Political Corectness Makes Me Gag

[erufiku]

My 2 cents:

A lot of people here don't see why it matters because we come from privileged groups.

It sounds to me that most people here are white, and don't see why it is such a big deal sometimes. You forget that just a few decades ago minorities didn't even have the right to vote, etc. This wasn't centuries ago, this was just a generation ago.

Also, it's always difficult when coming from a privileged position to see these things. I come from privilege too, I am male/christian/able bodied/educated/straight etc - all those things are privilege in our societies because we make up the majority. So for us it's always the 'normal' thing while other minorities (gender,race, religion, etc) always have it more difficult.

I agree. In my department @ university, at least 80% of the students are white and we spend most of the time discussing the opressed minorities. Imagine a classroom of white people talking about how minorities may find certain themes offensive (with a white prof leading the discussion, of course). The hipocrisy is overwhelming but I just shut up and hope to get my 120 credits for the bachelor of bullshit degree. Here's to hoping that I won't have anything more to do with academics in my life.

[Rani]

When people have the freedom of speech, sometimes people might get hurt by what other people say, they might be offended. Some people might rightfully try to exercise restraint and be considerate. Thats fine. Thats good. Going to far is something else altogether.

I don't object to PC, I object to people presuming its their right to tell other people about PC or how their words/actions aren't PC. Like when several people sit down together who aren't familar and somebody offers a person some beef and they say "I'm a vegetarian." Who cares? "No, thank you." is perfectly adequate. That person doesn't eat meat, they don't need to tell everybody else who might be eating meat and might feel uncomfortable because of the vegetarian. Its a matter of consideration, of manners. Saying "Hes not a janitor, he's a maintenance technician." is rude, in my opinion. I don't go to parties saying "You shouldn't drink beer, its fattening."or to gay friend's houses saying "Oh, I'm straight.". Its not place to offer my opinion uninvited, where it might offed someone.

Be PC, that fine, how you refer to the maintenance technician is your business. Don't tell other people about it. Maybe they don't want to hear it.

Might not seem like it because of the particular angle I took in this particular debate, but we are in total agreement wth what you said here.

(And I probably didn't need to tell you that, but I'm female..... I'm genetically programmed to at least try to have the last word!"

'Rani

[An1m]

Because it bothers me that he implied the only reason he did not use it is because he would be banned. Why wouldn't it bother me?

actually that was the ONLY reason i didnt say it. holy shit i said nigger and didnt direct it at anyone. point being i can say wha ever i want as long as its true (and not sign a NDA and what not). i chose to censor myself so i dont get banned. its all about choice. id never call any of my blackfriends a nigger but if some black dude beat the fuck out of me unprovoked would i call him one? possibly. its like talking with your friends at a bar vs an interview

I may have generalized. I did read several studies on it in a media class (I wish I had kept the pdfs) showing how even from 2000 to (around) 2005 media outlets in major markets (LA, NYC, Chicago, etc) still would mention the race of the criminal if they were a minority in +/-85% of the time vs +/- 65% for white criminals.

because we all know that big media is the fairest and isnt trying to sway the population at all.

Agreed, I should have been more specific. Blacks were given the right to vote in 1870 through a constitutional amendment but later through Jim Crow laws in several state they were disenfranchised (paying poll taxes, pacing literacy tests, etc_ - until the Civil Rights act of 1964

thats the past. how many irish people do you see bitching that they were oppressed back in the day? it clearly wasnt nearly as bad but it sure wasnt a cake walk

I agree and disagree. It is indeed an issue about economics but in the US - money and race are very related. Is it impossible for minorities to come from money/get rich/etc? No. Can it be harder for many? Yes. Is it all about race? No. Does that mean that racism doesn't matter anymore? Absolutely not.

that doesnt make logical sense, you are saying it matters but it doesnt

Seems that you have some issues with race gnu. If my girlfriend or any other woman pisses me off I don't refer to them as a bitch, I don't use the word because there's no place for it in my vocabulary or in my feelings towards women. I am a femminist and I am also anti-nationalist and non racist. I don't call anybody nigger, or cracker or dot head, or towel head regardless of if they've kicked my ass or done something to "provoke" me. Nobody provokes anyone to say ignorant, racist, sexist or homophobic things. I am not a fan of political correctness but one thing I dislike MUCH more than over zealous political correctness is bigotry. I feel that if one is going to be a bigot then they should be one. Not try to cover it up with excuses or try to rationalize bigotry by saying "It's okay to call black people niggers if they kick your ass!" "It's okay to call a woman a bitch if she doesn't give you the time of day!" That's what's really illogical to me. That said, this isn't directed at anyone in particular.

Also what Boricua says in his las quote makes perfect sense. He said that it's possible for minorities to become wealthy, however it's more difficult in general for minorities to do certain things. Social constructs, institutionalized racism etc... Giving someone a 400 year head start and then saying "Olay go now! The race is even" and "Why the fuck haven't they caught up yet"is quite ridiculous. The most important indicator of how osmeone will fare in life is wealth. Period. Black kids and white kids from families of comparable WEALTH perform almost exactly the same in life, even down to the number of kids they have. Now when their are institutionalized barriers preventing black people from acquiring wealth, yes there still are such barriers, and have been forever in this country you can not expect an amount of "successful" black people that is directly proportional to the amount of "successful" white people.

One such example of institutionalized barriers to wealth accumulation is the process of redlining/loan discrimination/white flight. The trifecta of subjugation that was used to keep blacks form owning property of substantial value. If anyone doesn't understand the value of home ownership and the ability to own a home which can appreciate in value--as a nest egg and as real wealth to be passed down from one generation to another, you should go educate yourslf.

Irish people may have been treated like shit in this country but guess what? If they worked hard enough, because of the color of their skin, they could save their money, get a home loan, put a downpayment on a house which would appreciate in value and pass this wealth on to their children, who now have a head start in life. If a black person worked just as hard as the irish person, doing the same job for the same hours, they would almost always be paid less, wouldn't be able to get a loan, wouldn't be able to buy a house in most neighborhoods (a process known as redlining) and if a black person moved in too close to a white family, the family would often put their house up for sale. White flight helped further decimate already fledgling property values in the neighborhoods black people were forced to live in. So when this black person dies, they, if they're lucky, have a worthless house to pass on to their children who do not get a head start in life and the cycle repeats.

Hope this clears up your confusion gnu.

[Bye bye now have fun]

likely story bro! so let me get this right you are saying that poor black people cant get rich but poor white people can? thats wierd because i still see a lot of them in trailer parks. hopefully they "save their money, get a home loan, put a downpayment on a house which would appreciate in value and pass this wealth on to their children, who now have a head start in life", instead of letting cars sit on blocks in their front yard and drinking bud light in a lawnchair

[Boricua]

Great exposition An1m

GNU: I don't think you're really reading the comments that don't fit your side of this issue. He didn't say "that poor black people cant get rich but poor white people can" .... He said that it's MUCH more difficult for poor minorities compared to their white counterparts.

When is the last time you heard of a white person being denied renting/owning a house in a certain part of town due to their race?

And the comment An1m makes on Irish immigrants is a pretty good example. Irish, Italians, and some other european immigrants were discriminated at first due to their national origin - but a couple of generations later they were accepted and seen as 'white', particularly compared with the 'brown' immigrants. This is still often the case today - 'white' immigrants from southern/eastern europe don't face the same type of discrimination that brown/black immigrants (and even citizens) do.

[Bye bye now have fun]

i also hope that you know the difference between the past and present. im am aware of what he said and i see poor blacks not being able to escape from shitty city life the same as backwoods rednecks not being able to leave their trailer park. ironicly the irish hatred had nothing to do with skin or anything, it was that a) they were poor as fuck and catholic at a time when noone else was. lastly the middle eastern prejudice has nothing to do with slavery, its all to do with the FUD about "dem terrist hatein our freedom!"

[An1m]

i also hope that you know the difference between the past and present. im am aware of what he said and i see poor blacks not being able to escape from shitty city life the same as backwoods rednecks not being able to leave their trailer park. ironicly the irish hatred had nothing to do with skin or anything, it was that a) they were poor as fuck and catholic at a time when noone else was. lastly the middle eastern prejudice has nothing to do with slavery, its all to do with the FUD about "dem terrist hatein our freedom!"

Your post is sort of Rambling but you did manage to agree with one of the main points I laid out in the first place. That Irish hatred had nothing to do with skin color was of great benefit to Irish people in assimilating and overcoming said hatred. Black people were picked to makeup the lower caste of the American social order largely because they were dark skinned and could not blend in, disappear or assimilate easily. GNU, I see more and more that you shy away from actual discourse and start to right nonsensical things. If your argument is flawed accept it or work on it.

Thanks Boricua, I'm sure that he and other people who read my post appreciated the message I was trying to convey.

[Bye bye now have fun]

Black people were picked to makeup the lower caste of the American social order largely because they were dark skinned and could not blend in, disappear or assimilate easily.

because black people foresaw the future and wanted to capture each other then sell them to slave traders who brought them all over the place then bought and stuck on plantation. makes perfect sense. btw was that message that youre black and oppressed? if so there is nothing i can do about it. you could be a child laborer somewhere or an enemy of the state in china. just luck of the draw Edited March 31, 2009 by GNUWorldOrder

[Boricua]

because black people foresaw the future and wanted to capture each other then sell them to slave traders who brought them all over the place then bought and stuck on plantation. makes perfect sense. btw was that message that youre black and oppressed? if so there is nothing i can do about it. you could be a child laborer somewhere or an enemy of the state in china. just luck of the draw

Oh wow.... I'm sorry but GNU's comments have little to no value in an intelligent conversation but they are very entertaining....

I'm glad my "luck of the draw" wasn't 'completely oblivious to racial realities person'

[Bye bye now have fun]

actually it does add value. point being non of us chose our gender, skin color, eye color, height, who our parents are, or sexual orientation (i guess you can get contact, a sex change and pretend but thats not the point). so why would rational person judge on shit they had no say over. it would be like a physicist complaining that the speed of light is too fast and it should be 100m/s it doesnt makes sense

[An1m]

Black people were picked to makeup the lower caste of the American social order largely because they were dark skinned and could not blend in, disappear or assimilate easily.

because black people foresaw the future and wanted to capture each other then sell them to slave traders who brought them all over the place then bought and stuck on plantation. makes perfect sense. btw was that message that youre black and oppressed? if so there is nothing i can do about it. you could be a child laborer somewhere or an enemy of the state in china. just luck of the draw

What in the world are you talking about? Because me, the informed person in this discussion, was referring to the way that European settlers, after having tried enslavement of Native Americans and indentured servitude of other Europeans, opted for large scale enslavement of Africans. They didn't know the land, like Native Americans and they couldn't just run off and blend into society-- that of the colonists or of the native americans.

This message has nothing to do with my blackness or opression though I am both black and opressed. Though correlation does not prove causation. You're opressed too Friendo, but perhaps you enjoy your opression as you seem to love defending them.

Please try to read in the future, my ancestors died for the right to do so, your's had it much easier and perhaps this is why you seem to have such disrespect for the art.

[Bye bye now have fun]

thats cool and all but my ancestors were still in wales ireland and germany when all this went down. when they came over to live in the slums and be tied to the coal mines slaves were free. you are trying to guilt me over my ancestors which i have the same amount of control over as you do your skin color. as my grandfather said, "lifes a bitch and were all going to die. so get over it"

[judgeposer]

What in the world are you talking about? Because me, the informed person in this discussion, was referring to the way that European settlers, after having tried enslavement of Native Americans and indentured servitude of other Europeans, opted for large scale enslavement of Africans. They didn't know the land, like Native Americans and they couldn't just run off and blend into society-- that of the colonists or of the native americans.

This message has nothing to do with my blackness or opression though I am both black and opressed. Though correlation does not prove causation. You're opressed too Friendo, but perhaps you enjoy your opression as you seem to love defending them.

Please try to read in the future, my ancestors died for the right to do so, your's had it much easier and perhaps this is why you seem to have such disrespect for the art.

In an effort to try to redeem this thread, I wanted to pose this. I am being sincere, and direct these questions to no one in particular, though, I would enjoy responses from just about anyone.

About the "accident of birth," that each of us had no say about the families, cultures, religions, or societies we were born in, can we place blame for history's crimes at the feet of those presently living? Perhaps, to the extent that some among us benefit from the actions of our ancestors, the others among us might rightfully perceive themselves as jipped, or somehow slighted, but can any of us level blame those better-positioned folks for, well, having a better position?

Also, in attempting to right wrongs, or level the 'playing field,' so to speak, to what extent can we do this without being unfair to those that can benefit from their ancestors' misdeeds?

[An1m]

thats cool and all but my ancestors were still in wales ireland and germany when all this went down. when they came over to live in the slums and be tied to the coal mines slaves were free. you are trying to guilt me over my ancestors which i have the same amount of control over as you do your skin color. as my grandfather said, "lifes a bitch and were all going to die. so get over it"

This is pretty laughable, I didn't blame you or anyone else for anything but maybe you feel guilty about it. I mentioned facts about slavery and the subjugation of black people in this country and the fact that they were chosen to be slaves because they couldn't blend into society. You keep on rambling about nonsense. You have some serious issues with reading comprehension dude.

[An1m]

What in the world are you talking about? Because me, the informed person in this discussion, was referring to the way that European settlers, after having tried enslavement of Native Americans and indentured servitude of other Europeans, opted for large scale enslavement of Africans. They didn't know the land, like Native Americans and they couldn't just run off and blend into society-- that of the colonists or of the native americans.

This message has nothing to do with my blackness or opression though I am both black and opressed. Though correlation does not prove causation. You're opressed too Friendo, but perhaps you enjoy your opression as you seem to love defending them.

Please try to read in the future, my ancestors died for the right to do so, your's had it much easier and perhaps this is why you seem to have such disrespect for the art.

In an effort to try to redeem this thread, I wanted to pose this. I am being sincere, and direct these questions to no one in particular, though, I would enjoy responses from just about anyone.

About the "accident of birth," that each of us had no say about the families, cultures, religions, or societies we were born in, can we place blame for history's crimes at the feet of those presently living? Perhaps, to the extent that some among us benefit from the actions of our ancestors, the others among us might rightfully perceive themselves as jipped, or somehow slighted, but can any of us level blame those better-positioned folks for, well, having a better position?

Also, in attempting to right wrongs, or level the 'playing field,' so to speak, to what extent can we do this without being unfair to those that can benefit from their ancestors' misdeeds?

1) It's not about blame, once the house is on fire it doesn't really matter who set it, all that matters is fixing it. It's not about being jipped or slighted, it's about equality of opportunity, it didn't exist then and it doesn't now. The problem with many "better positioned folks" is that they don't want things to change, in essence bringing about equality is "unfair" to them because it would make things harder for them.

2) The leveling the playing field question is a difficult one, but the real question is "Does it matter?" If in 40 years you could eliminate all injustice by enacting policies that are not just currently, then would you? What if it would take 80 years or 100 years?

[judgeposer]

1) It's not about blame, once the house is on fire it doesn't really matter who set it, all that matters is fixing it. It's not about being jipped or slighted, it's about equality of opportunity, it didn't exist then and it doesn't now. The problem with many "better positioned folks" is that they don't want things to change, in essence bringing about equality is "unfair" to them because it would make things harder for them.

2) The leveling the playing field question is a difficult one, but the real question is "Does it matter?" If in 40 years you could eliminate all injustice by enacting policies that are not just currently, then would you? What if it would take 80 years or 100 years?

About your points, in order:

1) You're right - or, I agree, it isn't, nor should be, about blame. My use of the word "blame" might've obscured my foremost point, which was that since we didn't have any say about what sort of societal position we were born into, then how do we make adjustments for those historical occurrences that purportedly set back portions of our society?

2) Through my second point, I tried to tie my first question to what I see as the next question, which is, How then should we go about then leveling that proverbial playing field, or can it be done at all.

Not factoring in the Constitutional implications, programs like affirmative action seem to me to be unfair to the extent that they allow for the advancement of minorities in a way that disadvantaged similarly qualified non-minorities (i.e. white men). I recognize that this, however, is quite far from the original thread, so... needn't reply really, unless you want to.

[An1m]

1) It's not about blame, once the house is on fire it doesn't really matter who set it, all that matters is fixing it. It's not about being jipped or slighted, it's about equality of opportunity, it didn't exist then and it doesn't now. The problem with many "better positioned folks" is that they don't want things to change, in essence bringing about equality is "unfair" to them because it would make things harder for them.

2) The leveling the playing field question is a difficult one, but the real question is "Does it matter?" If in 40 years you could eliminate all injustice by enacting policies that are not just currently, then would you? What if it would take 80 years or 100 years?

About your points, in order:

1) You're right - or, I agree, it isn't, nor should be, about blame. My use of the word "blame" might've obscured my foremost point, which was that since we didn't have any say about what sort of societal position we were born into, then how do we make adjustments for those historical occurrences that purportedly set back portions of our society?

2) Through my second point, I tried to tie my first question to what I see as the next question, which is, How then should we go about then leveling that proverbial playing field, or can it be done at all.

Not factoring in the Constitutional implications, programs like affirmative action seem to me to be unfair to the extent that they allow for the advancement of minorities in a way that disadvantaged similarly qualified non-minorities (i.e. white men). I recognize that this, however, is quite far from the original thread, so... needn't reply really, unless you want to.

They are unfair and so was slavery. The problem isn't that non-minorities are being disadvantaged by affirmative action the issue is that even with affirmative action pay disparities and hiring practices are still extremely lopsided. So this begs the question, what would happen without affirmative action? The fact of the matter is that most companies would higher a white guy over a black guy even if they were exactly the same on paper. Affirmative action makes it so that every once in a while the black guy gets the job instead. And sometimes a less qualified black guy may get a job and it's too bad for the few of the majority who are disadvantaged by this, but getting rid of affirmative action all together and not replacing it with anything isn't a solution either.

It's very easy to see what's wrong with a system and to criticize it, but coming up with ways to fix it and implementing those ideas is much harder. That is up to all of us.

[Sonthert]

I have a few short points I'd like to offer:

Boricua: I don't know, there are arabic and Mexican neighborhoods that don't allow "whites" there. Asians are more often aligned with and less discriminated against in white neighborhoods than other "minorities", but this would contradict with your imperative that "Dark-Skinned" people are discriminated against because of the obvious color of their skin. Your statement specifically including "black/brown" seems to acknowledge this, but you stick to it...why?

I agree, that some people in this discussion are far less educated than others, but pointing out another person is ignorant only weakens your argument and strengthens theirs. Try something like "wrong thread! lol!".

An1m: I don't agree with your statement "Blacks were picked to be the lower caste of American Social Order." Statement. Generations of humans were stripped of their heritage, their culture, their identities and their familial orders. They were then subjected to being treated similar to yard animals with assigned chores. The African-Americans were then released from slavery, to find the primary option, without comparable education or other job skills, being to return to the same plantations and work for menial wages that basically left them in the same place they were, little ability to choose a different course in their lives, denied many of their human rights. What did you think they would become? Blacks weren't picked to be the lower caste any more than a boulder is picked to be at the bottom of a canyon. Its a hard prospect to leave a boulder (the former slaves...omitting northern blacks for the sake of my rant) at the bottom of a canyon and expect it to magically find its way up. That is, you don't need to pick it...it will be right where it is when you left it. There is no sinister design because blacks are black (although it might seem that way on the surface). Nobody really cared enough to do anything about it and help transition these slaves to be a part of society...or at least their children. They were jettisoned at a position of zero political power or influence in society...they aren't magically going to be transformed into productive members of society. No evil intent necessary.

As a related point, it is observed that sociologically, immigrants to the United States more-or-less are indistinguishable from mainstream American society in three generations. Its true with everybody, Chinese, Mexicans, Eastern Europeans, Africans (even Africans who identify with African-Americans initially), whomever. Why is it that African-Americans descended from slaves still continue to languish where newer Africans integrate in the same amount of time as would be expected from other immigrants? I don't think either side has offered a reasonable idea that would explain this. Skin color can't be the motivating factor.

An1m: I think Gnu is trying to point out that Africans were sold to slave traders by African tribal chieftains and such. He is questioning "Who" picked them to be the lower caste of American Culture.

I don't agree with oppressed, per se. I can agree to treated unfairly. I think that society views blacks or dark-skinned people who are aggressive (intellectually, not physically) and/or not subordinate as undesirable and as Gnu has demonstrated, "WASP" America just doesn't want to hear about the effects of slavery for a number of reasons. I think largely the impediments of society have been removed and progress is being made. Also, real or perceived differences in black-Americans have an impact, too. For instance "Blacks are always late." Which is antithetical to most American work environments. Its not uncommon for an employer to fire someone for a reason that is different than the main complaint they have with the person...work environments are going to be largely going to mirror the largest part of society, which is going to tend to shy away from black-Americans if they personally deviate from the "majority mindset". Its ultimately independent of the color of their skin, a white guy, acting the same way, would get the same treatment. I offer all of these thoughts without offering an opinion.

Judge Poser: I understood your Question.

To answer your question, I assume you're talking about slavery...or just racism in general ? I'll just go with the slavery thing, although it applies in both cases. I don't think its fair at all. None of my ancestors were here prior to 1890. They had nothing to do with slavery, they received nothing. They took what they came to this country with (mostly Germans), never having owned slaves, and made a living in this country with hard work, without slaves, without benefiting from slavery. California, where I was born, never allowed slaves. How has California benefited from slavery (Well, ignoring slavery of illegal migrant workers and other "legal" slavery) ? How can I be blamed for or have profited from slavery? How would I reasonably be expected to support some measure to fix a problem that myself, my family and my state never contributed to or benefited from? How could you "fix" the injustice of slavery? Not at all. If, on the other hand, offer the idea that all people in the United States should be educated to a certain level, etc. and some people needed more help to get on an even playing field, that would make sense. If that help is different than other people are getting who weren't subject to the injustice and it is in the immediate context, like low-interest home loans to Japanese-Americans from internment camps after WWII, that makes some sense too.

When we separate the events by generations, people long since dead and propose fixes, then it poses some questions (like I was saying regarding me and my ancestors received nothing from slavery). There were several thousand black (or part-black) people who themselves owned slaves. There were native Americans slaves, was some number (although small) of white slaves...how do you propose to fix that? I can certainly demonstrate that my family has no smudge of slavery on its hands. Although, for obvious reasons, can any African-American demonstrate that they aren't related to an African-American who was a slave owner?

As for Affirmative Action, I should like to point out California is still the only state to outlaw affirmative action (or did Washington, too?). I don't agree with Affirmative Action, either, despite what people might say to the contrary, Affirmative Action wasn't accidentally eliminated in California. The voters weren't fooled, the ballot measure was called "Ending Affirmative Action" or some such thing. It was also passed 14 years ago...there haven't been new ballot measures to reestablish it. The point of Affirmative Action is to provide equal opportunity. In California, that has been accomplished (bearing in mind California is less than 50% white non-Hispanics). The big losers in Affirmative Action are Asians and Black men. Asians were less likely, because of Affirmative Action, to get into a University because their numbers were always overrepresented. Black men found employers would rather hire a black woman than a black man because a black woman counted for two categories they needed to fill, black men only one.

[An1m]

Sonthert:

Native American Slaves and White slaves were tried briefly, as I mentioned, however they posed problems. Native Americans could simply run off and blend into Native American society and they knew the land well enough to do so; native Americans also had problems tolerating many of the Illnesses the Europeans brought over. Whites who were indentured or enslaved could run off and blend in to colonial society elsewhere. Therefore slave-masters deemed it necessary to find slaves who could not blend into society, either Native or usurper and who also had resistance to their diseases. The people they chose were West-Africans. This is why I say that Africans were chosen to be the bottom of America's caste system, and it is true, and it has everything to do with skin color.

Also, to say that because your ancestors never owned slaves and that no Californians owned slaves, that your ancestors and Californians did not benefit from slavery. Presumably, your ancestors were white and have been white for some times, which means that whenever they migrated here they were white. Even if this was after slavery ended, or even after the Civil Rights act was passed, this still afforded them many more opportunities in life, than were afforded to slaves or the descendants of slaves.

Let's say that a maid sets a table at a friend's house. Later on, you come over for dinner and the table is very nicely set. You sit down to eat, as well as your friend and when you're done eating, you may help your friend clean up or even wash your own dishes, however the table was still set for you. Someone else did a good deal of the work before you got there, and to say that you did not benefit from this is just sticking your head in the sand.

I'm against Imperialism and neo-colonialism, however I can not say that I do not benefit, somewhat, from them. I live in the United States and I benefit from the deaths of millions of disenfranchised women, men and children around the globe. Just because I am against these things and would never take part in them, why shouldn't I be held accountable for readily accepting their benefits?

I actually do try to change these things, write politicians, protest, but above all talk to other people. However most people are glad to take whatever they can get with no regard as to what goes on behind the scenes for them to get those things. This is true of most Americans today and it was true of many immigrants a hundred years ago.

[ilikemyusername]

shemales.

[Bye bye now have fun]

even if the table is set for me before i come if i take a crap on it instead of eat on it, its just as useless as if i shit on it before its made

[TheScotsman]

So, just who decided to call Indians "Native Americans?" It's an insult, if you think about it. To name a people after a name picked by a mistaken German geographer, from a title of a book written by an Italian merchant/shipbuilder who was trying to send more pale-faces here to oppress the natives.


I guess if we are going to worry about the past, was it not the Jews who were enslaved by the Egyptians (Egypt being on the continent of Africa makes them Africans.) long before Europeans even made an iron sword? We need to right that wrong with some affirmative action, by your logic.

The premises of blaming anyone alive today for the past becomes an exceedingly ill conceived one when you realize fact that the slaves were already slaves under African rulers before they were sold to European slave traders. For that matter, our biased view of history says very little about the African inter-communal trade wars over slavery. It was a crap-history, and a shame upon those that lived in that time. But for the love of it all, the last surviving Confederate soldier died in 1957... at 109 years old. It's time to give it up. We have a nation lead by a president of African decent, numerous mayors, public officials, congressmen... and you are going to talk oppression, and try to blame someone born more than 100 years after the civil war for slavery, claiming they owe something for that past? Bahahahha.... gasp.... bahahah

[Bye bye now have fun]

also the us didnt invent slavery, i believe it was either Portugal or Spain that came up with the idea of using african people as slaves. also the roman and greeks had slaves too.

[AKammenzind]

also the us didnt invent slavery, i believe it was either Portugal or Spain that came up with the idea of using african people as slaves. also the roman and greeks had slaves too.

Just about every ancient culture seems to have had some sort of slavery, just the way of the world.



I suppose I might as well toss my two cents in. Any talk of how certain racial groups are left out in the cold in America just leaves me, well, rather cold. Especially since I (being more or less white) would probably be expected to foot the bill for any of the reparations that are sometimes called for. The only ancestors of mine that were here before the civil war were Iroquois, or Irish... and one of the few things I know for certain about the Irish side was that several of them fought for the union at the time.

There's also the point that many white and asian folks came to the states to work in the mills, mines, and railroads for slave wages, with no real hope of advancement and horrible living/working conditions. Not really a whole lot different than slaves, and in some respects probably as bad or worse than working the plantations. Not to downplay the troubles of blacks in America at all, but other groups have overcome prejudice and earned respect here to become prosperous. Maybe there's just something I'm missing though, but I can't seem to find it.

[Sonthert]

Sonthert:

Native American Slaves and White slaves were tried briefly, as I mentioned, however they posed problems. Native Americans could simply run off and blend into Native American society and they knew the land well enough to do so; native Americans also had problems tolerating many of the Illnesses the Europeans brought over. Whites who were indentured or enslaved could run off and blend in to colonial society elsewhere. Therefore slave-masters deemed it necessary to find slaves who could not blend into society, either Native or usurper and who also had resistance to their diseases. The people they chose were West-Africans. This is why I say that Africans were chosen to be the bottom of America's caste system, and it is true, and it has everything to do with skin color.

Also, to say that because your ancestors never owned slaves and that no Californians owned slaves, that your ancestors and Californians did not benefit from slavery. Presumably, your ancestors were white and have been white for some times, which means that whenever they migrated here they were white. Even if this was after slavery ended, or even after the Civil Rights act was passed, this still afforded them many more opportunities in life, than were afforded to slaves or the descendants of slaves.

Let's say that a maid sets a table at a friend's house. Later on, you come over for dinner and the table is very nicely set. You sit down to eat, as well as your friend and when you're done eating, you may help your friend clean up or even wash your own dishes, however the table was still set for you. Someone else did a good deal of the work before you got there, and to say that you did not benefit from this is just sticking your head in the sand.

I'm against Imperialism and neo-colonialism, however I can not say that I do not benefit, somewhat, from them. I live in the United States and I benefit from the deaths of millions of disenfranchised women, men and children around the globe. Just because I am against these things and would never take part in them, why shouldn't I be held accountable for readily accepting their benefits?

I actually do try to change these things, write politicians, protest, but above all talk to other people. However most people are glad to take whatever they can get with no regard as to what goes on behind the scenes for them to get those things. This is true of most Americans today and it was true of many immigrants a hundred years ago.

I see your point, I would still say they're weren't chosen because they were black, they were chosen because they weren't white.

California made itself great without slavery, was my point, arguably better than most of the states in the U.S. The states that "benefited" the most from slavery are some of the worst off today. I don't see the obvious manifestations of slavery utilization in modern America.

What more opportunities? All my mother's and father's family are self-employed, from jobs they established from their family's businesses which in turn were established from what they brought over with them from Europe. My father and mother both went to college having their education funded by the same business' money. Education is a benefit to society, not just the person receiving the education.

I think, then to follow the dinner table analogy, some people propose reparations for slavery which is the equivalent of your friend asking you to pay some portion of the maid's salary since you received benefits of her work (whether she is paid for her work or not). Would you pay? I wouldn't. I would contend that I had nothing to do with other people's choices in setting the table before I ever got there. I can't be held personally responsible for things that were decided in a manner that gave me no conscious decision over them or against my will. If the police then came in, after lunch, and said "All this food was stolen. Everybody who ate lunch is under arrest. " (Of course, since Bush the younger, they can just say they suspected you were terrorists so they didn't need a warrant) Would it fair for you to be arrested? You ate the food, you received the benefit of the food, but the theft was done before you arrived. So since you received the same benefit as the actual criminals...should you be able to penalized for it? Probably not. In the same vein, find the descendants of the slave owners. Get them to pitch in. They were the criminals, not me.

Let me try a couple of analogies, too:

You drive home, go to bed and wake up in the morning. You go out and find a man standing next to your car. You say: "What gives?" He says "I washed your car before you got here, give me $10.". He did this work, supposedly, although he can't prove he did or has anything to do with the work that was actually done. You didn't ask him to do the work, after all, it was done before you got there, without your knowledge or your ability to give your consent to the work being done...do you pay him? You are going to be enjoying the benefits of his labor that was done before you got there.

Let me try one more

You're walking out of work, towards the old car your father left you. A man walks up to you and says "Aren't you such and such's son?" You say "Sure, that's my dad." The guy then says "My father sold your father that car, but my father didn't get paid. So you should give me $20." Do you give him the money? Its the same argument regarding the table and the maid.

I will acknowledge slavery was wrong...obviously..but reparations don't make any sense. If you father actually didn't pay that man's father for the car, that was wrong too. You, on the other hand shouldn't be punished for something you had absolutely nothing to do with or fork money over because of it. Nor should you feel bad because of the misery the American corporations and government doles out. You didn't ask for it, it was done without your knowing. The fact that you try to do something about is inspirational and should more than alleviate any moral burden you have. Lets say for the sake of argument, you're white and the year is 1940. Segregation is alive and swinging. You are educated in a public school and learn that blacks are educated in much, much worse conditions. The teaching materials, supplies, books are all terrible. There is no means for black students to get to school other than walking predominantly, while you ride to school in a bus. You are readily accepting the benefits of almost three times the amount of money being spent on your education vs. the average black student. You aren't guilty. You might feel compelled to try to change the system. Should you go to school 40% less to even the situation out? I don't think so.