Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?