of it is complete nonsense.

Again do you argue the pillaging and forced labor of Congolese for the benefit of a "better economy" was a good thing? I would argue today that the Congo is worse off today than it worse 600 years ago when settlements began.

Again, I was not arguing that colonization was good/bad, I'm saying that the problems experienced after colonization were largely down to the nature of the Congolese themselves, not the malicious actions of european settlers.

The Congo is naturally the richest country in the world with its resources worth 24 trillion along. The citizens are among the poorest in the world. Source 1Source 2Source 3Source 4.

Sure. But these resources were largely worth squat to the congolese before colonization, because they couldn't exploit many of these resources at all except perhaps surface metals and gems, and even then they couldn't trade them with other countries for consumer goods. It was only after colonization that these resources actually held real economic value, and now the peace-loving congolese are slaughtering each other wholesale for the control of these resources. So yes, congo would have probably been better before colonization, but not because of the poor treatment of he congolese by the Europeans.

And I'm talking about European colonization. If the europeans didn't colonize the rest of africa the muslims probably would have, and thigns would have been unspeakably worse.

Its all based on luck. As I said, the Congo is theoretically the richest country in the world. They just chose not to exploit it.

They didn't "choose" not to exploit it.

So your saying the French made Haiti worse off? You said that they only make countries wealthier.

Wealthier than it would have been. But the dominican republic got european economic development AND genetic material, whereas most haitians are not mixed-race.

Hmmmm... So your saying because Rhodesia was so great it became the 'bread basket of Africa'.

After all, its not like Rhodesia had a civil war and eventually became Rwanda where a mass genocide took place that killed millions. If Rhodesia was so great why did this happen.

Christ almighty are you just dumb or are you being deliberately obtuse.

Please try and understand.

You said that europe is richer because of agriculture. I say its because of africans, because when europeans move to africa they create a hugely productive agricultural industry which was something you said that only europe was suited for.

And no, rhodesia did not become rwanda you ignorant fool.

You know what would have happened if the Europeans didn't colonize Rhodesian and Rwanda? Millions wouldn't have died and suffered under Europeans.

It wouldn't have happened, sure, but it wasn't because of the malice of europeans that it occurred. Europeans merely (and inadvertently) handed them the means to do so in providing them with technology and a centralized system of government.

That the Europeans cared nothing more about exploitation of locals to get what they want.

Again, this had NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID.

Do you really think this thread and this argument would have taken place if 'blacks didn't face racism'.

Black people claiming that racism is the source of the racial achievement gap does not prove that it is true.

I have covered why this happens. Blacks are often denied opportunities causing many blacks to turn to crime.

Blacks commit more violent crime even when you control for income, wealth and employment, and a lack of success is no excuse for violence. That's racist.

People are racist. They in turn deny blacks opportunities, they become unsuccessful.

You ignored my point of segregation and just said the same old thing.

Are you saying during segregation blacks were not denied opportunities?

I just explained that by many metrics blacks were doing better during segregation.

You said colleges weren't treating applicates equally. I explained why, I don't advocate it though.

So, this would be an example of unfair privilege being extended to blacks. One of many which challenge this notion of black people being oppressed by whites.


BBS Signature