Post: #101

All of the examples of historical slavery are still different from blacks in one key respect.

Jews are a cohesive group of people that originate from one place. They spring from one religion in one part of the world and the diaspora branched out, yet always knowing where they come from.

The problem when trying to make this comparison with black people who endured slavery is that Africa is not one place.

Nigeria alone has over 300 languages and numerous ethnic groups. There were hundreds of languages, tribes, religions, practices, beliefs among the people who boarded those ships in West Africa to come to the Americas. They came from present-day countries such as Senegal, Angola, Ghana, etc. Even the nation states within Africa today are the result of arbitrary borders drawn up by European colonizers with no regard to how that would affect the many different people that lived in them. The people weren't important to them, the resources were. That's why Ghana was just known as the "Gold Coast" until it won its independence from Britain.

That's the same problem you see in the Middle East with the Arab countries and Israel. Why does Israel have its shit together while Arabs don't? Before colonialism there was no such thing as a Syria or Iraq or Jordan. There were just people in those territories living in their own villages and towns along ethnic/religious lines. Now what you're seeing is the power struggles that have resulted from colonialism in which one strongman from one group absorbed total control over a very diverse country after the colonial masters left (mostly France and Britain in the case of the Middle East).

So, as it is with slavery in the US. The dehumanization, ownership, and disintegration of people who were not one cohesive group to begin with.

Consider how many varying shades of people that exist within the African-American community. How did that happen? Rape. There's no folks in West Africa that are the same shade of black as Vanessa Wiliams and the many lighter skinned blacks that you see in society.

Like I've said, no parallel in history.

Post: #102

(07-27-2013 04:11 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Like I've said, no parallel in history.

Roman empire? Slaves came from the whole of Europe, parts of Africa, Middle east. They looked different from the native Italians.

The Romans slowly absorbed slaves into the higher ranks of society. If not.. they died in their captivity. They were not free all at once. A new underclass was not suddenly created; those who became free started at the bottom rung of Roman society which was already in place.

The clear stratification according to class in Roman society made it unnecessary to be judgmental based on skin color or other physical traits. What clothes you wore was the main marker, and what (if any) weapons you carried. Thus the sub-group discrimination I wrote about was already done for you, by the state. So less need to try and judge people based on their physical attributes.

I think you are more right than wrong. A slave population that came from a huge variety of people, who were freed (without their own revolt) over a rapid period of time into a society without obvious cues for caste.. that is rather special. For now I buy your argument that it bred institutional racism.

Post: #103

(07-27-2013 01:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 12:56 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 12:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 06:19 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  



This video merits attention. As I've always said, the end of Jim Crow ironically precipitated the end of the black community as it historically had been. Back in the day black doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc lived in black communities. After the end of Jim Crow, many of these folks left to live in integrated communities. In the inner cities, you had white flight AND the departure of upwardly mobile blacks. Then those communities were hit with the crack epidemic which led to a dramatic increase in violence.

Back in 1964, two-thirds of all people locked up for crime were whites, while blacks and latinos made up the remainder. Today, it's the opposite.

Tim Wise is a bullshit artist. Dude preaches about white racism all day long yet he lives in a 99.9% white community (might even be gated). Typical hypocritical full of shit liberal.

That is a classic ad hominem. What on earth does his residence have to do with his arguments? Do you live in a black neighborhood? If not, does that invalidate your arguments on that basis alone? Wise has educated corporations, law enforcement agencies, and other institutions on the the topic of race in this country.

Ad-hominem applies when a person is making a moral argument. Ad-hominem is a fallacy for any other type of argument, such as scientific, mathematical, historical, musical, epistemology, etc.

For example, if a mass-murderer starts talking about how killing is wrong, would you listen to him? If Goldman Sach's CEO starts preaching about how greed is bad would you listen to him? If a prostitute starts talking about how sexual abstinence is the only way, would you listen to her?

Likewise, when full-of-shit Tim starts preaching about how white people are bad blah blah blah and he himself only lives with white people, you know you're listening to a charlatan. Why doesn't Mr. Wise go and live in South Chicago, or North Cambridge, and then get back to us on why Blacks aren't employed in the same numbers as whites are?

Tim Wise is a phony, hypocritical, full of shit faggot. Just as bad as Al Sharpton, but less comical so I can't even stomach Tim Wise.

And the fact that blacks like you respect Tim Wise is just another example of Blacks who get suckered by Liberals. The Liberals are doing the most to destroy Black America and yet Black Americans cannot stop eating their shit.

And for the record, my neighbors are black.

You are using fallacious ad-hominem attacks, Samseau. The validity of the information someone presents is in no way contingent on the congruency of their words and lifestyle. Truth is objective and if someone points out a truth, that person's background is irrelevant. I've learned quite a bit from Tim Wise. I've also learned quite a bit from black conservatives. The truth is more of a patchwork from different perspective. No one side has the entire truth. Bed-wetting liberal whites like Tim Wise are right about certain things. Some of what he says is bullshit. And the same goes for black conservatives. EVERYONE is hypocritical to some degree, such as Clarence Thomas opposing affirmative action, yet having benefited from it in his personal life. I see that as no different than Tim Wise preaching integration but living in a white neighborhood. ALL sides are hypocrites to some degree. That's why you can never listen to only one perspective.

Black conservatives are right in that the black family is in ruins, there's too much black crime and lack of restraint and moral discipline in the black community. Liberals like Tim Wise are right in that there is such a thing as white privilege, always has been as this nation was founded on white privilege and subjugation of anyone that was not in the "in group". The inertia of this history doesn't disappear over night. When you really study the psychology of race in America, it's like peeling an onion and you just reach layer within layer of complexity. We are NOT a post-racial society by any means and it's generally better to be white in America than black.

ps - Why do we assume Tim Wise is fleeing from black people anyway? Maybe he just happens to like that neighborhood. I live in a neighborhood that's overwhelmingly white, but I don't live here *because* of white people, but because it's in a convenient location and it's one of the relatively few walkable areas in what is normally a very spread out, car-dependent city. The racial demographics played no role in my deciding to live here. I just like the area.

Post: #104

(07-27-2013 04:29 PM)Norset Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 04:11 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Like I've said, no parallel in history.

Roman empire? Slaves came from the whole of Europe, parts of Africa, Middle east. They looked different from the native Italians.

The Romans slowly absorbed slaves into the higher ranks of society. If not.. they died in their captivity. They were not free all at once. A new underclass was not suddenly created; those who became free started at the bottom rung of Roman society which was already in place.

The clear stratification according to class in Roman society made it unnecessary to be judgmental based on skin color or other physical traits. What clothes you wore was the main marker, and what (if any) weapons you carried. Thus the sub-group discrimination I wrote about was already done for you, by the state. So less need to try and judge people based on their physical attributes.

I think you are more right than wrong. A slave population that came from a huge variety of people, who were freed (without their own revolt) over a rapid period of time into a society without obvious cues for caste.. that is rather special. For now I buy your argument that it bred institutional racism.

Yeah. Slavery in the Roman Empire was not so different from indentured servitude in the US in many ways. In fact, no more than 10% of the white population owned slaves at any time in American history. And those Europeans who came as indentured servants and "earned" their freedom through work were more than willing to go along with this race-based hierarchy as it least at offered privileges and higher status than blacks - both status and privilege being out of reach for them in the places they came from in Europe.

It's also interesting that black Americans have a longer history in the US than the majority of white Americans. I think the largest reported ancestry of whites in the US are German-Americans and then Irish-Americans, both of which immigrated to the US well after slavery had been established.

To be honest, most of the clashes in human history have been between haves and have nots. Race is a cultural construct that is quite recent in historical terms.

For example, even European colonization was more about the interests of powerful men among the elites than it was about the people. Belgium's exploitation of the Congo was more a reflection of the deranged and fanatical ambitions of King Leopold than about the Belgian people. Millions of Europeans were suffering while the elites in their country were pillaging and exploiting foreign lands.

It's like the case with the Iraq war. Many Americans did not support and of the ones who did, many were led to believe that Hussein had WMD's. Still, the interests of the elite and powerful triumphed. That's an old song.

Post: #105

(07-27-2013 04:05 PM)TMC Wrote:  "Bill O' Reilly talks about Black America"


Yes when it comes to Black America, I look for Bill O' Reilly to let me know what's going on.

You should watch the video, you may learn something. Even HC isn't disagreeing with O'Reilly as much as I'm sure he would like to.

Post: #106

(07-27-2013 04:11 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Jews are a cohesive group of people that originate from one place. They spring from one religion in one part of the world and the diaspora branched out, yet always knowing where they come from.

I know we all look the same to you ( ), but whites are not a monolithic group. White slaves spoke different languages, dialects, and came from different cultures. As with American slaves, the Roman slaves were all tossed in together.

Incidentally, why would is matter if the African slaves all came from different parts of Africa? After a generation or two of breeding, those cultural differences would have died out.

Post: #107

I'm not defending in any shape or form the practices that brought slavery here, but it seems one of the things you keep bringing up is how black slaves didn't know anything about their culture etc.

Couldn't that just have been something that happened because the slave traders/owners etc, didn't know anything about it themselves?

According to this link, Africans were enslaving one another as early as the 9th century and were part of the Arab slave trade.

It appears that enslaved Africans (blacks) were doing it to themselves long before America came along.

http://www.fofweb.com/History/MainPrintP...nType=Free

Post: #108

(07-27-2013 04:43 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 04:11 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Jews are a cohesive group of people that originate from one place. They spring from one religion in one part of the world and the diaspora branched out, yet always knowing where they come from.

I know we all look the same to you ( ), but whites are not a monolithic group. White slaves spoke different languages, dialects, and came from different cultures. As with American slaves, the Roman slaves were all tossed in together.

Incidentally, why would is matter if the African slaves all came from different parts of Africa? After a generation or two of breeding, those cultural differences would have died out.

I was talking about the Jewish diaspora, not white people. Jews make up a very small part of the white population.

As for the second point, it does matter in that once brought over to the US, slaves were split up and sold off to different owners and forced to adopt new identities (name, religion, etc) and even have kids taken away from them. Every slave was the property of its owner. Families weren't maintained and so what you end up with is no knowledge of where you come from before slavery.

This is a big contrast from your first point about Roman slaves who, though made up of many different backgrounds, were allowed to maintain their languages, cultures and identities.

Post: #109

(07-27-2013 04:43 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  Incidentally, why would is matter if the African slaves all came from different parts of Africa? After a generation or two of breeding, those cultural differences would have died out.

If you are together with people from your tribe you can keep more of your identity intact, allowing your children to have a clear idea of where their ancestors came from, what they did, who they were..

If you are alone together with other slaves from different tribes then as you say it gets washed out. And your owner can more easily carve out an identity for you as he sees fit.

Once you are free, you begin to struggle for a positive identity. "Was captured by a neighboring tribe, sold to slave traders, who then sold me to a plantation in Alabama" is not the best of starting points.

Post: #110

(07-27-2013 04:51 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I'm not defending in any shape or form the practices that brought slavery here, but it seems one of the things you keep bringing up is how black slaves didn't know anything about their culture etc.

Couldn't that just have been something that happened because the slave traders/owners etc, didn't know anything about it themselves?

Haven't you watched Roots? It was deliberate policy to disintegrate slaves and prevent them from preserving their culture (to prevent uprisings that could threaten the plantation economy). Slaves weren't even allowed to read.

Post: #111

(07-27-2013 04:53 PM)Norset Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 04:43 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  Incidentally, why would is matter if the African slaves all came from different parts of Africa? After a generation or two of breeding, those cultural differences would have died out.

If you are together with people from your tribe you can keep more of your identity intact, allowing your children to have a clear idea of where their ancestors came from, what they did, who they were..

If you are alone together with other slaves from different tribes then as you say it gets washed out. And your owner can more easily carve out an identity for you as he sees fit.

Once you are free, you begin to struggle for a positive identity. "Was captured by a neighboring tribe, sold to slave traders, who then sold me to a plantation in Alabama" is not the best of starting points.

Interesting points.

I don't hold any strong views on these subjects and avoid the race threads as it's a lot of heat and not much light.

But you gave me something to think about, to be sure.

Post: #112

Haiti is the only example in the world where black slaves united and overthrew their colonial masters (France) and achieved independence. That happened in 1804, well before African countries were free from colonialism and before black slaves were liberated in the US.

The US government - especially Thomas Jefferson who was president at the time - was so concerned that what happened in Haiti might inspire revolts in the US that they, along with France, forced Haiti to pay reparations to France - billions upon billions of dollars - for loss of property and deaths of the slave owners, ensuring that the country would perpetually be a basket case.

Today Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. I've never been there but I've heard that it's even worse than many parts of sub-saharan Africa in terms of poverty levels. That should tell you something.

Post: #113

(07-27-2013 04:59 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 04:53 PM)Norset Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 04:43 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  Incidentally, why would is matter if the African slaves all came from different parts of Africa? After a generation or two of breeding, those cultural differences would have died out.

If you are together with people from your tribe you can keep more of your identity intact, allowing your children to have a clear idea of where their ancestors came from, what they did, who they were..

If you are alone together with other slaves from different tribes then as you say it gets washed out. And your owner can more easily carve out an identity for you as he sees fit.

Once you are free, you begin to struggle for a positive identity. "Was captured by a neighboring tribe, sold to slave traders, who then sold me to a plantation in Alabama" is not the best of starting points.

Interesting points.

I don't hold any strong views on these subjects and avoid the race threads as it's a lot of heat and not much light.

But you gave me something to think about, to be sure.

I think this is the first race thread I ever post on. But this discussion seemed to be creeping up on a higher level than the regular race threads. And I have some time on my hands.

Humans are wired to be tribal. Our genome is happy in a setting with a collective past, present and future. Nation states that emulate this are generally successful. It is the most powerful thing we can do to combat our short lifespan. Remove parts of this and you end up with sick and confused people, who can more easily be controlled.

Post: #114

(07-27-2013 04:55 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 04:51 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I'm not defending in any shape or form the practices that brought slavery here, but it seems one of the things you keep bringing up is how black slaves didn't know anything about their culture etc.

Couldn't that just have been something that happened because the slave traders/owners etc, didn't know anything about it themselves?

Haven't you watched Roots? It was deliberate policy to disintegrate slaves and prevent them from preserving their culture (to prevent uprisings that could threaten the plantation economy). Slaves weren't even allowed to read.

That makes sense.

Did African tribes that captured and enslaved their enemies also do this or did they allow them to keep their identities?

Post: #115

(07-27-2013 05:07 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  The US government - especially Thomas Jefferson who was president at the time - was so concerned that what happened in Haiti might inspire revolts in the US that they, along with France, forced Haiti to pay reparations to France - billions upon billions of dollars - for loss of property and deaths of the slave owners, ensuring that the country would perpetually be a basket case.

I did not know this. So they started out with more or less the same conditions that created the Weimar republic, but without the option to physically threaten their oppressors (France, in both cases, ha).

Post: #116

(07-27-2013 03:07 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 02:13 PM)RaulValdez739 Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 09:38 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 08:48 PM)RaulValdez739 Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 01:24 PM)Fisto Wrote:  Pitt and Valdez

I can't believe you two still are so ignorant of the facts surrounding the case.

Everything Valdez just wrote surrounding his knowledge of the case is wrong.

This is why some black people will make it hard for black people as a whole to be taken seriously.

Pitt, you just posted a video outlining what's wrong in the black community, a major point is to stop playing the role of victims, then you say you completely agree with Valdez who is either too stupid to look up the actual circumstances or is being willfully ignorant.

How you don't see the conflict between these two things is just bewildering.

Please enlighten myself and the good folks on rooshv forum. I am open to debate. Tell me where I went wrong?

And please stay on topic and try not side step with saying, "violence in Chicago".

This has been discussed over and over. You're late to the party. Your understanding of the events is skewed by having heard liberal media news coverage. You obviously didn't care enough to go find the facts for yourself and rely on US magazine.

There's nothing to debate here. You're simply ignorant.

You can't call a man ignorant when he is trying to learn "correct" information. I basically won. Now shut the hell up .

You are ignorant of the meaning of the word ignorant.

What did you win? And how did you "basically" win?

If you want to learn correct information, I suggest you go over to the thread that details it ad nauseum.

I will go to the other Zimmerman thread. There is no discussion here. I know the facts period.

Post: #117

(07-27-2013 05:11 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 04:55 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 04:51 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I'm not defending in any shape or form the practices that brought slavery here, but it seems one of the things you keep bringing up is how black slaves didn't know anything about their culture etc.

Couldn't that just have been something that happened because the slave traders/owners etc, didn't know anything about it themselves?

Haven't you watched Roots? It was deliberate policy to disintegrate slaves and prevent them from preserving their culture (to prevent uprisings that could threaten the plantation economy). Slaves weren't even allowed to read.

That makes sense.

Did African tribes that captured and enslaved their enemies also do this or did they allow them to keep their identities?

Slavery in Africa was generally more like indentured servitude, not institutional like it was in the US. People kept their identities. This article sheds a lot more light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Africa

Post: #118

(07-27-2013 05:18 PM)Norset Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 05:07 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  The US government - especially Thomas Jefferson who was president at the time - was so concerned that what happened in Haiti might inspire revolts in the US that they, along with France, forced Haiti to pay reparations to France - billions upon billions of dollars - for loss of property and deaths of the slave owners, ensuring that the country would perpetually be a basket case.

I did not know this. So they started out with more or less the same conditions that created the Weimar republic, but without the option to physically threaten their oppressors (France, in both cases, ha).

Keep in mind that another major contributing factor to Haiti's poverty was going directly from slavery to independence. A bunch of freed slaves have no education or human capital of to build a society. Other formerly slave islands like Jamaica or Barbados did much better because they had a transition period where former slaves learned western style government and social organization. Just as black American slaves went on to get education, learn skills and lay the foundation for a black middle class. Haiti simply never had that chance.

Post: #119

"There is evidence of long histories of chattel slavery in the Nile river valley and Northern Africa, but evidence is incomplete about the extent and practices of chattel slavery throughout much of the rest of the continent prior to written records by Muslim or European traders."

The article mentions slaves were also used as sacrifices.

The other forms of slavery there look much better though.

HC - You mention slavery being a reason why the black community has had such a difficult time. Would you say this is also why so many black nations in Africa are having a hard time?

I had no idea slavery was such a large part of the culture and history in Africa.

Post: #120

The issue of whether or not blacks kept their identities is moot. No slave has an identity, they are property of their masters. The question should be what kind of treatment all of these slaves suffered, and to think that Black American slaves had it the worst isn't believable.

(By the way, Arabs did have an identity under the Ottoman empire that lasted for hundreds of years.)

The Spartan's slave empire treated slaves like dirt and they were hunted for fun.

Both the Greeks and Romans gave no rights to slaves and they could be killed by the owner for any reason at all.

Muslims took war prisoners and also made slaves of millions over many centuries.

East Asia also had periods of vast slave farms as well. Look up at how the Great Wall of China was built, those laborers weren't called slaves but they were slaves for all intents and purposes.

Virtually all peoples in all continents have been subjected to various forms of oppression, and nearly all of them have suffered the worst kinds of deprivations imaginable, both at the hands of invaders and their own government.

So, my point is that the way the blacks currently live in poverty today is caused by more than just their slave history. In fact I do not think their slave history is a major reason at all. Most blacks between 1900-1960 lived better and more wholesome lives, with stronger identities and communities, than Blacks between 1960-present day. The defining moment in the downward spiral of Black America was Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. That started welfare for single mom's and it was the beginning of the end of the Black family.

Today's Black's are better than slaves - they don't need any form of coercion, they just vote for the guy who promises them other people's money. Lyndon Johnson knew he was buying out the Black vote from the Republicans. That's right - Black voters used to be overwhelmingly majority Republican, because it was the Republicans who freed the Blacks from the slaves in the first place. Democratic candidates in 1860, like Stephan Douglas, were all pro-slavery. How quickly the Blacks forgot who freed them and today vote for their former slave masters. The irony is delicious.

Post: #121

(07-27-2013 04:33 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 01:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 12:56 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(07-27-2013 12:51 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-26-2013 06:19 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  



This video merits attention. As I've always said, the end of Jim Crow ironically precipitated the end of the black community as it historically had been. Back in the day black doctors, dentists, lawyers, etc lived in black communities. After the end of Jim Crow, many of these folks left to live in integrated communities. In the inner cities, you had white flight AND the departure of upwardly mobile blacks. Then those communities were hit with the crack epidemic which led to a dramatic increase in violence.

Back in 1964, two-thirds of all people locked up for crime were whites, while blacks and latinos made up the remainder. Today, it's the opposite.

Tim Wise is a bullshit artist. Dude preaches about white racism all day long yet he lives in a 99.9% white community (might even be gated). Typical hypocritical full of shit liberal.

That is a classic ad hominem. What on earth does his residence have to do with his arguments? Do you live in a black neighborhood? If not, does that invalidate your arguments on that basis alone? Wise has educated corporations, law enforcement agencies, and other institutions on the the topic of race in this country.

Ad-hominem applies when a person is making a moral argument. Ad-hominem is a fallacy for any other type of argument, such as scientific, mathematical, historical, musical, epistemology, etc.

For example, if a mass-murderer starts talking about how killing is wrong, would you listen to him? If Goldman Sach's CEO starts preaching about how greed is bad would you listen to him? If a prostitute starts talking about how sexual abstinence is the only way, would you listen to her?

Likewise, when full-of-shit Tim starts preaching about how white people are bad blah blah blah and he himself only lives with white people, you know you're listening to a charlatan. Why doesn't Mr. Wise go and live in South Chicago, or North Cambridge, and then get back to us on why Blacks aren't employed in the same numbers as whites are?

Tim Wise is a phony, hypocritical, full of shit faggot. Just as bad as Al Sharpton, but less comical so I can't even stomach Tim Wise.

And the fact that blacks like you respect Tim Wise is just another example of Blacks who get suckered by Liberals. The Liberals are doing the most to destroy Black America and yet Black Americans cannot stop eating their shit.

And for the record, my neighbors are black.

You are using fallacious ad-hominem attacks, Samseau. The validity of the information someone presents is in no way contingent on the congruency of their words and lifestyle. Truth is objective and if someone points out a truth, that person's background is irrelevant. I've learned quite a bit from Tim Wise. I've also learned quite a bit from black conservatives. The truth is more of a patchwork from different perspective. No one side has the entire truth. Bed-wetting liberal whites like Tim Wise are right about certain things. Some of what he says is bullshit. And the same goes for black conservatives. EVERYONE is hypocritical to some degree, such as Clarence Thomas opposing affirmative action, yet having benefited from it in his personal life. I see that as no different than Tim Wise preaching integration but living in a white neighborhood. ALL sides are hypocrites to some degree. That's why you can never listen to only one perspective.

Ad-hominem has special exceptions for people making moral arguments. It's like the woman who says men need to be nice, kind, loving, and loyal, but then they go out and rawdog the badboy.

Likewise, liberals who preach anti-racism, integration, anti-discrimination, and white-privilege, yet all live in pristine white communities are equally full of shit and know nothing.

Watch what people do, not what they say.

For the record, Clarence Thomas opposes Affirmative Action because it HURT him. He was unable to get any job upon graduation because everyone thought he was just an AA baby who was spoon-fed his degree because he was Black. Clarence Thomas did not need AA to become a lawyer, it was put into place by liberal politicians he probably never voted for. He did not choose "to benefit" from AA, he was part of a grand plan he opposed from day one. You can learn about this from his auto-biography. It took Thomas many years before his career started, and he blames AA for it. He said his degree from Yale meant nothing because AA undermined his credibility. So no, he is not hypocritical for opposing AA. In fact he's one of the smartest Black men in America today.

Quote:Black conservatives are right in that the black family is in ruins, there's too much black crime and lack of restraint and moral discipline in the black community. Liberals like Tim Wise are right in that there is such a thing as white privilege, always has been as this nation was founded on white privilege and subjugation of anyone that was not in the "in group". The inertia of this history doesn't disappear over night. When you really study the psychology of race in America, it's like peeling an onion and you just reach layer within layer of complexity. We are NOT a post-racial society by any means and it's generally better to be white in America than black.

See, if Blacks want to improve their lives they need to stop focusing on what whites are doing and start focusing on what THEIR group is doing. That's why whites are successful to begin with - they don't give a shit about other races, they treat everyone the same according to their white standards of justice, morality, and prudence.

Quote:ps - Why do we assume Tim Wise is fleeing from black people anyway? Maybe he just happens to like that neighborhood. I live in a neighborhood that's overwhelmingly white, but I don't live here *because* of white people, but because it's in a convenient location and it's one of the relatively few walkable areas in what is normally a very spread out, car-dependent city. The racial demographics played no role in my deciding to live here. I just like the area.

Tim Wise is telling everyone how bad white privilege and racism is in America, thus he should lead by example and move into an all-black community and teach everyone how it is done. Until then, he's full of hot air.

By the way Speak, why is your nice white neighborhood so nice in the first place? Could it be that white culture is a nicer place to live than black culture? *GASP* Was that un-PC of me to say that?

And for the record, I do not think genetics plays much of a big role in this... I think black communities are poor for the same reason Detroit is poor, i.e. Liberal, left-wing policies destroy all that it touches.

Post: #122

Tim Wise reminds me of Al Gore, who preached his bullshit about global warming yet lived in a mansion that consumed more energy than dozens of homes put together.

Post: #123

(07-27-2013 05:38 PM)Fisto Wrote:  "There is evidence of long histories of chattel slavery in the Nile river valley and Northern Africa, but evidence is incomplete about the extent and practices of chattel slavery throughout much of the rest of the continent prior to written records by Muslim or European traders."

The article mentions slaves were also used as sacrifices.

The other forms of slavery there look much better though.

HC - You mention slavery being a reason why the black community has had such a difficult time. Would you say this is also why so many black nations in Africa are having a hard time?

I had no idea slavery was such a large part of the culture and history in Africa.

That's a long discussion, but I can think of five reasons off the top of my head as to why African countries have problems with statehood.

1. The first is colonialism. European nations colonized Africa and independence for many nations was only gained in the past 50-60 years. Much of this conquering was done through armed conflict and generals took over as heads of states afterwards. Thus military strength was the origin of political power rather than popular support. Additionally, the colonists did a lot of reprehensible things throughout the continent that still leave their mark today. Divide and conquer was a common tactic where one ethnic group would be given status, money, and responsibility much to the chagrin of rival tribes and ethnic groups.

2. Some countries that gained independence were apartheid states, meaning that the former colonists were ruling over the indigenous population. Not good for stability. During much of the apartheid era in South Africa, no more than 10% of the population was white, while the black majority (85%) occupied the lowest rungs of society.

3. The US and FSU used African nations for proxy wars between the two countries. Some of these wars were being supported for over 20 years and lasted until the end of the Cold War (with some of the remnants of these wars still being felt today). The Horn of Africa is one such example.

4. Multinational corporations are stripping Africa of its resources, often using private militias to guarantee the stability of their investments (oil, diamonds, and minerals). Africa is the richest continent from a resource-based perspective, which tells you all you need to know about why that means its fucked up. The materials used to create laptops, smartphones, and other consumer stables are abundant in Africa. Political instability keeps prices low for exports. The corporations frequently bribe officials and financially support corrupt regimes. They've been known to support insurgents to overthrow democratically elected governments.

5. Africa is a diverse continent (some argue more diverse than the rest of the world put together). Unfortunately, this is an oft-cited indicator for potential conflict regardless of continent/country.

One thing that is hard to appreciate is how long memories are. People have memories that stretch back generations, so even though some of these factors go back 20 years or 50 years or 150 years, they still play out in people's daily lives. Slavery in the US is a prominent example. It nominally ended 150 years ago, but we're still struggling with its legacy today.

Rwanda is a good example in both in the horrific damage the legacy of colonialism can wreak (Rwandan genocide), but also in how countries can move beyond it with concerted effort and great leadership. Rwanda today has one of the fastest growing economies of developing countries.

Post: #124

The importance of identity and culture cannot be underestimated. The biggest problems in Black America today are directly tied to slavery and Jim Crow.

I can say that with confidence because of the astounding success that immigrants from Africa have had in the US, so the notion that color has anything to do with it is bogus.

The most educated ethnic group in the US are Nigerians. I've traveled the world and have friends and have met people of all stripes, but I've never personally seen a group of people as accomplished in terms of education and just overall hustle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_Am...#Education

Post: #125

(07-27-2013 08:24 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  The importance of identity and culture cannot be underestimated. The biggest problems in Black America today are directly tied to slavery and Jim Crow.

I can say that with confidence because of the astounding success that immigrants from Africa have had in the US, so the notion that color has anything to do with it is bogus.

The Somali are raising hell in Minnesota, though.

I think the biggest issues are high testosterone and single mothers. Black boys hit puberty a year or so before white and Hispanics.

So you take kids with a lot of testosterone and put them in a single mother household and all hell breaks loose.

Earlier you said that since Obama was elected, we may see the station of blacks improve this generation. I don't believe so.

I think life is going to get worse for blacks and whites, as more and more children are born to single mothers.

I'm also surprised you didn't mention the War on Drugs.

I often like to think about what the black community would look like if so many black fathers hadn't been thrown into the modern day plantation - the Prison Industrial Complex.

One thing that killed me about the Trayvon Martin bullshit is this: The War on Drugs, not dorks like George Zimmerman, is destroying the black community. There is a black President and a black Attorney General.

Why don't blacks demand that Obama and Holder step the fuck up and stop destroying black families through the War on Drugs?

Obama gave a cute little speech. The black community is all too willing to lap it up like good little slaves when they should be screaming for the head of a man who should understand their plight and who has the power to take action to empower the black community.