Started to NOT derail another thread.

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Your point about Clinton is totally irrelevant. No one suggested that he was a foreigner, a terrorist, a secret Muslim, a socialist or a fascist. People said that he was an idiot who who cheated on his wife. I take no offense to saying that an adulterer cheated on his wife. I do take offense to someone whose skin is a different color being called a foreigner or un-American.

This makes you prejudiced and a hypocrite. Alot of Obama's politics are distinctly foreign (to both sides of the party line) AND a lot of his ideas are very un-American. Just because somebody calls him on his socialist policies, and communist ethics, doesn't mean they're automatically doing it 'just because he's black'.
Obama's defenders don't seem to have the ability to ignore the color of his skin. Which is exactly what they harp about in his detractors. Also, I seem to remember a LOT of commentary about Clinton being a communist, socialist, and a deserter. There is simply the fact that Democratic president will ALWAYS receive this kind of criticism from those who oppose their presidency. Obama just proves that this is REGARDLESS of race, color or creed.

Alot of Obama's politics are distinctly foreign (to both sides of the party line) AND a lot of his ideas are very un-American.

Complete BS.

I seriously doubt a white guy would have to prove he was born in the U.S.

Neither the Right or the Left have the best interests of the country in mind.

I agree with lordhat. The fact his Supporters automatically assume you are racist if you don't like him, in turns makes them more racist than his opponents ever are.

Honestly, you're welcome to your opinion. Mine is that that statement had a racist edge to it.
You're welcome to call me whatever you want to if that makes you feel better.

The assertion that his ideas are un-American is ridiculous. His policies are similar to FDR, who was just about as all American as they come (and a good President, according to many). You cannot honestly claim that there is no racism present in Obama's critics. Not that they all are, but you'll have trouble convincing me that they're all totally innocent of it.

And no one called Clinton a terrorist. No one said that his wife was a militant white hater.

The title of the thread is pretty ridiculous too. That is nothing like the statement I made. This started because I thought that what someone said sounded racist. You're making this about me and about Obama supporters.

Mad Rabbit wrote:And no one called Clinton a terrorist. No one said that his wife was a militant white hater.

Bush was frequently accused of being a terrorist and a racist, among other things.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:And no one called Clinton a terrorist. No one said that his wife was a militant white hater.

Bush was frequently accused of being a terrorist and a racist, among other things.

Accused of?

<Quote> This behavior is coupled with offensive behavior committed by the same manager several weeks ago. While I understand Texas is a predominantly Republican state, we do have some Democrats here, and when the manager begins to start up a conversation in which he insults the current president and calls him a foreigner and un-American, some of us would find that offensive. </Quote>

This is the statement where racism was inferred on the part of the manager.

Scrabb wrote:<Quote> This behavior is coupled with offensive behavior committed by the same manager several weeks ago. While I understand Texas is a predominantly Republican state, we do have some Democrats here, and when the manager begins to start up a conversation in which he insults the current president and calls him a foreigner and un-American, some of us would find that offensive. </Quote>

This is the statement where racism was inferred on the part of the manager.

That is about as Racist as Calling Black Pudding Black

I wouldn't necessarily trust the source on that one. There was quite a bit of bias in that account...

(Also, you gotta use the square brackets for the quotes.)

This has started as one of those arguments where people keep pretending the other side is saying something it isn’t.

It’s quite simple, ultimately. There is a racial element to some of the criticism of Obama. This does not mean all criticism of Obama is racist. It means some is racist. The people claiming Obama isn’t a US citizen, or that he’s a secret Muslim… these people are making arguments with a racial element and if they pride themselves on being non-racist then they will have to reconsider their worldview.

‘Un-American’ is a little different, and depends on context to decide whether or not it is racist. It’s absolutely nonsense, but whether or not it is racist is another question.

Lordhat wrote:Just because somebody calls him on his socialist policies, and communist ethics, doesn't mean they're automatically doing it 'just because he's black'.

Yeah, look, I have no idea if you're racist or not, and even if you were it'd only be of the minor, unexamined variety almost all of us have to some extent.

But the thing about equating any form of social policy with socialism has to stop. It makes you look bad and destroys any chance of productive discussion. It is ridiculous.

I'd say there's a correlation between an active, vociferous dislike of Obama and being racist, at least towards those of muslim or African descent. Certainly stronger than among, say, Obama's supporters.

That doesn't mean every single opponent is racist, and probably relatively few are.

On the other hand, there's a broad range of attitudes, opinions, and actions that while not strictly racist show a generally provincial view of racial matters. Meaning, it's not exactly racist to rail against welfare mothers or spending on Section 8 Housing, etc., but it's not exactly a nuanced and well developed view of racial politics.

There is more to racism than overt acts, and pretending that just because you avoid slurs or certain actions means that it's impossible to read racism between the lines is a bit insulting to people with any experience.

My opinion is that the quoted statement sounds racist. Whether it was actually said by the manager in question or not doesn't really matter in this context. And yes, there was a fair amount of bias revealed after my original post.

To respond to Ork's statement, yeah, people said such things about Bush (like Kanye) but my point was that the criticism of Obama and Clinton was different in a significant way.

The obama administration is full of racism.
Whether it be the supporters or the people appointed by him.
remember how sotomayor said she latinas can make a better decision then white male.

I knew that I was just testing you.

I dont understand? What do you mean?
Are you talking to me?

garret wrote:The obama administration is full of racism.
Whether it be the supporters or the people appointed by him.
remember how sotomayor said she latinas can make a better decision then white male.

This is the sort of stuff that cracks me up. I'm not a far left guy, but there is simply no way reverse racism has any chance of being as hurtful as white racism. First off, she wasn't saying a latina judge is always better than a white judge. Her point was that the experiences a latina have could be useful in rendering decisions. A point, which to an extent, you're helping her make. A judge that has never experience true discrimination (in education, employment, housing, by the police, etc) is more likely underestimate the damages or the likelihood of harm. Don't forget that trial court judges frequently are finders of fact. Not every case goes to a jury.

Okay how about what she said the she would rather let her house burn then have it put out by a white firemen.
or the whole case about the firemen promotion test?
And yes it can be just as hurtful. any racism is.

Sorry garret I was responding to Orkeosaurus.

I think the way everyone always gets worked up about these sorts of things proves there's more going on then is being said. I also think Obama's supporters are too quick to jump to the worst conclusions from the scantiest of evidence.

garret wrote:Okay how about what she said the she would rather let her house burn then have it put out by a white firemen.
or the whole case about the firemen promotion test?
And yes it can be just as hurtful. any racism is.

Well, the first statement sounds stupid.

The fireman promotion test case is actually a pretty complicated piece of law. I've read the case, and I'll be honest, I don't have the background in the field of law to fully understand it. The city was going to get sued either way, they didn't certify the results to avoid a charge of discrimination. There's an irony there, I'm sure. It's actually pretty cutting edge legal theory, and deals with the tough spot cities are in due to Federal anti-discrimination laws. The city is attempting to comply (or more likely avoid the negative press and hoopla not promoting any black fire fighters would cause), while still promoting the best people. Keep in mind that federal law presumes racial bias in a test when there is such a wide performance gap.

I'm going to make the statement, and maybe I'm wrong, but racism is like any other kind of hatred. And yes, all hatred is bad and it all hurts. But when the people doing the hating are more powerful, the impact is a naturally greater.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scrabb wrote:Sorry garret I was responding to Orkeosaurus.

I think the way everyone always gets worked up about these sorts of things proves there's more going on then is being said. I also think Obama's supporters are too quick to jump to the worst conclusions from the scantiest of evidence.

I'm not a big fan of any immediate support or disdain for politicians, policies, etc. The world is a lot more complex and a lot more interesting than most people would believe. There is, and it's hard to deny that it exists, a deep undercurrent of hatred for Obama that goes beyond his politics. I don't know how much of it there really is, but there is a decent amount.

I disagree. Hatred can be great, it can motivate people to fight against things that need to be fought against.

Racism is illogical hatred, which is often devastatingly bad.

That is wrong cause right know whites are a minority.

garret wrote:That is wrong cause right know whites are a minority.

QFT

Gwar! wrote:That is about as Racist as Calling Black Pudding Black

If the issue is the colour of pudding and you say 'black' there's nothing racist in the answer.

If the issue is how long the pudding will take to cook and you reply 'It's a black pudding. Black puddings will take longer because they are full of foreign ingredients that don't work like our ingredients. I'm not going to give any specific examples because I don't know any but I mean come on look at the pudding it's black'... well then that's pretty racist.

Some criticsm of Obama is racist. Of course, some accusations of racism against criticizers of Obama is not valid.

Eh? Worldwide maybe.

:EDIT: (In response to garret.)

Polonius wrote:

garret wrote:Okay how about what she said the she would rather let her house burn then have it put out by a white firemen.
or the whole case about the firemen promotion test?
And yes it can be just as hurtful. any racism is.

Well, the first statement sounds stupid.

The fireman promotion test case is actually a pretty complicated piece of law. I've read the case, and I'll be honest, I don't have the background in the field of law to fully understand it. The city was going to get sued either way, they didn't certify the results to avoid a charge of discrimination. There's an irony there, I'm sure. It's actually pretty cutting edge legal theory, and deals with the tough spot cities are in due to Federal anti-discrimination laws. The city is attempting to comply (or more likely avoid the negative press and hoopla not promoting any black fire fighters would cause), while still promoting the best people. Keep in mind that federal law presumes racial bias in a test when there is such a wide performance gap.

I'm going to make the statement, and maybe I'm wrong, but racism is like any other kind of hatred. And yes, all hatred is bad and it all hurts. But when the people doing the hating are more powerful, the impact is a naturally greater.

Agreed on the last point (can't speak to any of the legal talk that came before).
I don't think that anything Sotomayor says can come close to the history of discrimination in this country. White people are the best off in terms of socio-economic standings. Which means that they are in the position (as they have been for hundreds of years) to do far more damage with their discrimination than other racial groups.

sebster wrote:'It's a black pudding. Black puddings will take longer because they are full of foreign ingredients that don't work like our ingredients. I'm not going to give any specific examples because I don't know any but I mean come on look at the pudding it's black'... well then that's pretty racist.

Um... I'm pretty sure black isn't a race in the context of pudding.

garret wrote:That is wrong cause right know whites are a minority.

In the world maybe. Not in the United States, and that's not even counting white Hispanics.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:'It's a black pudding. Black puddings will take longer because they are full of foreign ingredients that don't work like our ingredients. I'm not going to give any specific examples because I don't know any but I mean come on look at the pudding it's black'... well then that's pretty racist.

Um... I'm pretty sure black isn't a race in the context of pudding.

It is, cause you can get White Pudding (oats and stuff) and Black Pudding (Made from blood).

I wonder if some crazy American has tried to get it Changed to African American Pudding. I wouldn't be surprised.

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:'It's a black pudding. Black puddings will take longer because they are full of foreign ingredients that don't work like our ingredients. I'm not going to give any specific examples because I don't know any but I mean come on look at the pudding it's black'... well then that's pretty racist.

Um... I'm pretty sure black isn't a race in the context of pudding.

It is, cause you can get White Pudding (oats and stuff) and Black Pudding (Made from blood).

I wonder if some crazy American has tried to get it Changed to African American Pudding. I wouldn't be surprised.

Actually, sebster was using the same example that Gwar originally used. Don't be intentionally daft.

Gwar! wrote:It is, cause you can get White Pudding (oats and stuff) and Black Pudding (Made from blood).

Yeah, but that's not a race.

I wonder if some crazy American has tried to get it Changed to African American Pudding. I wouldn't be surprised.

I've heard people call people from other countries African-American on account of being black.

It's sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Rabbit wrote:Actually, sebster was using the same example that Gwar originally used. Don't be intentionally daft.

I'm not playing dumb here, I'm saying it wasn't a great example.

Assuming that black pudding is made with "foreign" ingredients, and thus takes longer to cook, is completely illogical, but that doesn't make it racism.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I've heard people call people from other countries African-American on account of being black.

It's sad.

Oh man, That reminds me, There was a "incident" here in the UK, where a presenter called a Football Player Black, not out of any sort of racist intent, just because, well he is black, and his American co host started having ago at him for saying black and not African American.

The Football Player was from London

....a deep undercurrent of hatred for Obama that goes beyond his politics. I don't know how much of it there really is, but there is a decent amount.

But not everyone is riding it. We're actually doing pretty swell in America as far as race relations go in this world. I wish more people would let go of it all.

I'd agree. It hasn't been as much of an issue as you might have thought from reading the press before the election.

Scrabb wrote:

....a deep undercurrent of hatred for Obama that goes beyond his politics. I don't know how much of it there really is, but there is a decent amount.

But not everyone is riding it. We're actually doing pretty swell in America as far as race relations go in this world. I wish more people would let go of it all.

We're doing better than most countries, and we've improved dramatically, but it's simply naive to hope to wish away the effects of racism. It's still there, it's still hurting people.

Scrabb wrote:

....a deep undercurrent of hatred for Obama that goes beyond his politics. I don't know how much of it there really is, but there is a decent amount.

But not everyone is riding it. We're actually doing pretty swell in America as far as race relations go in this world. I wish more people would let go of it all.

Like that guy who tried to shoot up the Holocaust museum in D.C.? Yes, things have come a long, long way. But it's far from perfect.

Besides, I heard many, many times during the election how much danger Obama would be in if he won. It's certainly not all rainbows and flowers.

garret wrote:That is wrong cause right know whites are a minority.

You've misunderstood the meaning of racism in this context. It isn't just about raw numbers, but the power each group holds in society. Hence women have been referred to as a minority despite being slightly more numerous than men, because men are far more likely to hold positions of power in government and business.

So regardless of the numbers of white people compared to, umm, every other racial group combined, its still white dudes who dominate the power structure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scrabb wrote:But not everyone is riding it. We're actually doing pretty swell in America as far as race relations go in this world. I wish more people would let go of it all.

It's an easy thing to say that America is fine, or anywhere else really, when you are in a position of priviledge. It's true that the US like most other places, has declining numbers in its hate groups, and incidents of racial violence are not what they were just a few decades ago. But that doesn't represent the entirety of racism. The discrepancy in life expectancy, in income... by 'let go of it all' you're basically saying these things shouldn't be challenged. That's just plain wrong.

Huh? I would say there is a lot of anti Obama just because hes black, hell I could name nine or so people off the top of my head who don't like him for that exact reason. Don't you just love small town Ontario?

Anyways a good point to make is that Bush was frequently reffered to as a monkey or chimp and was almost always made to look chimp like in political cartoons because of his big ears. Yet as soon as you do the same thing to Obama (the only one I know of is the strip that compares him to that mad chimp that bit off a ladies face) people go apeshit on the artist cause he did what he has done to bush for 8 friggen years.

In the world maybe. Not in the United States, and that's not even counting white Hispanics.

WTF is a white Hispanic?

I don't think that anything Sotomayor says can come close to the history of discrimination in this country. White people are the best off in terms of socio-economic standings. Which means that they are in the position (as they have been for hundreds of years) to do far more damage with their discrimination than other racial groups.

This here is something that pisses me off. Why the hell should I feel guilty cause my great great grandpa was a slave owner. Its not like I had any freaking say in the matter, and yet I am expected to feel guilty for it and pay reparations? If my dad murders a person before I am even born I don't see how any of the blame can be transferred to me. Secondly, the whole damn worlds been racist since mankind found other humans that they could stomp on, quite your bitching and move on in life. Whites weren't given their socio economic status by mooching off of anyone else. We fought and clawed our way to the top and if you want a peice of the pie by golly you have got to earn it. My great great Grandfather did. If he earned his societal place at the expense of a bunch of black fellers well thats their problem. I'm not about to give up my comfortable posisiton so you can get a free pass. The world has always worked this way. GEt friggen used to it.

Thirdly, though I don't know how much this ties in and I am pretty sure Im going to catch flak for it but whats the deal with special programs and scholarships that target a particular race/people, is it such an importance occurence that one of x people has managed to accomplish what a crapload of other people have done before? Gah rant over....

Looking at it globally makes no sense anyways. It's too dependent on the place you're talking about.

I was sort of going for the racist individuals to drop the matter... That would be best. I'm fully expecting four Klu Klux members to renounce their wicked ways because of my post on this board.

Yup, we have come a long way from hundreds of thousands of white supremacists marching through D.C. to where we are today. As for that fellow doing the shootings, we have five times that many high school kids who go on shootings because they can't find meaning in life.

Racism is not going to destroy America and you don't have to be scared of it. Just speak out against it when you witness it in your life.

Orkeosaurus wrote:]Actually, sebster was using the same example that Gwar originally used. Don't be intentionally daft.

I'm not playing dumb here, I'm saying it wasn't a great example.

Assuming that black pudding is made with "foreign" ingredients, and thus takes longer to cook, is completely illogical, but that doesn't make it racism.

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I've heard people call people from other countries African-American on account of being black.

It's sad.

Oh man, That reminds me, There was a "incident" here in the UK, where a presenter called a Football Player Black, not out of any sort of racist intent, just because, well he is black, and his American co host started having ago at him for saying black and not African American.

The Football Player was from London

I've always found it strange how pissy americans get over PC. Do I get angry when someone calls me white instead of Russian American, I have only ever met one black person who came from Africa. If your family has lived in America for 150-200 then your American. It’s discrimination and racism to consider you anything else then an American

Wow. I'll go point by point here.

This here is something that pisses me off. Why the hell should I feel guilty cause my great great grandpa was a slave owner. Its not like I had any freaking say in the matter, and yet I am expected to feel guilty for it and pay reparations? If my dad murders a person before I am even born I don't see how any of the blame can be transferred to me.

You're certainly not guilty of it by any means. But you should feel something for people who were systematically exploited for generations. I don't think anyone is asking you to pay reparations.

Secondly, the whole damn worlds been racist since mankind found other humans that they could stomp on, quite your bitching and move on in life.

Accepting injustice as inevitable is sheeplike behavior. People can change things for the better. If you claim that racism is innate, I disagree. Either way, you cannot argue that it is right or that it should be tolerated just because it has happened in the past. Unless you think that people should be able to kill each other like it was the Stone Age?

Whites weren't given their socio economic status by mooching off of anyone else. We fought and clawed our way to the top and if you want a peice of the pie by golly you have got to earn it. My great great Grandfather did. If he earned his societal place at the expense of a bunch of black fellers well thats their problem. I'm not about to give up my comfortable posisiton so you can get a free pass. The world has always worked this way. GEt friggen used to it.

Ok. They didn't mooch. Fair enough. They did exploit other people, which is quite similar. You seem to believe that might makes right, which is not at all true. White people "fought and clawed" their way up the rungs by stepping on the faces of others. The first people exploited in America were young white men from England. Since then, it's been foreigners, first as slaves, then as immigrants paid tiny wages and given hovels to live in while the bosses made money off their labor. None of this is right, none of it is directly our fault either as whites living in 2009. What is our responsibility is to provide a level playing field, where an individual can work their way up in an HONEST way. No one is discussing the giving of "free passes" here. Just because the world works in a crappy way doesnt mean that we should "get friggen used to it." It means that something needs to change.

youbedead wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I've heard people call people from other countries African-American on account of being black.

It's sad.

Oh man, That reminds me, There was a "incident" here in the UK, where a presenter called a Football Player Black, not out of any sort of racist intent, just because, well he is black, and his American co host started having ago at him for saying black and not African American.

The Football Player was from London

I've always found it strange how pissy americans get over PC. Do I get angry when someone calls me white instead of Russian American, I have only ever met one black person who came from Africa. If your family has lived in America for 150-200 then your American. It’s discrimination and racism to consider you anything else then an American

Even the term "American of African Decent" is a misnomer because everyone is of African Decent.

But yeah, the very fact that the US have to differentiate people into American and African American to be "PC" is rather sad.

Ratbarf wrote:Anyways a good point to make is that Bush was frequently reffered to as a monkey or chimp and was almost always made to look chimp like in political cartoons because of his big ears. Yet as soon as you do the same thing to Obama (the only one I know of is the strip that compares him to that mad chimp that bit off a ladies face) people go apeshit on the artist cause he did what he has done to bush for 8 friggen years.

Context and history matters. There is an ugly history of likening black people to ape, implying they are less evolved.

This here is something that pisses me off. Why the hell should I feel guilty cause my great great grandpa was a slave owner.

Do you have to feel guilty to want to fix something?

Whites weren't given their socio economic status by mooching off of anyone else.

Given the wealth and power of different white groups came largely from massively unfair relationships including colonialism and slavery, I'd say that's a very dubious statement at best.

The world has always worked this way. GEt friggen used to it.

The world has been unfair is hardly an argument to ensure it continues being unfair. If something can be fixed, so that people of all ethnicities and backgrounds have equal opportunities, why would anyone oppose that?

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:]Actually, sebster was using the same example that Gwar originally used. Don't be intentionally daft.

I'm not playing dumb here, I'm saying it wasn't a great example.

Assuming that black pudding is made with "foreign" ingredients, and thus takes longer to cook, is completely illogical, but that doesn't make it racism.

Ratbarf wrote:Huh? I would say there is a lot of anti Obama just because hes black, hell I could name nine or so people off the top of my head who don't like him for that exact reason. Don't you just love small town Ontario?

Anyways a good point to make is that Bush was frequently reffered to as a monkey or chimp and was almost always made to look chimp like in political cartoons because of his big ears. Yet as soon as you do the same thing to Obama (the only one I know of is the strip that compares him to that mad chimp that bit off a ladies face) people go apeshit on the artist cause he did what he has done to bush for 8 friggen years.

That's a double standard. Plain and simple. Now, one of the reasons it exists is because blacks were frequently lampooned as apes as a way of showing the were lesser, or not even, humans, while white people are shown to be chimps because it's funny. It's similar to the old "n-word" debate, about how is it fair that black people can use it and white people can't. At some point you just say, "it's not fair, but as black people they lower life expectancy, standard of living, and access to governmental services... so we'll let them have that one."

In the world maybe. Not in the United States, and that's not even counting white Hispanics.

WTF is a white Hispanic?

Um, it's a person of hispanic ethnicity (deriving in nationality from latin america), that is mostly or entirely white in racial make up. Hispanics range in race from ultra-honkey down in Argentina to very, very black in Haiti, with a sliding scale including indian heritage as well.

This here is something that pisses me off. Why the hell should I feel guilty cause my great great grandpa was a slave owner. Its not like I had any freaking say in the matter, and yet I am expected to feel guilty for it and pay reparations? If my dad murders a person before I am even born I don't see how any of the blame can be transferred to me.

Well, the argument would be that you still have advantages and perks because of that arrangement. You started in a better position because of your birth. You needn't feel guilty, but understanding that not everbody starts the game with the same position is a big first step.

Secondly, the whole damn worlds been racist since mankind found other humans that they could stomp on, quite your bitching and move on in life. Whites weren't given their socio economic status by mooching off of anyone else.

This is where you start veering into some interesting rhetoric. Whites achieved their social economic status by stealing a continent wholesale from the indians, and shipped over african slaves to do the work. So, yes, there was some mooching going on. Or really outright theft.

We fought and clawed our way to the top and if you want a peice of the pie by golly you have got to earn it. My great great Grandfather did. If he earned his societal place at the expense of a bunch of black fellers well thats their problem. I'm not about to give up my comfortable posisiton so you can get a free pass. The world has always worked this way. GEt friggen used to it.

And here we come to end of the line. Might makes right, apparently. I also like how any requests for equality are a "free pass."

Thirdly, though I don't know how much this ties in and I am pretty sure Im going to catch flak for it but whats the deal with special programs and scholarships that target a particular race/people, is it such an importance occurence that one of x people has managed to accomplish what a crapload of other people have done before? Gah rant over....

Yes. It's important to have exemplars to all people that they can do what they want. When you are a minority, you face racism virtually day of your life. It's not ridiculous that a child in those circumstances would assume that certain careers or positions are simply blocked due to racism. If you can't rent an apt because your, say, Laotion, why would you think you could become a doctor?

Gwar! wrote:Even the term "American of African Decent" is a misnomer because everyone is of African Decent.

But yeah, the very fact that the US have to differentiate people into American and African American to be "PC" is rather sad.

No, it isn't. It's the logical consequence of people needing to recognise that the colour of your skin matters. What is sad is the number of people in positions of priviledge who refuse to see that they have it easier, and that maybe that isn't right.

sebster wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Even the term "American of African Decent" is a misnomer because everyone is of African Decent.

But yeah, the very fact that the US have to differentiate people into American and African American to be "PC" is rather sad.

No, it isn't. It's the logical consequence of people needing to recognise that the colour of your skin matters. What is sad is the number of people in positions of priviledge who refuse to see that they have it easier, and that maybe that isn't right.

Well, if you need to know the colour of someone's skin, why not just say "XYZ has a lot of melanin"? Or even just say "he has Dark Skin, he has Light Skin, he has Tanned skin". The fact that US Society seems to be based off an irrational hatred based on the amount of melanin someone has is just sad.

youbedead wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I've heard people call people from other countries African-American on account of being black.

It's sad.

Oh man, That reminds me, There was a "incident" here in the UK, where a presenter called a Football Player Black, not out of any sort of racist intent, just because, well he is black, and his American co host started having ago at him for saying black and not African American.

The Football Player was from London

I've always found it strange how pissy americans get over PC. Do I get angry when someone calls me white instead of Russian American, I have only ever met one black person who came from Africa. If your family has lived in America for 150-200 then your American. It’s discrimination and racism to consider you anything else then an American

One of the things we believe in this country is self determination. If a group wants to be called something, than it's only fair to respect it. Black people want to be called African American, which in many ways shows that they have an ancestry, not a race. White people talk all the time about their ancestry, or they do in the north where there are a lot of immigrant stock. I'm half polish, quarter German, and quarter scotch-irish. I'm also white. A black person, more or less robbed of his actual ancestry, isn't just black, he's also African American. In many ways the two terms, black and african american, are the same, but in many ways their different. A recent African immigrant wouldn't say African-American, he'd say Nigerian American.

And honestly, I think most of the black community has stopped making news about being called African American, simply because it's unwieldy. It's still at least polite to use the term that a group wants.

Scrabb wrote:

Racism is not going to destroy America and you don't have to be scared of it. Just speak out against it when you witness it in your life.

QFT


Also, saying "a white person is more powerful than a black person because white people have more money on average" is as flawed as saying "a black person is more dangerous than a white person because black people are imprisoned more on average".

You can talk about populations if you want, but it's unfair to the individual to act like whatever traits are more common to their population apply to them. That goes triple for traits that are inborn.

sebster wrote:You're being quite obtuse there. Gwar made the point that saying a pudding is black is not racism, he made this point in a thread about charges of racism over criticism of a black President. I made the point that the comment on a pudding being black may or may not be racist depending on context and intention. I was very obviously not talking about a pudding but about a President, just as Gwar was.

The comment on black pudding cannot be racist, it's just nonsensical, because black pudding is not a race.

You cannot discriminate against pudding based on race in the same manner that you can a person, because pudding does not have a race, only a color.

Were you talking about how long the president should be cooked in an oven? No, of course not. You were making a statement on illogical assumptions made about pudding, as an analogy to illogical statements about president Obama, but ended it with the claim that it was racist to make those assumptions about the pudding, which it isn't, even though it would be if you were talking about Obama.

Also, I don't even know if Gwar!'s original statement was supposed to be an analogy. It certainly doesn't work very well as one, because "black" is being used to mean wildly different things.

Black Pudding is too a race! I'm gonna sue you now!

Accepting injustice as inevitable is sheeplike behavior. People can change things for the better. If you claim that racism is innate, I disagree. Either way, you cannot argue that it is right or that it should be tolerated just because it has happened in the past. Unless you think that people should be able to kill each other like it was the Stone Age?

I never said they shouldn't fight it. By all means work your way up that societal ladder. Just don't expect any helping hands along the way. As for the acceptability of killing people, wake up dude. Acceptability has nothing to do with whether or why someone kills another person. Acceptability itself is simply a set of arbitrary guidlines set down by a bunch of people in an attempt to create what they think is an ideal way of acting in their ideal society.

Do you have to feel guilty to want to fix something?

Generally, Im a very apathetic person. You have to either get me to hate it, get me to want it, or get me to feel guilty about it, to get me to do anything.

Context and history matters. There is an ugly history of likening black people to ape, implying they are less evolved.

True, but I don't see how it is any less insulting to Mr Bush, and thus outrage worthy, than it should be to Mr Obama.

The world has been unfair is hardly an argument to ensure it continues being unfair. If something can be fixed, so that people of all ethnicities and backgrounds have equal opportunities, why would anyone oppose that?

Cause that would mean I, an inbred hillbilly redneck uppermiddleclass white person, would be inconvenienced and lose my share of the proverbial pie. Now why would I want that to happen?

Ok. They didn't mooch. Fair enough. They did exploit other people, which is quite similar.

Nope, taking some kids lunchmoney is majorly different than making that kid feel so guilty about his father stealing your father's lunch money so that he gives you his lunch money instead.

But you should feel something for people who were systematically exploited for generations. I don't think anyone is asking you to pay reparations.

Im part Irish and Welsh, we were systematically exploited for hundreds of years yet you don't hear me crying for Irish only scholarships and social programs that are too be funded by everyone else.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Scrabb wrote:

Racism is not going to destroy America and you don't have to be scared of it. Just speak out against it when you witness it in your life.

QFT


Also, saying "a white person is more powerful than a black person because white people have more money on average" is as flawed as saying "a black person is more dangerous than a white person because black people are imprisoned more on average".

You can talk about populations if you want, but it's unfair to the individual to act like whatever traits are more common to their population apply to them. That goes triple for traits that are inborn.

You don't need to be a racist to know to lock your car in some neighborhoods. Generalities are not a good way to judge an individual, but they're also true. Black Americans commit a disproportionate share of violent crime. White people are disproportionately likely to be able to discriminate in harmful ways against others.







Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ ratbarf: I think you're making two major errors.

1) you assume that rights, equality, and opportunity are part of a zero sum system. If you can drastically improve one groups life while marginally, if at all, hurting another groups, isn't that a good call for a society? To use your example, I think that after you father stole another father's lunch money, his son has a claim against you. If what you hold was gained through improper means, you could lose it.

2) You assume that all discrimination is the same. Virtually all white folk in this country were the gutter trash in the homeland, they came here to avoid oppression. We as white folk, even white folk whose ancestors arrived long after the indian wars or slavery or even jim crow, benefit from the system of white privilege. So, yes, every white person in inherently better off than every non-white. It's called unjust enrichment, and justice demands that damages be paid.

"I never said they shouldn't fight it. By all means work your way up that societal ladder. Just don't expect any helping hands along the way. As for the acceptability of killing people, wake up dude. Acceptability has nothing to do with whether or why someone kills another person. Acceptability itself is simply a set of arbitrary guidlines set down by a bunch of people in an attempt to create what they think is an ideal way of acting in their ideal society."

No, the LAW has nothing to do with killing another person.
Social norms do affect things. Hence why lynchings and vigilantism are largely things of the past. They are no longer acceptable to most of the population, so regardless of the laws in question, they become less common.

As to the Irish and Welsh, neither group was ever enslaved. Both were wronged, but discrimination against either group is essentially nonexistent. I've never been made fun of for my Welsh name, and there are no more signs in the UK that say "No Irish."

You honestly cannot compare either to the slavery and oppression suffered by other groups.

Mad Rabbit wrote:As to the Irish and Welsh, neither group was ever enslaved.

The Romans Disagree with you, or are you saying that's acceptable because it was of a lesser scale/longer ago?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Also, saying "a white person is more powerful than a black person because white people have more money on average" is as flawed as saying "a black person is more dangerous than a white person because black people are imprisoned more on average".

Mad Rabbit wrote:
You honestly cannot compare either to the slavery and oppression suffered by other groups.

You can, I think. What you can't do, as I pointed out above, is conflate being owed a debt by one group (say the Irish from the English) while also holding a debt to a different group (Irish to black). All white people are better off because of slavery. There is an ascertainable class from which to demand compensation. Who do Irish-Americans go to? Ireland? North Ireland? England?

there is also a background noise sort of leveling. At some point, every group gets screwed, and so things even out. White Americans are still riding pretty high.

Polonius wrote:You don't need to be a racist to know to lock your car in some neighborhoods. Generalities are not a good way to judge an individual, but they're also true. Black Americans commit a disproportionate share of violent crime. White people are disproportionately likely to be able to discriminate in harmful ways against others.

I guess the line gets drawn where you start to get on the toes of others.

Locking your door isn't causing anyone problems.

Also, there's obviously a point where you can say "feth prejudice". If someone comes into a bank with a ski mask and a gun, no one's going to try and find out if they're really a criminal. (That doesn't apply to race so much though, as there aren't any races of super-cannibals wandering our streets.)

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:As to the Irish and Welsh, neither group was ever enslaved.

The Romans Disagree with you, or are you saying that's acceptable because it was of a lesser scale/longer ago?

Ok. I will amend my statement. "Neither group was ever enslaved by the English, nor were they subjected to generations of forced labor and systematic discrimination on a scale with what is being discussed."

Then again, no one discriminates against the Welsh or the Irish because they were slaves. People discriminate against African Americans because they were slaves.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Then again, no one discriminates against the Welsh or the Irish because they were slaves. People discriminate against African Americans because they were slaves.

No, people discriminate against them because of an irrational hatred for Melanin.

Polonius wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:
You honestly cannot compare either to the slavery and oppression suffered by other groups.

You can, I think. What you can't do, as I pointed out above, is conflate being owed a debt by one group (say the Irish from the English) while also holding a debt to a different group (Irish to black). All white people are better off because of slavery. There is an ascertainable class from which to demand compensation. Who do Irish-Americans go to? Ireland? North Ireland? England?

there is also a background noise sort of leveling. At some point, every group gets screwed, and so things even out. White Americans are still riding pretty high.

Fair enough. My point was that the discrimination of the English towards the Irish, Welsh, and Scottish has happened in the same time frame as slavery in America, yet it is much less of a factor in the relevant culture.

I didn't mean to minimize any sort of oppression or say that any of it was acceptable.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Polonius wrote:You don't need to be a racist to know to lock your car in some neighborhoods. Generalities are not a good way to judge an individual, but they're also true. Black Americans commit a disproportionate share of violent crime. White people are disproportionately likely to be able to discriminate in harmful ways against others.

I guess the line gets drawn where you start to get on the toes of others.

Locking your door isn't causing anyone problems.

Also, there's obviously a point where you can say "feth prejudice". If someone comes into a bank with a ski mask and a gun, no one's going to try and find out if they're really a criminal. (That doesn't apply to race so much though, as there aren't any races of super-cannibals wandering our streets.)

And if a person starts tossing out rhetoric that usually is paired with racism, at some point don't you start assume that maybe racism is the root of it? My point with my example was that it's naive to to assume "well, not all black people are criminals, so I can walk around compton late at night with a huge wad of cash." That's still stupid. LIkewise, it's naive to assume that just because not all white people are racists, you shouldn't be more aware when there are warning signs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:
You honestly cannot compare either to the slavery and oppression suffered by other groups.

You can, I think. What you can't do, as I pointed out above, is conflate being owed a debt by one group (say the Irish from the English) while also holding a debt to a different group (Irish to black). All white people are better off because of slavery. There is an ascertainable class from which to demand compensation. Who do Irish-Americans go to? Ireland? North Ireland? England?

there is also a background noise sort of leveling. At some point, every group gets screwed, and so things even out. White Americans are still riding pretty high.

Fair enough. My point was that the discrimination of the English towards the Irish, Welsh, and Scottish has happened in the same time frame as slavery in America, yet it is much less of a factor in the relevant culture.

I didn't mean to minimize any sort of oppression or say that any of it was acceptable.

I didn't think you were. It's an interesting dichotomy. I think the difference is that you can see the results of slavery plainly in the US. Are the Irish really that much worse off than the English? What if you include Irish-Americans? Throw in the fact that a lot of the Irish got to sit out the World Wars, and I think most people would say, "no blood, no foul." Black Americans, while far better off than native born africans, are substantially worse off than White Americans in nearly every category.

sebster wrote:No, that isn't true at all. There is nothing wrong with saying that as a greater portion of black people are jailed, they are more likely to commit a crime. Nothing whatsoever.

I think we misunderstand each other.

It being more likely does not make it true, just more likely.

There would be something wrong with saying black people commit a higher proportion of crime, therefore the black person I just met is more likely to be a criminal and so I won't hire him for this job. Similarly, you shouldn't say that the person I just met was white and therefore more likely to have money so I will make him my friend so I can swim in the pool he obviously must have because he's white and therefore rich.

Because it is wrong (and pretty much the definition of racism) to assume the tendency across the whole will apply to the individual without considering any other factor.

Yep.

But it is not wrong to discuss the tendencies as they apply to the group.

Yep.

The final statement, which said 'pudding', was very clearly not about pudding at all, but about Obama. I don't know why you were capable of seeing the earlier comments were really about Presidents, but decided the latter comment was really about pudding.

I understand that it was supposed to be analogous to Obama, but it still ended with the claim that pudding has a race. I understand that making assumptions about Obama because of his race is racist, I understand that the pudding was supposed to be a stand in for Obama, but the analogy nonetheless ended with the claim that it was racist to judge Obama based on his race because it is racist to judge pudding based on it's color.

(Okay, we should probably just forget the pudding, it's going nowhere.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:And if a person starts tossing out rhetoric that usually is paired with racism, at some point don't you start assume that maybe racism is the root of it?

I'd keep open the possibility. Racism is a pretty heavy charge to levy against someone on circumstantial evidence.

My point with my example was that it's naive to to assume "well, not all black people are criminals, so I can walk around compton late at night with a huge wad of cash." That's still stupid. Likewise, it's naive to assume that just because not all white people are racists, you shouldn't be more aware when there are warning signs.

That's fair.

I think it would be unfair to actively take action against someone with those assumptions as a basis, however. (And stupid to commit a great deal of resources to something without a good enough reason to do so, but that's something else entirely.)

Neither group was ever enslaved by the English, nor were they subjected to generations of forced labor and systematic discrimination on a scale with what is being discussed.

Then again, no one discriminates against the Welsh or the Irish because they were slaves. People discriminate against African Americans because they were slaves.

Wrong again budy boy, the Irish were frequently pressed/overly pressured to join the English armies through laws and cullings. There was even an English leader (I think it was Cromwell) who would kill all of the Irish children in a given village in an attempt to wipe out the Irish heritage and culture. (They taxed the amount of sunlight that got into your home for goodness sake!!) So boo hoo, I was a slave for a couple hundred years, that is soo much worse than being systematically culturally, economically, and militarily repressed and slaughtere for nearly a thousand years... Suck it up pretty boy. When it comes to suffering at the Hands of White Anglo Saxons the Irish pretty much win by default. And the great thing about it? The Irish most likely would have done the same thing if it was three times the size of England.

How do you people even respond seriously to this crap?

Alot of Obama's politics are distinctly foreign (to both sides of the party line) AND a lot of his ideas are very un-American.

The hell they are. Firstly, this isn't racist. It's stupid. You have no idea what you're talking about, you're probably drunk, and you're probably listening to Hannity breathe in his own mouth while posting this. Social politics have existed in America for as long as the country has existed. The moment we left laissez faire economics behind we embraced socially driven politics. Roads, the military, the postal system, and everything else the government pays for is socialist. Governments exist to provide SOCIAL SERVICES that can not acceptably be done through private enterprise. The level and manner of inclusion are important, but we've had a socialist government ever since the depression. What do you think social security is? Government backed insurance agencies? Child services?

rac⋅ism  [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

NONE OF YOU KNOW HOW TO USE A DICTIONARY. THIS ISN'T RACIST, AT WORST I'TS STUPIDLY NATIONALIST. BUT IT DOES NOT FULFULL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RACISM.

It does fulfill this though.

stu⋅pid  [stoo-pid, styoo‑] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, noun
–adjective
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, esp. due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.

Shuma, they don't want an explanation. They want their point of view reinforced. If Hannity says socialist enough, it must be true. If Glen Beck says Obama is building concentration camps for conservatives it must be true.

Neither side is interested in improving this country, just ruling half and ruining the other.

Ratbarf wrote:

Neither group was ever enslaved by the English, nor were they subjected to generations of forced labor and systematic discrimination on a scale with what is being discussed.

Then again, no one discriminates against the Welsh or the Irish because they were slaves. People discriminate against African Americans because they were slaves.

Wrong again budy boy, the Irish were frequently pressed/overly pressured to join the English armies through laws and cullings. There was even an English leader (I think it was Cromwell) who would kill all of the Irish children in a given village in an attempt to wipe out the Irish heritage and culture. (They taxed the amount of sunlight that got into your home for goodness sake!!) So boo hoo, I was a slave for a couple hundred years, that is soo much worse than being systematically culturally, economically, and militarily repressed and slaughtere for nearly a thousand years... Suck it up pretty boy. When it comes to suffering at the Hands of White Anglo Saxons the Irish pretty much win by default. And the great thing about it? The Irish most likely would have done the same thing if it was three times the size of England.

What you're describing has happened countless times in countless places, sadly enough. Example: destruction of the Native American heritage by Europeans, which happened on a totally different scale. But the argument of "they did it to me, so it's ok to do it to them, that's just how it is" is ridiculous. If you're broadening this beyond North America, I could point out that the slavery of Africans did not start in the American south.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, YOU were probably never a slave.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Also, to the best of my knowledge, YOU were probably never a slave.

Neither was Obama or 99.999% of people living in America (Black White or Purple)

No that was for dramatic effect, you know. Mockery?

And as for the slavery thing. Its not so much that they were enslaved, frankly I couldn't care less. They certainly arn't enslaved now. (THough I doubt you will see it that way.) Its the fact that they seem to believe that their ancestor's sufferring means that they can guilt trip people into allowing them to do/get things that are not available to the general population just grinds my gears. Case and point, a Native Canadian (as in indian) was on his reserve and completely wasted when he tried to get his two girls to the doctors because one of them was sick. Instead, he ended up passing out on his neighbours porch drunk while his girls froze to death in the snow. He got off mostly scott free because he was sentanced by a tribal sentancing council. Had that happened to any Canadian not on a reserve he would have been charged with two counts of manlsaughter, endangering minors, public intoxication, and negligence causing death. That translates into decent jail time. Like 5 to 15 years. (yah I know in Canada we suck when it comes to jail time but whatever, the point is he got off easier than that...) Thats a duality in the system as we dont' seem to think that his charges are as bad as the would be if he was white. Thats also discrimination.

Gwar! wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:Also, to the best of my knowledge, YOU were probably never a slave.

Neither was Obama or 99.999% of people living in America (Black White or Purple)

They do not make the statement "boo hoo, I was a slave for a hundred years" (which is probably rather offensive)

Thank you for ending what people like sebster and Polonius were doing in this thread (you know, actual discussion?) in the interest of mockery and ad hominem arguments.

I'm done, thank you. I'd say the people responding to the OP have proven their point pretty well. No need for more of this crap.

It was suppossed to be offensive because I find their actions offensive.

Who's they?

The black people oppressing him.

Lol no they don't oppress me. My ancestors oppress them.


They, are the people who think just because ma great great grandaddy did something not so nice to their great great grandaddy that I should be feel guilty for their cause. A short list would be (in generalities of course) descedants of slaves, Native Americans, Irish people who still can't get over the past, and generally people who think x people are so much worse and should support me even though it was their ancestors that did it and not them.

Anyways, my tired rant is over as I really need to get back to my German homework. Toodles!

It’s true, the Irish were treated very badly. But the occupation of Ireland was the result of a long running feud. This isn’t to say the occupation was justified, but it did mean that the British never had to stop and invent a justification for the occupation, and could always rationalise the worst of the occupation away through this.

Because everyone needs to think of themselves as a good person, even people who own other humans, so they will rationalise their bad behaviour with dubious moral reasoning or invent facts. Now, not every developed country took part in the slave trade, but most started colonies to access local resources. So if they weren’t rationalising why it was alright to own other people, they were rationalising why it was alright to go half way across the globe, shoot up some locals and start ordering them to work to produce trade goods for you.

And that’s where the old concept of racialism comes in. Now, there was always xenophobia, much as there still is now. The idea that you people will be afraid around people who are noticeably unlike them is unfortunate but inevitable. But that’s wholly different to racialism, where people started talking about one race being naturally superior in intellect or more civilised than another. Where people starting ranking groups in terms of how civilised they are.

This was all done to justify the awful things done to people with a different skin colour.

So yeah, thanks to economic and moral develop we got past slavery, but the ideas of racialism didn’t go. 200 years later they still persisted, with separate schools. In the 1980s it was still taboo to show an inter-racial couple on TV.

Now compare that to the Irish situation. Yes, the British occupation was often horrendously brutal. But at no point did it produce a widely believed, pseudo-scientific theory about the inherent superiority of one race. That’s the legacy of slavery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Okay, we should probably just forget the pudding...

Never!

Or umm, yeah, pudding. I think there was a misunderstanding about my analogy. This is because I used pudding to describe a president, so the analogy was bound to end up being a little obtuse. I think you saw my analogy as having a point about how racism is bad because it is wrong to assume things about pudding because it is black, but I wasn't. I was just making a point that while there's nothing wrong with calling a pudding or a president black per se, if the issue of colour is raised in some contexts it could have nothing to do with skin, and everything to do with the assumptions surrounding their skin colour.


Maybe in future when talking about presidents it'd be clearer if we used non-dessert items. Honey roasted lamb, maybe?

sebster wrote:

Gwar! wrote:That is about as Racist as Calling Black Pudding Black

If the issue is the colour of pudding and you say 'black' there's nothing racist in the answer.

What if you were asking about the moral character of the pudding's soul and you said black because its evil and black represents evilness? I mean the black knight was evil and guys wearing black in westerns are evil, but can the statement be taken as meaning that all persons of black skin are evil? The answer is yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about the discrimination against christians, I mean Nero just LOVED christians...when they were set on fire.


The whole thing about africans being inferior came from the muslims anyways. Slavery has beenin history since the dawn of time, romans took slaves, greeks took slaves, mayans took slaves, and africans took slaves. All rising nations had slaves, its just that some of them were able to remove slavery as a social norm.

halonachos wrote:I mean the black knight was evil

Hey, he was just guarding the bridge. That's not evil.

sebster wrote:Maybe in future when talking about presidents it'd be clearer if we used non-dessert items. Honey roasted lamb, maybe?

Now I'm hungry. I just ate a burger and a taco too.

One thing people should know is that alot of black people dont mind the term black.
Hell at my school the club for black people is called The Black Student Union.
we even call one of the tony's we know Black tony becaus he always mentions hes black.
its the other racial sterotypes they hate.

Marco: Well, Debbie thinks this is all about her biological clock.
Stormy: She stopped screaming enough to tell you that?
Marco: No no no no, the other Debbie. Debbie the teacher.
Stormy: Oh, you mean... black Debbie.
Sparks: Woah woah woah, why is she... black Debbie?
Stormy: Not in a bad way, it's just to tell them apart because she's... black.
Sparks: Well, why don't you call her Debbie, and call the other one... white Debbie.
Stormy: White Debbie? That's stupid! I know she's white.
Marco: Then why do you call the other Debbie "black Debbie?" You know she's black!
Stormy: Hey, first off, I really don't think we should be talking about this in front of Dr. Quinn.
Quinn: Listen man, you're missing the point. What if everybody went around calling you "white Stormy?"
Stormy: You mean there's a black Stormy?
Quinn: ... No.

did i forget to mention he came up with the name him self and he calls himself Super black man.

This is why I think George Carlin was right, Go Entropy the end of the human species cant come fast enough.

Time to give the earth a chance to try again.

Maybe the Cetaceans next time? Or the Cephalopods? Cant be any worse than us Primates.

How can you even compare the british rule of ireland to the black holocaust. Paddy gave just as bad as he got given. Hell, before then even the entire north west coast of england used to be rife with irish slave raids.

Polonius wrote:I'm half polish, quarter German, and quarter scotch-irish.

Oh wow. did I ever tell you I was a sixth billionth Ethiopian? ...honestly what is it with you americans and the quarter-this, quarter-that. Anyone would think you wern't proud to be american, and that's like a crime in your country right?

I never really understood that myself either. Somewhere along the 16th century my family moved from England to the Netherlands, but I don't feel the need to boast about that. Yet people who have been living in the US for as long as possible still claim to be proudly Irish, WTF?

Its a simple matter (crap I'm posting on OT again)

In order to converse with his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God. As such claiming any % of Irish by its nature means you're on a more level playing field...

BrookM wrote:I never really understood that myself either. Somewhere along the 16th century my family moved from England to the Netherlands, but I don't feel the need to boast about that. Yet people who have been living in the US for as long as possible still claim to be proudly Irish, WTF?

The Irish were treated like crap in the US for a long time. Making it through the hazing has left them a proud and drunk people. Most non-anglo's were treated pretty badly actually. It is forgotten sometimes that what we often pass as white now was not considered white not that long ago in US history. Italians, Irish, and jews to name a few. And they were treated with the dignity and respect you would expect of an inferior race. Tends to make a group stick together. We also really like to label things so we can categorize but than our cultural make-up is probably far more diverse than the Netherlands. Now if your family was from Botswana and moved to the Netherlands in the 16th century i would think the story would be quite different.

whatwhat wrote:How can you even compare the british rule of ireland to the black holocaust. Paddy gave just as bad as he got given. Hell, before then even the entire north west coast of england used to be rife with irish slave raids.

Polonius wrote:I'm half polish, quarter German, and quarter scotch-irish.

Oh wow. did I ever tell you I was a sixth billionth Ethiopian? ...honestly what is it with you americans and the quarter-this, quarter-that. Anyone would think you wern't proud to be american, and that's like a crime in your country right?

Maybe it's a uniquely American fixation then. We like know our geneologies and stuff.

ShumaGorath wrote: The level and manner of inclusion are important, but we've had a socialist government ever since the depression.

Since Hamilton founded his bank, actually. America has always been socialist because socialism is a natural component of a capitalist state. As you said in an unquoted portion of your post; its simply a matter of degree.

I figure it's like "old".

A person who's been alive for twenty years is technically "old", they have age, you say they're "twenty years old" if someone asks.

You don't just say they're "old" though, because calling something "old" implies that it is significantly old. On the same account, I would only say a country is "socialist" if they were exceptionally so, or I would quantify just how socialist I'm saying they are.

Ratbarf wrote:No that was for dramatic effect, you know. Mockery?

And as for the slavery thing. Its not so much that they were enslaved, frankly I couldn't care less. They certainly arn't enslaved now. (THough I doubt you will see it that way.) Its the fact that they seem to believe that their ancestor's sufferring means that they can guilt trip people into allowing them to do/get things that are not available to the general population just grinds my gears.

I wish I could do that, because I guarantee that most of the people in Europe and America had ancestors that discriminated against Jews.

halonachos wrote:What if you were asking about the moral character of the pudding's soul and you said black because its evil and black represents evilness? I mean the black knight was evil and guys wearing black in westerns are evil, but can the statement be taken as meaning that all persons of black skin are evil? The answer is yes.

The idea that some people take offence at something which is not really racist does not discredit all other possibilities of racism.

Automatically Appended Next Post:What about the discrimination against christians, I mean Nero just LOVED christians...when they were set on fire.

Did the oppression against the Christians produce racist notions in society that are still present today?

sebster wrote:

Did the oppression against the Christians produce racist notions in society that are still present today?

This would be prejudice, and not racism.

I agree with this post, it is just that many people hold much higher hopes for Obama than any other previous president. (aka Bush)

They are hoping for something different. Mabye america needs a change. Not just a clour change, but a policy change as well.

Polonius wrote:

whatwhat wrote:How can you even compare the british rule of ireland to the black holocaust. Paddy gave just as bad as he got given. Hell, before then even the entire north west coast of england used to be rife with irish slave raids.

Polonius wrote:I'm half polish, quarter German, and quarter scotch-irish.

Oh wow. did I ever tell you I was a sixth billionth Ethiopian? ...honestly what is it with you americans and the quarter-this, quarter-that. Anyone would think you wern't proud to be american, and that's like a crime in your country right?

Maybe it's a uniquely American fixation then. We like know our geneologies and stuff.

Certainly British people don't go around calling themselves Italian-British, or Somali-British or French-British. There has been plenty of immigration into Britain and plenty of emigration as well. The UK already had a fairly well established national and international identity before the USA was even begun. (Jacobites would argue with me, I'm sure.) Maybe that affects things.

Kilkrazy wrote:Certainly British people don't go around calling themselves Italian-British, or Somali-British or French-British. There has been plenty of immigration into Britain and plenty of emigration as well. The UK already had a fairly well established national and international identity before the USA was even begun. (Jacobites would argue with me, I'm sure.) Maybe that affects things.

QFT. I am Italian/English/Russian, I just call myself Italian, and let people gawk as I speak in Queens English.

Lordhat wrote:Did the oppression against the Christians produce racist notions in society that are still present today?

This would be prejudice, and not racism.

Are the leaders in the African American community racist for voting for, and pushing other african americans to vote for Obama?

? Are they voting for an African president or an American?

And don't say both.

Anyway, we have yet to see if this presidents only difference to others is any further than skin colour. We may have unwillingly voted in a black Nixon/Bush. Honestly, I think it is good that the leader of the country is different from the past, but I would like to more change than just appearance. It is too early to tell at this rate.

Actually, with religion there have been continuing dislikes. I mean, if I say a priest molested a boy they are more likely to believe he was catholic than any other form of christianity, the KKK hates catholics, and many people still have rascist notions towards the irish, germans, arabs, jews, and philipinos. It just depends on where you are.

All this hoo ha reminds me of an interesting debate I attended once at college a few years back. It went something like this. I'm probably paraphrasing slightly, but I'm putting down the gist of it.

Black Girl: *blah blah, generic oppression of black people , social inequalities, British wealth gained at slaves expense, etc*
Me: *Nods*
Black Girl: 'And that's why many black people and African countries not only want an apology from the British Government and people for it's past actions, but we feel that suitable reparations should be made. For example, in the same way national treasures looted worldwide by the British Empire are returned to their rightful museums, we feel that the wealth gained by the enslavement of our ancestors should be given to us and other African nations.
Me: Woah, hang on a minute. Just rewind a little way there. Something about an apology from the British. Why should I apologise for something that happened 300 years ago? I didn't do it.
Black Girl: Okay, maybe not you personally, but the British Government existed back then. Therefore they shoudl make an apology.
Me: Why?
Black Girl: What do you mean 'why?'
Me: Well, what's the point of issuing an apology for soemthing that happened 300 years ago? I didn't do it, and neither did anyone else in the government. So, I mean, what's it actually going to achieve?
Black Girl: Its symbolic.
Me: Symbolic of what? If the British government started issuing apologies for everything bad it had ever done, we'd be starting with apologising to France for wars we'd had with them 700 years ago.
And I don't really see the point. Okay. Let's move on to the reparations thing. Why should the British taxpayer fork over even more money to African countries, when we already donate millions in aid?
Ignoring the fact it happened 300 years ago, and the British taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for things their ancestors did.
Black Girl: To show how they're truly sorry about slavery.
Me: And exactly why should you get any?
Black Girl: Because my ancestors were slaves. And because it helps black people, who start out far more disadvantaged in life then white people like you.
Me: Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're both at the same college? Please enlighten me as to how you have a worse chance at life then me.
Black Girl: *Growing angry* Well, you just can't understand our pain!
Me: I'm Jewish.
Black Girl: What?
Me: Technically, by your reasoning, I should currently be demanding compensation from the Egyptian Government. And the German one. Come to think of it, most of the ones in Europe actually. Not only that, you guys are new hat compared to us. I mean, 300 years? We have 3000 years! I think I should be ahead of the queue here. The Jews should be compensated before you guys even get a look in!
Black Girl: That's not the same thing!
Me: Really? Please tell me why you guys should get cash for past enslavement, whilst Jews shouldn't?

It went on in this vein for a while. I think that it pretty much sums up my view on the whole reparations issue though.

Ketara, there is no historical evidence of Jew in Egypt at any point. You're going on the Bible there, which isn't a source I would necessary accept as scientific, regardless of your beliefs.
I think apologies are definitely in order and I know that Germany has issued an apology, just like the U.S. apologized for slavery last week. It doesn't cost anything and it's the right thing to do.
Reparations is a bit much. Oppressed minorities should be given help to get them better education and such so that they can become an equal group. A check doesn't solve anything.

Except of course they found ancient hebrew carved ito mine sites in Egypt, ancient Egyptian words fund in the Bible, and there are hieroglpyhics with a short note about them being permitted to leave. But other than that you are completely correct.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Oppressed minorities should be given help to get them better education and such so that they can become an equal group. A check doesn't solve anything.

Is this "oppressed minority" the poor?

Because it's poor people who have trouble paying for college. On account of not having enough money.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:Oppressed minorities should be given help to get them better education and such so that they can become an equal group. A check doesn't solve anything.

Is this "oppressed minority" the poor?

Because it's poor people who have trouble paying for college. On account of not having enough money.

Dunno exactly what you want me to say here. I was saying groups who have been discriminated against in the past specifically (African Americans, Native Americans)

[heresy]Then again, as a socialist I think college should be paid for by the government [/heresy]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Except of course they found ancient hebrew carved ito mine sites in Egypt, ancient Egyptian words fund in the Bible, and there are hieroglpyhics with a short note about them being permitted to leave. But other than that you are completely correct.

"In the Elephantine papyri, caches of legal documents and letters written in Aramaic amply document the lives of a community of Jewish soldiers stationed in there as part of a frontier garrison in Egypt for the Achaemenid Empire. Established at Elephantine in about 650 BC during Manasseh's reign, these soldiers assisted Pharaoh Psammetichus I in his Nubian campaign."

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Egypt)

Haven't been able to find anything else.

The United States Congress just apologized for Slavery last week. Isn't that nice?

Okay, exclude the Egyptian reference specifically(pkus, we go by the Torah, not the Bible. You're mixing up religions there, neighbour). Jews have been discriminated against across the world throughout history. The point I was trying to get across is that other people are discriminated against too, but don't feel the need for apologies and stonking great piles of cash as reparations for things people did 200 years ago. So why is that girls case so different from mine that it deserves them?

EDIT:-And no, I don't accept an apology is necessary. Why? Because it's meaningless coming from the mouth of someone who did nothing. Okay, I'll apologise for slavery. But since I did none of those things, why stop there? I mean, I could apologise for Agincourt, the Serbian massacres, the Russian pogroms, and many other things which I also had nothing to do with!

I'm quite willing to offer up all these abject apologies, followed by much grovelling. They all had sod all to do with me, but hey! Why let that stand in the way of a pointless bit of rhetoric! The simple fact is, it accomplishes NOTHING! So sure, I'll sit here and say whatever they like, but at the end of the day, there's no value to these words, as I had nothing to do with the crimes I'm apologising for.

Frazzled wrote:Except of course they found ancient hebrew carved ito mine sites in Egypt, ancient Egyptian words fund in the Bible, and there are hieroglpyhics with a short note about them being permitted to leave. But other than that you are completely correct.

Got a link for the hieroglyphics with the note about them being permitted to leave? Because that's an extremely cool piece of archaeology I haven't heard of before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:It went on in this vein for a while. I think that it pretty much sums up my view on the whole reparations issue though.

We had a big hoo ah about apologising the Australian aboriginals over the messed up things we did. When the new PM came in he apologised, and for short while some aboriginals and whole pile of white folk were really happy. Then things got back to how they were before among aboriginals, chronic alcoholism, declining life expectancy, vastly disproportionate imprisonment rates. Right now there's an inquest into an aboriginal fellow who was arrested for drink driving and transported half way across the desert in a paddy wagon with no air conditioning or insulation. He cooked to death.

But you know, we said we were sorry and wasn't that nice.

Mad Rabbit wrote:Dunno exactly what you want me to say here. I was saying groups who have been discriminated against in the past specifically (African Americans, Native Americans)

Why would it be hard to get into college because your race was discriminated against in the past?

The only reasons I can think of are (a) you're still actively discriminated against, which is unlikely considering how many colleges seek to increase their level of "diversity" through the inclusion of racial minorities, or (b) they're poor and come from families who were poor due to past discrimination, in which case it's the poverty that's relevant, not the race.

Ketara wrote:All this hoo ha reminds me of an interesting debate I attended once at college a few years back. It went something like this. I'm probably paraphrasing slightly, but I'm putting down the gist of it.

Black Girl: *blah blah, generic oppression of black people , social inequalities, British wealth gained at slaves expense, etc*
Me: *Nods*
Black Girl: 'And that's why many black people and African countries not only want an apology from the British Government and people for it's past actions, but we feel that suitable reparations should be made. For example, in the same way national treasures looted worldwide by the British Empire are returned to their rightful museums, we feel that the wealth gained by the enslavement of our ancestors should be given to us and other African nations.
Me: Woah, hang on a minute. Just rewind a little way there. Something about an apology from the British. Why should I apologise for something that happened 300 years ago? I didn't do it.
Black Girl: Okay, maybe not you personally, but the British Government existed back then. Therefore they shoudl make an apology.
Me: Why?
Black Girl: What do you mean 'why?'
Me: Well, what's the point of issuing an apology for soemthing that happened 300 years ago? I didn't do it, and neither did anyone else in the government. So, I mean, what's it actually going to achieve?
Black Girl: Its symbolic.
Me: Symbolic of what? If the British government started issuing apologies for everything bad it had ever done, we'd be starting with apologising to France for wars we'd had with them 700 years ago.
And I don't really see the point. Okay. Let's move on to the reparations thing. Why should the British taxpayer fork over even more money to African countries, when we already donate millions in aid?
Ignoring the fact it happened 300 years ago, and the British taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for things their ancestors did.
Black Girl: To show how they're truly sorry about slavery.
Me: And exactly why should you get any?
Black Girl: Because my ancestors were slaves. And because it helps black people, who start out far more disadvantaged in life then white people like you.
Me: Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're both at the same college? Please enlighten me as to how you have a worse chance at life then me.
Black Girl: *Growing angry* Well, you just can't understand our pain!
Me: I'm Jewish.
Black Girl: What?
Me: Technically, by your reasoning, I should currently be demanding compensation from the Egyptian Government. And the German one. Come to think of it, most of the ones in Europe actually. Not only that, you guys are new hat compared to us. I mean, 300 years? We have 3000 years! I think I should be ahead of the queue here. The Jews should be compensated before you guys even get a look in!
Black Girl: That's not the same thing!
Me: Really? Please tell me why you guys should get cash for past enslavement, whilst Jews shouldn't?

It went on in this vein for a while. I think that it pretty much sums up my view on the whole reparations issue though.

Of course Tony Blair did apologise for Britain's acts of slavery. OTOH it has to be noted that Britain was the major world force against slavery from the early 1800s onwards.

IF U DNT LYK OBANMA UR RACISY COS HES BL;ACK

sA

Ketara wrote:Okay, exclude the Egyptian reference specifically(pkus, we go by the Torah, not the Bible. You're mixing up religions there, neighbour). Jews have been discriminated against across the world throughout history. The point I was trying to get across is that other people are discriminated against too, but don't feel the need for apologies and stonking great piles of cash as reparations for things people did 200 years ago. So why is that girls case so different from mine that it deserves them?

EDIT:-And no, I don't accept an apology is necessary. Why? Because it's meaningless coming from the mouth of someone who did nothing. Okay, I'll apologise for slavery. But since I did none of those things, why stop there? I mean, I could apologise for Agincourt, the Serbian massacres, the Russian pogroms, and many other things which I also had nothing to do with!

I'm quite willing to offer up all these abject apologies, followed by much grovelling. They all had sod all to do with me, but hey! Why let that stand in the way of a pointless bit of rhetoric! The simple fact is, it accomplishes NOTHING! So sure, I'll sit here and say whatever they like, but at the end of the day, there's no value to these words, as I had nothing to do with the crimes I'm apologising for.

hey keep your mouth shut. I actually want my holocaust compensation money.

In all seriousness though, your point is kind of flawed. I mean just because these things happened so long ago doesn't mean people today don't suffer because of it. For example many of the people who instigated the creation of Israel aren't alive today but Palestinians who were living there before someone came and just took their land from them are still affected by what they did. The israeli government cant just say: "well it wasn't our generation, why should we do anything."

And also the oppression of black people didn't happen all that long ago. In America black people didn't receive fair rights untill the end of the sixties, and nobody can claim that isn't partly responsible for the majority of black americans being working class. So really we're not talking about something which happened "200 years ago."

Wasn't Israel created at the instigation of Russia and France? As I recall, England had created a document(the name of which escapes me) pre war that outlined the creation of a Jewish homeland, but had no intention on following through with it post war, until France and Russia and Russia pressured for it, mainly to irritate the British(and because no-one quite knew what to dow ith all the jews sitting in camps in Syria). Although whether you can draw an analogy between the creation of a nation, and an apology/compensation for an event that occurred 200 years ago is debatable.

And I am talking about something that happened 200 years ago. Remember, whatwhat, you and I are currently sitting in England, which abolished slavery in 1834. If the Americans didn't get round to it till later on, that's their affair, but I was referring to my experiences and opinion on the topic at hand and its relation to England. Not America.

I like tapioca pudding, does that make me racist?


GG

Ketara wrote:Wasn't Israel created at the instigation of Russia and France? As I recall, England had created a document(the name of which escapes me) pre war that outlined the creation of a Jewish homeland, but had no intention on following through with it post war, until France and Russia and Russia pressured for it, mainly to irritate the British(and because no-one quite knew what to down with all the jews sitting in camps in Syria). Although whether you can draw an analogy between the creation of a nation, and an apology/compensation for an event that occurred 200 years ago is debatable.

It was. My point was that actions taken 300 (200, 500, however many) years ago still have repercussions today and the people who are still benefiting from the actions done by their ancestors at the behest of other people need to bear some responsibility, especially when those people are still suffering because of it.

I like tapioca pudding, does that make me racist?

yes, yes it does.

generalgrog wrote:I like tapioca pudding, does that make me racist?


GG

Omg you Racist . How could you be so insensitive!

My family has never owned a slave, my moms side came from germany and lived in wisconsin while my dad's side came from canada. Members on both sides fought and died for the union army, seeing as though the union was the side fighting to rid the country of slavery and the republicans were in office under lincoln I do believe that reparations and apologies have already been made.

Also, the current government is the union government so the current government is the government that fought to rid the nation of slaves.

As a republican from the north with ancestors who died fighting for emancipation, I demand mandatory thank you's from any african american in theis nation.

OK, now that I was able to get my pudding joke in. (I can't believe you guys actually argued about pudding..LOL)

I live in a mountainous region of South West, Virginia. You might describe it as hillbilly country or hicksville, whatever. I was transfered here from Orlando, Florida, where I lived over 30 years. Which happens to be a very metropolitan area of the country. You have whites, blacks-african americans, many hispanics-mainly puerto ricans and Mexicans, many caribean naionalities, including Hatians, Jamacains, etc. not to mention all the yankees that move to Florida that we can't get rid of, and we have to listen to their incessant whining about the hot weather.

Anyway I digress, going from a metropolitan area to an area where I am now, really showed me how "backward" people in America can be. One of the first things I was asked when I arrived was, "I heard there were a lot of blacks in Florida?". When I was in western North Carloina, also mountanous hillbilly country, I was sitting at a table when one of the people I was dining with made a comment about a black person that was eating in the same room as us. "they usaully run them(meaning black people) out of here". That incident was around 1998.

During this last election (I voted Mcain by the way), I was very surprised by the amount of vitriol spewed out by my co workers against Obama. It's my opinion that most of that spewage was due to the fact that Obama happened to be black. It really opened my eyes as to how subtle racism can be. And I was able to instantaneously see how we as Americans tolerated the jim crow laws and the black codes.

Of course not liking Obama doesn't automatically make you a racist. I don't like him, I'm white, married to an east indian woman and attend a primarly black Church. But after this last election I saw more racism than I ever care to see again.

GG

I kind of agree with ketara on this one. Here in Australia we apologised for the'lost generations' when the Aus gov took the aborigine children away from thier familes and but them in boarding school compounds. (Watch Rabbit Proof Fence)
There is a difference though, this happened 50 years ago and a lot of the victims/perpetrators are still around.

But when it comes to reparations I think australia does the right thing. We don't hand out one big check (what would they spend it on?) we make it as easy a possible for them to get education and grants etc. (but more could be done)

whatwhat wrote:It was. My point was that actions taken 300 (200, 500, however many) years ago still have repercussions today and the people who are still benefiting from the actions done by their ancestors at the behest of other people need to bear some responsibility, especially when those people are still suffering because of it.

How do you plan to trace every benefit a person has had in life to something immoral done in their past?

"Oh, I'm sorry Dave, your great great grandfather was an escaped criminal! You never should have been born, I'm afraid I'll have to rectify that..."

Seriously though, it doesn't even work for wealth. Will people have money taken from them because their parent was a thief or drug dealer? How will you track down and tax the wealth that came from slave ownership? And determine how much of that wealth would have reached the slave's living ancestors? You can't.

Besides, it's on bad legal ground, since slavery wasn't illegal at the time the wealth was generated, thus making the payment of damages for it ex post facto.

Ketara wrote:

EDIT:-And no, I don't accept an apology is necessary. Why? Because it's meaningless coming from the mouth of someone who did nothing. Okay, I'll apologise for slavery. But since I did none of those things, why stop there? I mean, I could apologise for Agincourt, the Serbian massacres, the Russian pogroms, and many other things which I also had nothing to do with!

I'm quite willing to offer up all these abject apologies, followed by much grovelling. They all had sod all to do with me, but hey! Why let that stand in the way of a pointless bit of rhetoric! The simple fact is, it accomplishes NOTHING! So sure, I'll sit here and say whatever they like, but at the end of the day, there's no value to these words, as I had nothing to do with the crimes I'm apologising for.

While we're at it, I'd like to apologize for Pompeii, and Atlantis!

Lordhat wrote:While we're at it, I'd like to apologize for Pompeii, and Atlantis!

Atlantis was clearly caused by Global Warming. You know, that thing that is being caused by Humans and their Cars (even though Volcanoes have been pumping out more than humans since the dawn of time, but what the hell lets blame cars)

eh? Cars in atlantis?

Anyway, people should apologize for thier wrongs. Not the wrongs of thier ancestors. But they should definitley make it clear they don't agree with thier actions.

Apology? Mabye not, but reparations yes. Most definitely. The question is how? I would try to close the gap between the minority and give them a decent shot at education.

However then you would have the problem "why are all the poor BLACK people getting help, aand not all the poor WHITE people?"

Orkeosaurus is making some really good points here people.

I'm sort of fascinated by the folks who think it really is a good idea to do a reparations program based soley off of skin color and history.

I've always been in the camp where we learn from history: not live in it.

(I know racism is not 'history.' There are still racist people. Slavery[primary grounds for reparations] IS history.)

edit: in America.

Actually slavery is still a big part of the world. Many slaves may not be in chains but when I was in dubai there were tons of philipino maids. Thier 'masters' had thier passport hostage so they couldn't leave. And the pay was crap. REAL crap.
We knew one as a friend, she was hit by a car. They would have left her to rot her masters, we paid her hospital bill, and got her on her way home. The masters didn't want anything to do with her or her welfare.

Ah yes. Thanks for keeping me honest Faithful.

But as it pertains to America and our discusion I don't think my statements need to be modified.

Well you have to ask yourself, 'what is slavery?'

Is it chains and no pay? Or is it someone who is powerless to change thier situation?

Would hiring minorities from other countries for chicken feed be slavery? These people don't have options, they have families to feed.

Is your hispanic/whatever maid enslaved?

Well, according to that trust Dictionary.com:

slave  /sleɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sleyv] Show IPA noun, verb, slaved, slav⋅ing.
Use slave in a Sentence
–noun 1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
3. a drudge: a housekeeping slave.
4. a slave ant.
5. Photography. a subsidiary flash lamp actuated through its photoelectric cell when the principal flash lamp is discharged.
6. Machinery. a mechanism under control of and repeating the actions of a similar mechanism. Compare master (def. 19).

Working for someone does not make you wholly subject to them, or their property. Being unable to leave someone's service is slavery. Someone who works at McDonald's isn't a slave of the company, even if they need money to eat. Maybe if McDonald's was somehow stopping anyone else from hiring him, he would be.

Unless you use the third definition of "slave", which just refers to everyone who has a crappy job, and is hardly relevant when compared to the slavery of, say, Africans in the American south.

When humanity was born we were naked and got our food day by day if we could catch/find it.

(I really am trying to explain something here)

Now most of us are better of than we started. Many of us are much better off. Some of us are much MUCH better off.

Your birth position is luck of the draw. But you made you what you are today. Some people have more for less effort because they started with it more. But plenty have lost the fortunes of their parents. In this most likely as brief as any other chapter of world history the west is top dog. Most of that wealth is from technology.

Those theoretical people being hired to feed chickens are stepping up on the ladder and I applaud them. We simply do not have the resuorces to instantly make everybody super well off right now (what anyone posting on this board is).

I am a cosponsor with my bible study group of a little girl in Puerto Rico. She is going to have a better opportunity in life than many of her neighbors. Is that wrong? What if we paid for her with money our great-great grandparents got by selling slaves? (Mine are from Ukraine. my mother was an orphan.) Would it be better to give it to another little girl in the same situation whose parents HAD been slaves?

What I'm trying to say is that the only thing society should ask of a person is that they live as well as they can and try to help those around them. Payingforthe sins ofthe forefathers is just backwards. It's really simple, set up the college funds for the financially disadvantaged. The colleges are already looking for everyone. I can't think of a single college that discriminates against minorities in America.

As for what a slave is: I guess you could slice it a lot of ways. But I know this: there are no brave slaves in America.

Edit: This thread reminds me of the election coverage. In all the polls Obama was winning; vs Clinton in the primaries and Mcain in the general. Funny thing is, all the reporters where hesitant to call it for Obama because they were afraid many were posing and would really vote against him. They thought racism was strong enough to keep him down. They were wrong. Obama did better than Kerry in the white vote against the resuppositions of the 'culturally sensitive' media folk.

I also havean answer for the OP. No, but if you're a racist you automatically don't like Obama.

generalgrog wrote:OK, now that I was able to get my pudding joke in. (I can't believe you guys actually argued about pudding..LOL)

I live in a mountainous region of South West, Virginia. You might describe it as hillbilly country or hicksville, whatever. I was transfered here from Orlando, Florida, where I lived over 30 years. Which happens to be a very metropolitan area of the country. You have whites, blacks-african americans, many hispanics-mainly puerto ricans and Mexicans, many caribean naionalities, including Hatians, Jamacains, etc. not to mention all the yankees that move to Florida that we can't get rid of, and we have to listen to their incessant whining about the hot weather.

Anyway I digress, going from a metropolitan area to an area where I am now, really showed me how "backward" people in America can be. One of the first things I was asked when I arrived was, "I heard there were a lot of blacks in Florida?". When I was in western North Carloina, also mountanous hillbilly country, I was sitting at a table when one of the people I was dining with made a comment about a black person that was eating in the same room as us. "they usaully run them(meaning black people) out of here". That incident was around 1998.

During this last election (I voted Mcain by the way), I was very surprised by the amount of vitriol spewed out by my co workers against Obama. It's my opinion that most of that spewage was due to the fact that Obama happened to be black. It really opened my eyes as to how subtle racism can be. And I was able to instantaneously see how we as Americans tolerated the jim crow laws and the black codes.

Of course not liking Obama doesn't automatically make you a racist. I don't like him, I'm white, married to an east indian woman and attend a primarly black Church. But after this last election I saw more racism than I ever care to see again.

GG

That was really well put and I've gotta give credit, even if you are a tapioca pudding eating racist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

Lordhat wrote:While we're at it, I'd like to apologize for Pompeii, and Atlantis!

Atlantis was clearly caused by Global Warming. You know, that thing that is being caused by Humans and their Cars (even though Volcanoes have been pumping out more than humans since the dawn of time, but what the hell lets blame cars)

Except the volcano thing is a myth. Human put out more than 130 times the amount of CO2 than volcanoes.

Scrabb wrote:
As for what a slave is: I guess you could slice it a lot of ways. But I know this: there are no brave slaves in America.

Edit: This thread reminds me of the election coverage. In all the polls Obama was winning; vs Clinton in the primaries and Mcain in the general. Funny thing is, all the reporters where hesitant to call it for Obama because they were afraid many were posing and would really vote against him. They thought racism was strong enough to keep him down. They were wrong. Obama did better than Kerry in the white vote against the resuppositions of the 'culturally sensitive' media folk.

I also havean answer for the OP. No, but if you're a racist you automatically don't like Obama.

Unless you're a racist BLACK person. The people in america have a lot of balls asking for reparation when they are 1000 times better off than other countries.

Also, I don't get why Palestine (of all places) was handed to the Jews (Israel). Most of the jews were from europe(After WWII), no?

Orkeosaurus wrote:

whatwhat wrote:It was. My point was that actions taken 300 (200, 500, however many) years ago still have repercussions today and the people who are still benefiting from the actions done by their ancestors at the behest of other people need to bear some responsibility, especially when those people are still suffering because of it.

How do you plan to trace every benefit a person has had in life to something immoral done in their past?

"Oh, I'm sorry Dave, your great great grandfather was an escaped criminal! You never should have been born, I'm afraid I'll have to rectify that..."

Seriously though, it doesn't even work for wealth. Will people have money taken from them because their parent was a thief or drug dealer? How will you track down and tax the wealth that came from slave ownership? And determine how much of that wealth would have reached the slave's living ancestors? You can't.

Besides, it's on bad legal ground, since slavery wasn't illegal at the time the wealth was generated, thus making the payment of damages for it ex post facto.

#

I wasn't talking about giving money out or rectifying anything. Ketara's point was they shouldn't have to say sorry.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Also, I don't get why Palestine (of all places) was handed to the Jews (Israel). Most of the jews were from europe(After WWII), no?

..yes.... I wonder what could have possibly have happened to the European Jewish community in the late 1930s/early 1940s that could have led people to believe that the best chance for them was to have their own nation ? It's almost like people were feeling guilty and didn't quite think things through or something !

Actually..I do remember reading a few years back about some other plan that was also put forward to hand over ..err... somewhere odd like Alaska/that region for settlement ? Can't remember if that was a genuine proposal or merely one of those alternate history novel type affairs.

The weirdest potential 'Zion' I know of was to be in British Uganda.

Here's the quote from wikipedia.

Wikipedia wrote:
The "Uganda" proposal

In 1903, the British Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, suggested the British Uganda Program, land for a Jewish state in "Uganda" (in today's Uasin Gishu District, Eldoret, Kenya). Herzl initially rejected the idea, preferring Palestine, but after the April 1903 Kishinev pogrom, Herzl introduced a controversial proposal to the Sixth Zionist Congress to investigate the offer as a temporary measure for Russian Jews in danger. Despite its emergency and temporary nature, the proposal proved very divisive, and widespread opposition to the plan was fueled by a walkout led by the Russian Jewish delegation to the Congress. Nevertheless, a committee was established to investigate the possibility, which was eventually dismissed in the Seventh Zionist Congress in 1905. After that, Palestine became the sole focus of Zionist aspirations.

Israel Zangwill left the main Zionist movement over this decision and founded the Jewish Territorialist Organization (ITO) . The territorialists were willing to establish a Jewish homeland anywhere, but failed to attract significant support and were dissolved in 1925.

, of course today that discussion could never happen. Well, at the very least it would have a different meaning

reds8n wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Also, I don't get why Palestine (of all places) was handed to the Jews (Israel). Most of the jews were from europe(After WWII), no?

..yes.... I wonder what could have possibly have happened to the European Jewish community in the late 1930s/early 1940s that could have led people to believe that the best chance for them was to have their own nation ? It's almost like people were feeling guilty and didn't quite think things through or something !

Actually..I do remember reading a few years back about some other plan that was also put forward to hand over ..err... somewhere odd like Alaska/that region for settlement ? Can't remember if that was a genuine proposal or merely one of those alternate history novel type affairs.

The west African nation of Liberia was established by the USA as a place to send freed negro slaves. At one stage Lincoln thought it would be best to free all the slaves and send them over there, but his talks with black leaders came to nothing.

At least Jewish people have a strong historical association with Palestine.

whatwhat wrote:I wasn't talking about giving money out or rectifying anything. Ketara's point was they shouldn't have to say sorry.

God dammit! I keep trying to come up with good arguments and then find out that's not even what you're talking about!

Well, as for apologies, I'm not sure how individuals are supposed to apologise. Apologizing for having an ancestor who was a slave owner isn't worth much, as it's not actually anything wrong. Apologizing on behalf of a slave owning ancestor is kind of silly, since that person probably wouldn't apologize if you animated him right now. I think the best you can do in that case is recognize what injustice occurred in the past, and who suffered and benefited from it; and try and prevent similar injustice from occuring in the future, whether related to the past or not.

As for a government, they can apologize. That's what they're there for in part, to act as sort of a diplomatic entity that outlives any of it's participants. It may ring kind of hollow as no member of government (or voter) is currently responsible for the institution of slavery, but it's probably more important that it's formally recognized as an injustice on the part of the government than it is as a real, heartfelt apology.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think the best you can do in that case is recognize what injustice occurred in the past, and who suffered and benefited from it; and try and prevent similar injustice from occuring in the future, whether related to the past or not.

Yep, that would make a good apology.

I agree that its a good apology, but I think the civil war was the apology. The current government believed that it was wrong, the south seceded and war happened. Thousands of lives were lost and slavery is now gone. Slavery also became a crime and is punishable by law.

The south apologized by having their homes blown up and their way of life ruined(not just the slavery thing). The south was the agricultural center of the east and they lost their railroads and other means of getting machines, not to mention their factories were blown up as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We also apologized for that and tried to rebuild most of the south.

eh?

First you apologize by blowing each other up, and then you apologize by rebuilding the stuff you blew up for apologizing?