Racism: glorified hyperbole in America

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by anitram

I am by no means an expert on this but it is my impression that reparations are generally supported by a small number of fringe factions and not really seen as a viable solution. What may be more viable is some sort of financial assistance, nation-to-nation. The thought there is that countries which have a colonial history of oppression and profit are partly where they are due to that profit, and consequently should repatriate some of it or maybe provide favourable loans or trade agreements to these nations, etc. These are complex issues and I haven't really had the time or inclination to think them through completely, just wanted to point out that generally most serious and educated people aren't talking about YOU compensating some individual across the world, but some indirect ways in which reparations could take place.

I understand that, the whole economical aspect makes sense. But why do they want our government to apologize to their people, when this government has done nothing to them? That's what I don't get. What difference does it make, the people who did wrong still did wrong, we can't change that. We've already expressed our disagreement and everything, wouldn't an apology from someone who had nothing to do with it be insincere?

Originally Posted by nbelcik

Because the mistakes of our ancestors are still having a lasting effect on the descendants of those discriminated against. Someone posted the "Case for Reperations" which is an excellent article and points out all the ways that blacks have been discriminated against throughout the US's history. It wasn't just slavery and Jim Crow in the South. It was redlining in the North which meant that blacks missed out on the largest accumulation of wealth in post-WW2 America. The War on Drugs and the mass incarceration of young black males is another example. Discrimination still occurs due to the mistakes of our ancestors.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yes, they have a lasting effect... but that still doesn't explain what our involvement is. It's something our ancestors did that they still feel, not something our generation did. Instead of them blaming us, shouldn't we be working together to fix things, rather than stay focussed on the past?

[LJT]

You could say we are responsible for the maintenance of a status quo that does still lasting harm to that group of people. We may have gotten rid of the laws and all the overt stuff from discrimination, but when we don't do anything to improve the position they have been left in, we are complicit by are lack of action. The world is skewed to be beneficial to white western people, we don't like rocking that boat.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by LJT

The world is skewed to be beneficial to white western people, we don't like rocking that boat.

I would agree that is true in the mostly white Western Civilization (which wouldn't be too difficult to expect to some degree). However, there's quite a few people living in the East that impact the globe as well. Once could argue that the Chinese use "slavery-lite" today to gain wage advantage.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by LJT

You could say we are responsible for the maintenance of a status quo that does still lasting harm to that group of people. We may have gotten rid of the laws and all the overt stuff from discrimination, but when we don't do anything to improve the position they have been left in, we are complicit by are lack of action. The world is skewed to be beneficial to white western people, we don't like rocking that boat.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Many of us are working to end policies such as the War on the Drugs and other forms of structural racism, but many others think that because there is no more overt discrimination, racism is over. It's not and we need to work to improve the lives of groups that have been affected by racial discrimination, both in the past and present. Reparations are part of that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[the iron horse]

Originally Posted by Salome

Did your students understand the point you were trying to make?

Actually,
what is the point that you're trying to make?

These were 7th graders. At first they did not and were puzzled, all of them.
They all thought that only blacks had been subjected to slavery. They also thought that it had only occurred in the U.S.


Once into the discussion they were shocked to realize it was still being practiced in some parts of the world.

After the talking, I turned them loose on the computers to search and learn more.

The point I was trying to get across is that we are all human and we all have much in common.

[cobl04]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

I understand that, the whole economical aspect makes sense. But why do they want our government to apologize to their people, when this government has done nothing to them? That's what I don't get. What difference does it make, the people who did wrong still did wrong, we can't change that. We've already expressed our disagreement and everything, wouldn't an apology from someone who had nothing to do with it be insincere?

Our former govt apologised in 08 I think to aboriginal people for racist policies back in the 40s/50s. It was well received by all.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

Not to mention what looks to be a growing Neo-Nazi movement in Germany and parts of north Europe.

Pretty much extend it to just about most of Europe, in some countries the influence these sorts have borders on the shocking.

[Salome]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

The point I was trying to get across is that we are all human and we all have much in common.

Surely there must have been a better way to do this?
Preferably one that doesn't trivialize slavery and the way racism is integrated in many societies.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally Posted by Galeongirl

Fair enough. But most of us also think he's an idiot, so there's that.

I think I actually understand the point IH is trying to make, and I kind of agree with it. Sure, racism is still there, but aren't we partially keeping it up by still putting so much emphasis on it? It was hundreds of years ago, maybe the reason why it impacts Europe less is that it's not actually covered in the media here as much with the emphasis on race.

When there's a news story and someone is shot by someone, the race of those person aren't headlines. Sure, they're mentioned in the articles.. but when I see stuff like has been pointed out here that when it's about black people there's negative associations everywhere, stuff like that, I don't think our press is quite like that.

I''m not really sure how to explain myself very well here. Maybe an example, some people here still think that the Dutch should officially apologize and pay the ancestors of the people we've hurt over the WW and at the Indonesian colonies. First things first, what happened over there was horrible and should never, ever happen again. But then that immediately raises a question in my head. Why should WE pay for something our ancestors have done? I mean, we acknowledge that part of history and that they were bad.. but isn't this something like saying the great grandchildren of the nazis should still pay for the mistakes of their ancestors?
I hope I'm not rubbing people the wrong way by making these comparisons, but I do think that part of the problem is that some people victimize themselves far too much.

Just to make clear, I'm absolutely not stating racism isn't a big issue in the US or anything like that. I just think there are two sides of the problem and both need to be adressed and fixed before things can change properly.

Actually, we do. Until a few years ago we still paid reparations for WWI. Reparations for WWII are still not paid off. And payments are being made to Holocaust survivors. It's shameful because they had to struggle for it.

It's not a matter of personal guilt, but a country as a collective has to face up to its past. It doesn't always need to be in the form of payments. But it's important for us to be aware of our countries' past actions.

I don't see racism as a smaller problem here in Europe. As others pointed out, almost all countries have far-right parties which are in some instances even in the double-digits at polls. We do have problems with integration and tend to put the immigrants at fault. It's more under-handed, though especially because the immigrants in European countries are less organised.

[the iron horse]

I don't understand the view, so often expressed here, that it's the far right
that is responsible for all racism.

I agree. The U.S. does have some that are responsible: KKK, Neo-Nazis and other white hate groups.

I don't understand how the Left gets away with saying things like the following:


Al Sharpton:

"A young man 18 years old shot down in the streets unarmed and rather than you address it, you tried to smear the young man, rather than uphold the principles of justice and dignity. I want you to know these parents are not going to cry alone. They're not going to stand alone. They're not going to fight alone. We have had enough."


National Review report about MSNBC:

The events in Ferguson, Mo., could be part of an impending “genocide” of black men unless the nation changes its course, according to one MSNBC guest.

Appearing on the network on Monday, Michelle Bernard, head of the Bernard Center for Women, said she has struggled to explain to her children the forces at work behind Michael Brown’s death.

“There is a war on black boys in this country, in my opinion — there is a war on black men,” she told Chris Matthews. “It is an absolutely deplorable situation that the United States, which is supposed to be the greatest nation on earth, sits back and allows black boys to be murdered.”​

Bernard pointed to the bad economy and the discriminatory education system as worsening the state of the black community.

Before signing off, Matthews said he hopes Americans will listen to “you folks” more often, rather than just in the midst of incidents like Ferguson (he immediately clarified that by “you folks” he meant Bernard and the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, not black people in general).

“I hope so because it’s going to turn into a genocide if it doesn’t stop,” Bernard chimed in before the break.

[BVS]

Out of all the Sharpton quotes, you chose the wrong one. He's just speaking to the frustration of the community.

As far as the other, you're finally correct, it's hyperbole. The words "genocide" and "war on _____" are too often used.

Is the war on black boys any less real than the war on Christmas? It was that fictitious war that started this whole term. The only difference is one of these wars actually has casualties, unarmed black males are killed by cops more than anyone else, black males will get the max for marijuana more often than anyone else, and they will get parole less than anyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

"A young man 18 years old shot down in the streets unarmed and rather than you address it, you tried to smear the young man, rather than uphold the principles of justice and dignity. I want you to know these parents are not going to cry alone. They're not going to stand alone. They're not going to fight alone. We have had enough."

What do you find racist about that quote?

[Babydoll]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

I don't understand the view, so often expressed here, that it's the far right
that is responsible for all racism.

I agree. The U.S. does have some that are responsible: KKK, Neo-Nazis and other white hate groups.

I don't understand how the Left gets away with saying things like the following:


Al Sharpton:

"A young man 18 years old shot down in the streets unarmed and rather than you address it, you tried to smear the young man, rather than uphold the principles of justice and dignity. I want you to know these parents are not going to cry alone. They're not going to stand alone. They're not going to fight alone. We have had enough."


National Review report about MSNBC:

The events in Ferguson, Mo., could be part of an impending “genocide” of black men unless the nation changes its course, according to one MSNBC guest.

Appearing on the network on Monday, Michelle Bernard, head of the Bernard Center for Women, said she has struggled to explain to her children the forces at work behind Michael Brown’s death.

“There is a war on black boys in this country, in my opinion — there is a war on black men,” she told Chris Matthews. “It is an absolutely deplorable situation that the United States, which is supposed to be the greatest nation on earth, sits back and allows black boys to be murdered.”​

Bernard pointed to the bad economy and the discriminatory education system as worsening the state of the black community.

Before signing off, Matthews said he hopes Americans will listen to “you folks” more often, rather than just in the midst of incidents like Ferguson (he immediately clarified that by “you folks” he meant Bernard and the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, not black people in general).

“I hope so because it’s going to turn into a genocide if it doesn’t stop,” Bernard chimed in before the break.

And what is wrong with that quote by Rev. Al?

[anitram]

Originally Posted by BVS

Is the war on black boys any less real than the war on Christmas? It was that fictitious war that started this whole term.

Actually it was the war on drugs that started it (and was the original fail).

I also don't see anything racist or for that matter objectionable in Al Sharpton's statement, and heaven knows he's said a lot of stupid things in his life.

[the iron horse]

From a commentary written by Walter Williams:

Blacks Must Confront Reality


"Though racial discrimination exists, it is nowhere near the barrier it once was. The relevant question is: How much of what we see today can be explained by racial discrimination? This is an important question because if we conclude that racial discrimination is the major cause of black problems when it isn't, then effective solutions will be elusive forever. To begin to get a handle on the answer, let's pull up a few historical facts about black Americans.

In 1950, female-headed households were 18 percent of the black population. Today it's close to 70 percent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children lived with the biological mother and father. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. Herbert Gutman, author of "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925," reports, "Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents." Also, both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.

A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia found that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families (composed of two parents and children). What is significant, given today's arguments that slavery and discrimination decimated the black family structure, is the fact that years ago, there were only slight differences in family structure among racial groups.

Coupled with the dramatic breakdown in the black family structure has been an astonishing growth in the rate of illegitimacy. The black illegitimacy rate in 1940 was about 14 percent; black illegitimacy today is over 70 percent, and in some cities, it is over 80 percent.

The point of bringing up these historical facts is to ask this question, with a bit of sarcasm: Is the reason the black family was far healthier in the late 1800s and 1900s that back then there was far less racial discrimination and there were greater opportunities? Or did what experts call the "legacy of slavery" wait several generations to victimize today's blacks?

Read more:
Blacks Must Confront Reality - Walter E. Williams - Page 1

[BVS]

Facts by themselves do not make a point. To say there were more black nuclear families under slavery is a moot point.

We have to look at the fallout of the nuclear family in general and why it effects some races more than others? Does opportunity and discrimination play a part? You'd have to be blind not to see that. Are they the only factors? Absolutely not.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by the iron horse

From a commentary written by Walter Williams:



Blacks Must Confront Reality





"Though racial discrimination exists, it is nowhere near the barrier it once was. The relevant question is: How much of what we see today can be explained by racial discrimination? This is an important question because if we conclude that racial discrimination is the major cause of black problems when it isn't, then effective solutions will be elusive forever. To begin to get a handle on the answer, let's pull up a few historical facts about black Americans.



In 1950, female-headed households were 18 percent of the black population. Today it's close to 70 percent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children lived with the biological mother and father. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. Herbert Gutman, author of "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925," reports, "Five in six children under the age of six lived with both parents." Also, both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.



A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia found that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families (composed of two parents and children). What is significant, given today's arguments that slavery and discrimination decimated the black family structure, is the fact that years ago, there were only slight differences in family structure among racial groups.



Coupled with the dramatic breakdown in the black family structure has been an astonishing growth in the rate of illegitimacy. The black illegitimacy rate in 1940 was about 14 percent; black illegitimacy today is over 70 percent, and in some cities, it is over 80 percent.



The point of bringing up these historical facts is to ask this question, with a bit of sarcasm: Is the reason the black family was far healthier in the late 1800s and 1900s that back then there was far less racial discrimination and there were greater opportunities? Or did what experts call the "legacy of slavery" wait several generations to victimize today's blacks?



Read more:

Blacks Must Confront Reality - Walter E. Williams - Page 1

Straight men certainly have some explaining to do.


Sent from

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Straight men certainly have some explaining to do.


Sent from

I think that's part of the point.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

I think that's part of the point.

Right? Seems as accurate as calling this a "black" problem.


Sent from

[BoMac]

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...104065/photo/1