Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stealth on March 02, 2007, 09:38:13 am
-
First off, I have nothing against blacks, african-americans, whatever you want to call them. Of my staff, I am the only person that's NOT black (or asian), and i get along just fine with my employees... both at the job, and off it. many of my closest friends, both here and back home, are black... so please don't come in here and pull the "You're obviously a bigot" or "racist" or whatever. This is a trend i've been noticing in LIFE, and i thought i'd mention it here, because i'd be amused at the response i receive:
Two things.
FIRST:
The other day on TV I was watching... these black guys were protesting, all the way up to the NAACP or what have you, because someone called them "black". Yeah, that's right... they were called Black. Not "African-American", and that was offensive to them.
So I got to thinking. I don't think i'd get offended if I were called "white". Shoot, I'm called "white" every day. I'm never called "European-american" or "British-american". That would be stupid (more on that later). So why should BLACK PEOPLE be called "African American"? And it really is nonsense, because look at someone that, say, comes over here from Columbia. He's black. Been in Columbia since it was colonized, and he's as Columbian as you could get. Speaks Spanish fluently (of course! he's a 12th generation Columbian), but if he comes to this country, immediately what is he tagged? African-American. FORGET THE FACT that this guy or his family hasn't SEEN africa in 200 years...
And if you think about it, I mean how many black people in this country really can consider themselves African American? Most of them came over to America at the same time this country was founded. They came over in the same boats as their white bretheren - who, to this day, are called "white". They are as "American" as the average white "American" in this country. I guarantee you. 99.9% of blacks (or, "African Americans", if you prefer), have not had an ancestor who's set foot on Africa soil in 100 years.
I am South African. I was born and raised in South africa. Spent 13 years of my life there. You know I got in TROUBLE at school once, when I was taking an exam, for marking the "African-American" box on the exam? Yes that's right. I got IN TROUBLE for lying on it. LYING ON IT?! I am more African American than 99.999% of "African American" blacks in this country, but I got in trouble for putting African American on the exam....... yeah, sure, I was trying to be cute, but the fact remains. I, who am more african-american than most, are not ALLOWED to mark "African-American" on tests, whereas people who are 100% American, but of the black skin color, are allowed to.
SECOND:
This second point is probably more touchy. There are two words, I realized, when I attended my 11th and 12th grade "Civil Rights Club" (founded, by the way, by me and some friends, at our high-school... and exists to this day). There is "Nigger", and there is "Nigga". Until then, i thought they were the same word. I thought when a racist white guy wants to insult a black person, he calls them a "nigger". I also thought, that when rappers and black "gangstas" in general want to be 'cool', they call each other "niggers". OH NOOOO, i was told... Not at all! The word "Nigga" is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from "nigger"
:wtf:
So, I brought out. How is it that black people can call each other "niggas", but if a white person calls a black person a "nigga" (NOTE: NOT a "nigger"), then he's suddenly racist, and probably beaten up, punished, etc.
You know what the response was? Because "nigga" doesn't offend "African-americans" when it comes from an African-American. But when it comes from a white person, then it's just too close to the word "Nigger"[/i]. And you want to preach to ME about "Equality"? LOL.
Point being, that if a word offends you (i.e. Nigger), then common sense tells you you don't use a word on a regular basis that is so close to the offensive term, that when a white person (or non-black) says it, it's ASSUMED they're saying the offensive word.
If being called a "cracker" offends me (and it doesn't, by the way, i could care less), then whyyyyy on earth would I decide to call my 'homies' "crackas". NOTE: It's not the same word! Forget the fact that it's PRONOUNCED ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME.
It's just stupid. no one would do it. But it just goes to show how ****ed up society is.
So i came to a conclusion. And this conclusion, as racist as it sounds, i think is completely true. And there are exceptions. To every rule in society, there are exceptions, but I think to the majority of black/African-Americans living in the United States, MOST of them hold chips on their shoulders. You still see lawsuits today... black people trying to sue other people and governments because their GRAND FATHER was a slave. They're trying to screw the government or some poor individual or organization out of money for the suffering their GRAND FATHER, who they NEVER KNEW OR MET, went through. W. T. F...
This chip on the shoulder extends to all aspects of life and communication. You get in an argument with a black person? Eventually... sooner or later... the race card is going to be pulled out. Watch. Always happens.
Three black people beat up a white person. They "didn't have the correct upbringing and environment... that's what spurred them to do this".
Three white people beat up a black peson!? Oh HELLLLL no. Now it's a race crime. You have every black organization in the US rising up protesting, etc.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE!? If you want EQUALITY, you GET equality... you don't just get "equality" in whatever aspects you want. You can't "pick and choose" where to be equal and where not to be.
I seriously believe that it's not equality most african-americans want. Because if it were, they'd know to not keep bringing up "Oh. it's because i'm black, right? It's because i'm a minority, right?" That's just SPURRING racism. They want to have a one-up over everyone else. Seriously. And society bends to this rule. No, I think individuals like Martin Luthor King, Jr, honestly wanted equality. Educated, respectable individuals such as King just wanted to be treated the same as everyone else. But you know what? It's gone past that point. Now it's that black people have to be treated better. Because if they're not, then it's racism.
What think. Thoughts?
-
On part 1; the reason that 'black' is objected to, I think, may stem from the traditional regarding of black as 'evil', 'wrong' or 'something to be feared'. Now, I don't believe black is a racist term, but it's worth considering the reasoning; that for these particular people black has rightly or wrongly became synonymous with a racist attitude - largely because many of these words stem from the past, a time of endemic racism. And the concept of 'African American', I believe, has become adopted as an attempt to recognise the ethnic origins of the descendents of slaves.
On the subject of 'nigger' or 'nigga', it's a lot more simple. It's a racist epiphet which has been adopted by black Americans as a way to, in effect, 'defy' its racist connotations; in much the same way as calling someone a doss **** is offensive to a stranger, but not to a friend or family member (because the context is changed by that friendly / fraternal relationship).
My thoughts are that you're hugely overreacting. The white population of the USA has an overwhelming financial, economic, political and social advantage over other ethnicities, and this kind of reminds me of how some of the more fundamentalist christians complain of 'bias' despite being a majority group. I've seen similar things in Scotland / UK, and they're usually just as overreactionary.
-
I think it's all a load of horse****, either way. I have to go now, so I can't form a completely cogent reply at the moment, however, I was very much offended when at a school assembly for Black History Month - which is not called African-American History Month for some reason, as far as I know, when a couple students got up to sing the "Black National Anthem".
Seriously, what the hell?
I think basically all this political correctness is the US government (and white Americans in general) trying to tiptoe around what happened not 30 years ago, and try and make "amends" by catering to minorities, when, in my mind, the only way that we'll ever move past is to stop putting "African-American" and "Hispanic" and "Caucasian" on our census forms, and instead indicate whether or not a person is American. Affirmative action? Pah! You can't get any more racist than that! Except it's OK, because it's directed at white people, and no one cares if you're racist to them. A black man once said this on some talk show, and I agree with it completely - Just because you were once the opressed doesn't give you the right to become the opresser.
-
First off, no one has a right not to be offended. If I want to spew every racial epiphet in the book, such is my moral (and hence, ideally my legal) right.
Secondly, rascists usually don't call blacks "black", but rather any of the other, more derogatory, terms. So if nigger is a slur, black can't be. I doubt that, historically, Southern rascists called blacks anything quite as tame as "black". Just as no one in their right mind can insist on being called "Caucasian" instead of white, the same is true for all others.
-
As a wise man once said:
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/21/ew.mov.clerks/story.clerks.jpg)
It's cool, I'm taking it back.
-
I think the problems are, in part, based on the fact that a lot of the events that actually led the African population of many countries to feel this way is only a subject of history for the younger generation of whites, so they end up feeling like they are paying for the 'Sins of the Father' as it were.
Whilst that prejudice is still bound into the system in part, I do think that at times the 'racist card' is played simply for convenience.
It is like Positive Discrimination in the UK, a rule which allows the formation of, say, 'Black African Women's Club' but forbids the formation of, say, 'White African Women's Club'. It's hardly surprising with obviously slurred rules like that, that normal everyday workers are going to feel slighted, they only see the effect, not the cause of the rule.
For the main part, I think the whole racism law has started to forget the malice rule, in other words, it's not just daring to mention someone's skin colour, it is doing so in an offensive or hurtful way.
Theres still a lot of work to do regarding equality, but I think that the wrong people are being pointed at, racism is constantly made to be the fault of individuals, but the real ongoing problems are often with policies.
-
On part 1; the reason that 'black' is objected to, I think, may stem from the traditional regarding of black as 'evil', 'wrong' or 'something to be feared'. Now, I don't believe black is a racist term, but it's worth considering the reasoning; that for these particular people black has rightly or wrongly became synonymous with a racist attitude - largely because many of these words stem from the past, a time of endemic racism. And the concept of 'African American', I believe, has become adopted as an attempt to recognise the ethnic origins of the descendents of slaves.
That doesn't however make it any less ****ing stupid to tag the word -american on to the name of the race. Lets say you're a black man who was born and raised i the UK. You go to America. Suddenly you're African-American. WHY? What the **** do you have to do with America? Look at every other race. Asian, oriental, white. The name either comes from a simplification of the skin colour or from the geographical region that this skin colour originally came from. Anyone who ever called me Asian-American or who told me that I have African-Americans in my family tree is likely to get a very long rant at them that I have absolutely **** all to do with America and I'd thank them not to assume that every black person in the world does.
If you have to remember the heritage call them African just like I'm Asian. Or simply call them Black. Tagging on the -American at the end is pretty racist in and of itself.
On the subject of 'nigger' or 'nigga', it's a lot more simple. It's a racist epiphet which has been adopted by black Americans as a way to, in effect, 'defy' its racist connotations; in much the same way as calling someone a doss **** is offensive to a stranger, but not to a friend or family member (because the context is changed by that friendly / fraternal relationship).
While I understand this thing about taking back the epithet and all surely the ultimate sign that this has happened will be when you can call a black man a nigga in public and no one bats an eyelid. So by making this stupid distinction between the terms nigger and nigga and who can use them all that happens is that the divide between races remains. If I hang out with 10 black people who all call themselves nigga why should I not be allowed to join in based on the colour of my skin? Surely that is racist if you are doing it to people who are your friends.
My thoughts are that you're hugely overreacting. The white population of the USA has an overwhelming financial, economic, political and social advantage over other ethnicities, and this kind of reminds me of how some of the more fundamentalist christians complain of 'bias' despite being a majority group. I've seen similar things in Scotland / UK, and they're usually just as overreactionary.
I tend to disagree. While I think he is overreacting saying that most black American have a chip on their shoulder about this he is 100% correct in identifying a distancing technique that is being used to keep black people apart from all the other races. And if you don't believe that take a good long look at the treatment Hispanics often receive from blacks.
I won't say that we're all one be happy multicultural nation over here in the UK but not reinforcing stupid divisive lines like that over here is probably helping a lot towards reaching that goal than the tactics Stealth is on about.
-
Language is the basis of society, and all fundamental injustices in the world. This current "phase" of political correctness is nothing more than a passing ideological framework, which is irrelevant to the true relationships of the world.
Of course, I don't think that makes anyone feel better. If anything, it's just more depressing.
/philosophizing :)
-
I agree with what you say Stealth and on a VERY similar note, a message to all of you people who live in the U.S: stop saying you're americans when you're referring to your country, that's just stupid. That's like saying you own the whole continent and it is, like the subject at hand so to speak, a form of discrimination IMHO. :nervous:
-
The NAACP is subject of the fundemental paradox that afflicts such organizations (and unions too). They are formed to achieve specific goals. In the NAACP's case that was to secure equality under the law. Now that equality under the law has been secured, it serves no practical purpose according to its founding ideals. Like a union it must invent a new goal for itself so it can keep existing and the people who work for it can keep drawing a paycheck.
Such organizations tend to have as their first goal securing rational, humane treatment of their constituents. Once they've secured that and decided not to dissolve or go into holdership, then their next goal must be, perforce, not rational. Organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU have their merits and do on occassion serve a useful purpose, but for the most part they have outlived their usefulness and now engage in ideal-waving silliness that tends to betray what they were founded to do.
-
I agree with what you say Stealth and on a VERY similar note, a message to all of you people who live in the U.S: stop saying you're americans when you're referring to your country, that's just stupid. That's like saying you own the whole continent and it is, like the subject at hand so to speak, a form of discrimination IMHO. :nervous:
Okay then, what are we? "United Statesians"? ::)
EDIT: For the completely uneducated, the full name for the US is the United States of America (hence, USA).
-
I agree with what you say Stealth and on a VERY similar note, a message to all of you people who live in the U.S: stop saying you're americans when you're referring to your country, that's just stupid. That's like saying you own the whole continent and it is, like the subject at hand so to speak, a form of discrimination IMHO. :nervous:
Okay then, what are we? "United Statesians"? ::)
EDIT: For the completely uneducated, the full name for the US is the United States of America (hence, USA).
Exactly... there are Canadians, Mexicans, Cubans, Venezuelans... we're not saying we own the continent. If we'd kept the name of New England (like the Northeast states still do), we're all be New Englanders, not Americans.
-
The fact of life is that nobody wants equality, deep down everyone knows their 'team' is better than all others, whether it be race, religion, nationality or even gender. It's this bias that makes the reach for true equality fundamentally impossible.
-
The NAACP is subject of the fundemental paradox that afflicts such organizations (and unions too). They are formed to achieve specific goals. In the NAACP's case that was to secure equality under the law. Now that equality under the law has been secured, it serves no practical purpose according to its founding ideals. Like a union it must invent a new goal for itself so it can keep existing and the people who work for it can keep drawing a paycheck.
Such organizations tend to have as their first goal securing rational, humane treatment of their constituents. Once they've secured that and decided not to dissolve or go into holdership, then their next goal must be, perforce, not rational. Organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU have their merits and do on occassion serve a useful purpose, but for the most part they have outlived their usefulness and now engage in ideal-waving silliness that tends to betray what they were founded to do.
Listen, I agree with you on the NAACP, but the ACLU, for all their occassional douch-baggery, does serve a legitimate and relevant purpose. Take a look at the legislation passed in the last few years and tell me there's no need for a civil liberties watchdog group? Their purpose, as I understand it, is to side with the citizens against Big Government, Big Corporations, Big Brother and whatever Big Authority may come along and try to squash individual rights, up to and including Notorious B.I.G.
-
I think basically all this political correctness is the US government (and white Americans in general) trying to tiptoe around what happened not 30 years ago, and try and make "amends" by catering to minorities, when, in my mind, the only way that we'll ever move past is to stop putting "African-American" and "Hispanic" and "Caucasian" on our census forms, and instead indicate whether or not a person is American. Affirmative action? Pah! You can't get any more racist than that! Except it's OK, because it's directed at white people, and no one cares if you're racist to them. A black man once said this on some talk show, and I agree with it completely - Just because you were once the opressed doesn't give you the right to become the opresser.
The worst part about Affirmative Action is that, in addition to determining the success of a person based on their race, it also doesn't match the actual breakdown of which group is the minority. For example, there are many college scholarships restricted to "Women, African-Americans, or Native Americans." This is absolute crap. There are more women in college than men, and it's approaching the 60-40 mark nationwide. Yet if these scholarships were restricted to "Men, African-Americans, and Native Americans," there would be a huge outcry.
On the subject of hate speech, I feel that if the comment was not meant by the person who said it to be offensive, then there really isn't a case for hate speech.
-
Listen, I agree with you on the NAACP, but the ACLU, for all their occassional douch-baggery, does serve a legitimate and relevant purpose. Take a look at the legislation passed in the last few years and tell me there's no need for a civil liberties watchdog group? Their purpose, as I understand it, is to side with the citizens against Big Government, Big Corporations, Big Brother and whatever Big Authority may come along and try to squash individual rights, up to and including Notorious B.I.G.
Isn't he dead?
Basically though, the fundemental checks and balances of the electoral system have kind of rendered the ACLU moot in that case. Look at Congress right now.
-
Okay then, what are we? "United Statesians"? ::)
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
-
This reminds me of something.
http://blackpeopleloveus.com/ (http://blackpeopleloveus.com/)
Suffice it to say that I don't think you have a full understanding of the intricacies of the situation.
-
My thoughts are that you're hugely overreacting. The white population of the USA has an overwhelming financial, economic, political and social advantage over other ethnicities, and this kind of reminds me of how some of the more fundamentalist christians complain of 'bias' despite being a majority group. I've seen similar things in Scotland / UK, and they're usually just as overreactionary.
Do they have race quotas in university admissions over there? There was a huge contraversy about it in the University of Michigan (IIRC) a few years ago because in its admissions points system, it gave a lot more points for being a "minority" than it did for any kind of scholastic achievement.
One of the things that seriously annoyed me at my old university was their "diversity scholarship". I did not know a single white disabled student who got it, even though it was supposed to be for disabled people as well as minorities. In reality it is a totally arbitrary race based scholarship that even many minority students didn't get. Like a couple friends of mine were either of asian decent and were born in America, or their families went to America at an early age. Two of them told me the financial aid office told them that asians could no longer get it, yet I knew a third one who did get it, despite being the same ethnicity. Smells like bull**** to me.
And of course one thing I really resented was that you could get scholarships if you were black or hispanic or asian, but not if you were autistic. Aren't autistic people special in their own way?
Overall I guess I have a problem with all of these schools throwing all kinds of money based simply on the way they look. ****ing rediculous.
-
I hate affirmative action, even though that I actually qualify for and take advantage of it. Why? Because if I don't, I'll get pushed to the back of the pack as other people who do take advantage of it get pushed ahead of me for the simple reason that they are also ethnic. The whole thing smacks of racism and is completely retarded, IMO. If it were to go away and the playing field was leveled, I would be all for it.
-
"Affirmative Action" simply replaces one form of racism with another; discriminating against whites instead of blacks. It doesn't sound like the kind of plan that will bring about great social equality and understanding.
-
I always thought 'positive discrimination' was an oxymoron.
-
well i hate all people equilly. :D
i think when theese black people complain about being discriminated against, i mearly think of the poorest african countries where 1 in 3 people has aids, eat canned bugs, and kids have worms crawling out their nasal passeges. when you think about it american blacks have more rights, privledges and oppritunitys than those unfortunate blacks living in the poorest african communities.
a much bigger problem i find is thug culture. its a huge maturity stunter. they drug and **** around and occasionally shoot somone. thug culture encapsulates every race too. blacks, asians, hispanics and whites all wearing gang colors. there are alot of well off black people, i think theyre that way cause they seporated themselves from the thug culture. it also doesnt help with the gluted music companies pumping millions into rap music to make a quick buck of human suffering.
its been true sence the dawn of man: people just suck.
-
My thoughts are that you're hugely overreacting. The white population of the USA has an overwhelming financial, economic, political and social advantage over other ethnicities, and this kind of reminds me of how some of the more fundamentalist christians complain of 'bias' despite being a majority group. I've seen similar things in Scotland / UK, and they're usually just as overreactionary.
Do they have race quotas in university admissions over there? There was a huge contraversy about it in the University of Michigan (IIRC) a few years ago because in its admissions points system, it gave a lot more points for being a "minority" than it did for any kind of scholastic achievement.
One of the things that seriously annoyed me at my old university was their "diversity scholarship". I did not know a single white disabled student who got it, even though it was supposed to be for disabled people as well as minorities. In reality it is a totally arbitrary race based scholarship that even many minority students didn't get. Like a couple friends of mine were either of asian decent and were born in America, or their families went to America at an early age. Two of them told me the financial aid office told them that asians could no longer get it, yet I knew a third one who did get it, despite being the same ethnicity. Smells like bull**** to me.
And of course one thing I really resented was that you could get scholarships if you were black or hispanic or asian, but not if you were autistic. Aren't autistic people special in their own way?
Overall I guess I have a problem with all of these schools throwing all kinds of money based simply on the way they look. ****ing rediculous.
Whoops, forgot to reply to this.
No, we don't have positive discrimination; and to reiterate I think it's rather a pointless and self-defeating excercise.
-
Whoops, forgot to reply to this.
No, we don't have positive discrimination; and to reiterate I think it's rather a pointless and self-defeating excercise.
You're finished knitting Satan's warm little mittens, right?
He's going to need them very soon at this rate.
-
Whoops, forgot to reply to this.
No, we don't have positive discrimination; and to reiterate I think it's rather a pointless and self-defeating excercise.
You're finished knitting Satan's warm little mittens, right?
He's going to need them very soon at this rate.
Explain.
-
Whoops, forgot to reply to this.
No, we don't have positive discrimination; and to reiterate I think it's rather a pointless and self-defeating excercise.
You're finished knitting Satan's warm little mittens, right?
He's going to need them very soon at this rate.
Explain.
I agree with you, which is a rarity, and therefore that which rarely occurs will cause Satan to adapt to slighter colder conditions. (http://rotoauthority.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/hell_freezes_over.jpg)
-
I agree with you, which is a rarity, and therefore that which rarely occurs will cause Satan to adapt to slighter colder conditions. (http://rotoauthority.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/hell_freezes_over.jpg)
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. just went gold, methinks the devil is in his winter togs already.... ;)
-
Wall of text is about to crit you for 7.4k. Beware.
-
Most of what you said is fair and true, but you're missing a few points of historical and social context.
- The term African-American is being phased out of American culture, because, as observed by yourself, the term doesn't really fit the larger ticket anymore. Most traditional "African-Americans" (e.g. "Blacks," "Negros" etc) are now more distanced from Africa than they are from America. With much of the turbulence of Black family structure and culture (due to Slavery, Segregation, absent parents and so on) it's difficult for the average Black kid in the Bay, or Houston, or Harlem, to trace his lineage back to any particular or distinct African origin. Most new generations of Black (specifically African-American decendence) have little remaining true cultural or familial connections to the African continent or culture as well.
My point? As you're saying, the term African-American doesn't fit. I've noticed over the past couple years (throughout my lifespan, and the past decades in history) the term "Black" is becoming far more accepted by both the traditional "African-American" community, and by others in the US. The Black community, as I've seen, has begun to recognize and accept the fact that it's now its own distinct entity and culture, and no long ties itself to the African population. For all intents and purposes, I believe this is a step in the right direction, as it is obvious that the Black community here in the US of A is distinctly different from the modern day peoples or even immigrants of Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, and so on.
The confusion comes in when self-righteous advocacy groups come in with political agendas and start tearing up healed wounds over frivolous **** like being called "Black" instead of "African American." Surprise! Just like a misspelling of the vulgarity "nigger" gave hip-hop an alias, a redefined "black" gave the Black community a name to define their cultural identity beyond the colour of their skin, but not forgetting it. In either event, people that bicker over titles instead of doing something productive don't give much credit to the content of their character, and don't really deserve much attention.
Another interesting perspective on race you may relate to, and prominant in politics is that of Barrack Obama, who had an interesting take on the "African-American" label in his book The Audacity of Hope. In short, Obama's father is a Kenyan-immigrant, and his mother American. In the most literal sense, he is as African American as one can be. Yet, he doesn't really relate to the traditional "African American" culture of the 300 years in the US at all. He describes himself as being very much African, and being very much American, but not African American at all. Interesting.
So i came to a conclusion. And this conclusion, as racist as it sounds, i think is completely true. And there are exceptions. To every rule in society, there are exceptions, but I think to the majority of black/African-Americans living in the United States, MOST of them hold chips on their shoulders. You still see lawsuits today... black people trying to sue other people and governments because their GRAND FATHER was a slave. They're trying to screw the government or some poor individual or organization out of money for the suffering their GRAND FATHER, who they NEVER KNEW OR MET, went through. W. T. F...
This chip on the shoulder extends to all aspects of life and communication. You get in an argument with a black person? Eventually... sooner or later... the race card is going to be pulled out. Watch. Always happens.
- So, after the Civil War, with the 14th Ammendment, and African-Americans (the term correctly being applied in the context of history) supposedly being free people, they were promised by Lincoln and General Sherman the famous "40 Acres and a Mule" as reparations for generations of slavery, and the destruction of the African slaves' society as they knew it (although they had created and will soon build upon their own unique and distinct society, as mentioned above.) Returning to Africa was largely out of the question, though it was attempted with the founding of Liberia. Most African Americans (yes, even back then) truly had lost their African roots, knowing no currently living people, and having no connections left to Africa other than what they've heard of their ancestors. So, the best the US Gov. could do was provide them with reparations.
Well, thanks to Andrew Johnson's presidency and his Supreme Court, the 40 Acres deal was vetoed, and African Americans were kicked to "Seperate but equal" status commonly known as "segregation" that officially ended with MLK.
So, history lesson aside, why the hell should Blacks today have any right to ask for compensation for the mistreatment of their African American ancestors? Well, for one, their families never got to keep their 40 Acres, or their mule. The land alone, if passed down from generation to generation, could be worth a great deal, not to mention the profit that each family could have earned over the years working the land, developing it, selling it, etc. Secondly, the fact remains, despite time, that the culture of the African slaves was destroyed by the policies and economics of those in the US. This was never truly repaid by the government that supported those policies. Easily arguable, the status and particularly, wealth, of the Black community today could be vastly different had they not been enslaved as they were, had they even been paid after the Civil War, as they should have.
On the flipside of it, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there looking to make a quick buck at the government's (taxpayer's) expense and cry about Great Grand Daddy's hardships, and how that lead to growing up in the Projects which ultimately led to a ****ty life, not really giving a damn about his culture's suffering, and completely avoiding any sense of self-reliance. They get paid because the US legal system in this case, is based more upon evidence and fact than feeling.
- As far as your feelings on "Hate Crimes," there was an episode of The West Wing where a man's son was killed by four teenagers, supposedly because his son was gay. The (fictional) Bartlett Administration wanted to use the crime as a reason to push through a Hate Crimes Bill, and wanted the man to step up and publically support and endorse it. He refused. The Administration thought it was because he was embarassed of his son being gay. In reality, the man, while grieving the loss of his son, didn't "believe that it's right for government to punish someone for what's in their head while they commit a crime."
True enough, the creation of the "hate crime" idea implies that when a gay, or black, or jew, or muslim is murdered, it's not simply because the murderer didn't like them, or was insane already, but because he murdered them specifically because they were gay, black, jewish, or muslim, and as such, is a worse crime. While perhaps progressive towards a secure society, this obviously conflicts with the liberties of the first ammendment.
-
So, history lesson aside, why the hell should Blacks today have any right to ask for compensation for the mistreatment of their African American ancestors? Well, for one, their families never got to keep their 40 Acres, or their mule. The land alone, if passed down from generation to generation, could be worth a great deal, not to mention the profit that each family could have earned over the years working the land, developing it, selling it, etc. Secondly, the fact remains, despite time, that the culture of the African slaves was destroyed by the policies and economics of those in the US. This was never truly repaid by the government that supported those policies. Easily arguable, the status and particularly, wealth, of the Black community today could be vastly different had they not been enslaved as they were, had they even been paid after the Civil War, as they should have.
On the flipside of it, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there looking to make a quick buck at the government's (taxpayer's) expense and cry about Great Grand Daddy's hardships, and how that lead to growing up in the Projects which ultimately led to a ****ty life, not really giving a damn about his culture's suffering, and completely avoiding any sense of self-reliance. They get paid because the US legal system in this case, is based more upon evidence and fact than feeling.
I'm well aware that blacks can feel that the government of the past betrayed them with that action but when you get down to it who can't trace their life back and find some historical injustice somewhere in their family tree? Do I get to sue the English for colonial rule of India?
If you're going to go down that route you'd have to clear the whole of America and give it back to the Indians who actually had possession of the whole country before white or black people came along. Where is there equivalent of repayment for 40 Acres and a mule? They can make every bit as strong a case for how they were illegal deprived of all kinds of land.
-
I'm well aware that blacks can feel that the government of the past betrayed them with that action but when you get down to it who can't trace their life back and find some historical injustice somewhere in their family tree? Do I get to sue the English for colonial rule of India?
If you're going to go down that route you'd have to clear the whole of America and give it back to the Indians who actually had possession of the whole country before white or black people came along. Where is there equivalent of repayment for 40 Acres and a mule? They can make every bit as strong a case for how they were illegal deprived of all kinds of land.
- I don't know. I'm not well versed in any historical injustices commited by the English against India. Take some agency, try it out, and let me know. I've never heard of it before though.
- True, but there aren't enough Indians *****ing about mistreatment to warrant anything further as far as I know. They already live on their own legal lands, tax-free. They also get to have casinos.
-
So if the Indians did start *****ing about it you'd agree that the Black people had to drop their claim for American land since it didn't belong to the white people in the first place and they probably knew that fact already?
The point I'm making is that ****ty things happened in the past. There has to be a cut off point where you stop trying to redress the wrongs that were done in the past in this way. Why should what group A did to group B matter if everyone in both groups and all their immediate descendants are now dead? Cause if you take this to it's natural conclusion the only sensible outcome is for us to clone Neanderthals to take over Europe and then bugger off back to Africa.
-
So if the Indians did start *****ing about it you'd agree that the Black people had to drop their claim for American land since it didn't belong to the white people in the first place and they probably knew that fact already?
No, I wouldn't. Morally, perhaps, but that's not always the best way to run things. Legally, and realistically, the Native Americans have largely existed outside and separate from the US, even today. The difference being that African Americans were American people (Nation of the United States, not the continent) systematically oppressed and denied rights. I won't claim to be a legal or Native American history expert, but at this point, I would put a scenario with Native Americans asking for further reparations next to Mexico asking for reparations for losing California and Texas.
The point I'm making is that ****ty things happened in the past. There has to be a cut off point where you stop trying to redress the wrongs that were done in the past in this way. Why should what group A did to group B matter if everyone in both groups and all their immediate descendants are now dead? Cause if you take this to it's natural conclusion the only sensible outcome is for us to clone Neanderthals to take over Europe and then bugger off back to Africa.
:wtf: Neanderthals and Europe?
There is a cut-off point, sure. But I'm pretty sure I outlined why some people in the United States still feel they are owed, and why the US Government feels it has a duty to repay them. If I wasn't clear, I'll re-iterate: The effects of slavery didn't end at the Civil War. I know not all of you are Americans, so you may not be familiar with US history, but the Blacks lived legally in segregation until the the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. And even that wasn't the end of unofficial segregation, which is still real in some parts of the country. The point is, a lot of people of African-American lineage are still living under the effects of actions taken by institutions and families centuries ago, institutions and families which still exist today. The idea of a man crying about his Great Grandfather's mistreatment to get some money is a euphemism, but still real, still a hint toward the larger problem.
-
The effects of slavery didn't end at the Civil War.
The effects of the "Trail of Tears" didn't end with the Cherokee, Choctaw, and various other tribes resettling in Oklahoma, either. I don't get your belief that the claims of "African-Americans" are somehow more legitimate than those of Native Americans. The former group was enslaved and oppressed by white America, but let's look at fundamental cause and effect. How did they get there in the first place? Right. Their own people back in Africa sold them out. What happened to the Native Americans was calculated and deliberate genocide conducted at every level of white American society from the President down to the peasant farmers.
If we're going to start making reparations to everyone we've wronged (and I'm not saying we should go down that road), the American Indians are way further ahead in line than the African Americans. Perhaps I'm somewhat biased as I am (very) distantly related to the Choctaw, perhaps also because I have lived near various reservations in the past and have seen first hand what ****holes they are (the Indian reservations are on land that no one else could be bothered to claim because it was nearly worthless), but mostly it pisses me off that we as a nation committed so heinous a crime and refuse to acknowledge it.
-
No, I wouldn't. Morally, perhaps, but that's not always the best way to run things. Legally, and realistically, the Native Americans have largely existed outside and separate from the US, even today. The difference being that African Americans were American people (Nation of the United States, not the continent) systematically oppressed and denied rights. I won't claim to be a legal or Native American history expert, but at this point, I would put a scenario with Native Americans asking for further reparations next to Mexico asking for reparations for losing California and Texas.
Only cause it best suited the government to do so. By claiming that they aren't American you can deny them the right to claim that they were mistreated to a similar degree that blacks in America were and justify not having to give them their fair recompense.
Whether they are actually asking for reparations is immaterial. The point I'm making is that they have at least as valid a claim as the blacks do. Perhaps an even more valid legal claim since the land you're saying was promised to the blacks was stolen land and there are various laws concerning the purchase of stolen property which you are not considering (I don't know what they do in the US but in the UK you have no legal redress against the original owner of stolen property if you are found in possession of it. You may sue the person who sold it to you but you may actually end up facing a criminal charge if it can be proven that you knew they were stolen).
:wtf: Neanderthals and Europe?
They did own it before modern humans came along and took it from them.
There is a cut-off point, sure. But I'm pretty sure I outlined why some people in the United States still feel they are owed, and why the US Government feels it has a duty to repay them.
They can feel that they are owed all they like. That doesn't make it actionable. The segregation laws of the time were the laws at the time. The government didn't actually do anything illegal by keeping them segregated so they have no legal cause of action. If you want to say that they have a moral cause I agree with you 100% but then we're back to why the Indians aren't getting the whole of America back.
The point is, a lot of people of African-American lineage are still living under the effects of actions taken by institutions and families centuries ago, institutions and families which still exist today. The idea of a man crying about his Great Grandfather's mistreatment to get some money is a euphemism, but still real, still a hint toward the larger problem.
And yet again I'm going to point at Indians living on reservations as an example of "people living under the effects of actions taken by institutions and families centuries ago." The fact that something ****ty happened in the past and its effects are still around doesn't mean that you can demand money for it now.
-
I still think it's really dumb to have reparations to this day. The only way we'll remove racism from the general consciousness is to stop obsessing over things that were done in the past. In reality, probably most of the white people that have to pay out the reparations are now poor trailer trash - and the black people probably could get bye just as well without the reparations.
Why are people giving out money to the ancestors of the people that their ancestors oppressed? It's like punishing the son for the father's crimes.
On top of that, this whole crap about affirmative action (I know I mentioned this specifically before), and all the other little tidbits of our government that is designed to either categorize us or make "good" on crimes that were committed to the direct ancestors of people that have never met them, or probably even don't know who they were, only serves to exacerbate the race problem. Of course you're going to have a racially segregated society if you have to put what ethnicity you are in the census, or what ethnicity you are when you apply to college. Money should be given out by need, not race. With the current conditions, it'll end up going to mostly the same people anyway.
Anyway, end rant. I'm in English class and tired, so I'm not sure how coherent it is. :)
-
They can feel that they are owed all they like. That doesn't make it actionable. The segregation laws of the time were the laws at the time. The government didn't actually do anything illegal by keeping them segregated so they have no legal cause of action. If you want to say that they have a moral cause I agree with you 100% but then we're back to why the Indians aren't getting the whole of America back.
Passing legislation alone doesn't make it just. This is why we have a judicial branch that has the ability to overturn previous court rulings. Realizing that now, actions are being taken to write some wrongs of the past that are still adversely affecting the present, despite those wrongs' apparent legitimacy of their time.
The Native Americans are a seperate case as they are largely a nation of themselves, and not of the United States. While their treatment may have also been unjust, it was also more akin to expansion / war / genocide (however you want to look at it.) This is seperate from the case of the African Americans as they were citizens of the United States, being systematically oppressed by their own government.
Like I said, Mexico doesn't really have grounds to demand California back, nor do the Native Americans to demand their ancestoral territory. It's called War, and it's ugly and unjust, but largely viewed as legitimate, particularly by the victors. And being that war is usually not against one's own nation, there's substantially less of an incentive to voluntarily compensate the defeated.
-
Why are people giving out money to the ancestors of the people that their ancestors oppressed? It's like punishing the son for the father's crimes.
See the above discussion.
-
Passing legislation alone doesn't make it just. This is why we have a judicial branch that has the ability to overturn previous court rulings. Realizing that now, actions are being taken to write some wrongs of the past that are still adversely affecting the present, despite those wrongs' apparent legitimacy of their time.
The Native Americans are a seperate case as they are largely a nation of themselves, and not of the United States. While their treatment may have also been unjust, it was also more akin to expansion / war / genocide (however you want to look at it.) This is seperate from the case of the African Americans as they were citizens of the United States, being systematically oppressed by their own government.
Like I said, Mexico doesn't really have grounds to demand California back, nor do the Native Americans to demand their ancestoral territory. It's called War, and it's ugly and unjust, but largely viewed as legitimate, particularly by the victors. And being that war is usually not against one's own nation, there's substantially less of an incentive to voluntarily compensate the defeated.
It strikes me that you want to claim the Indians are a seperate nation so that the dreadful treatment of them can be excused as legitimate. But that argument doesn't wash with me. You claim that the slaves were poorly treated by their goverment but since when was it their government? They started off as Africans forcefully repatriated to a foreign country. The government was no more theirs than it was for the Indians.
And no matter how much you want to claim that the Indians are a seperate nation it's a load of bollocks by and large. Anyone born on a reservation is still an American citizen. They still have the basic laws of America covering them. That's the way it has been for years.
And why should it matter whether it was their own government repressing them or not anyway? You don't give out stiffer legal penalties just because the criminal is related to the victim.
As I said before you have no legal grounds for recompense. And if you want to start claiming you can get the judicial branch to over rule the previous mistakes of the past let's start discussing that many of the reductions in the size of Indian reservations happened not through war (as it that was a legal method of stealing land anyway!) but via various acts of congress similar to the one which reversed the whole "40 Acres and Mule" deal.
-
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not really claiming anything, especially about Indians. I am saying why African Americans are filing for reparations from the governement, and why they could have legal and moral grounds for receiving them, as they are.
You brought up Indians, which for a number of reasons, in addition to my relatively uneducated guesses, are an entirely seperate case with different circumstances. History and the way government's relationship with them now would seem to agree.
Also, something relevant: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6432157.stm
-
Notice that the story you have posted is people complaining about what was actually done to them not to their ancestors. If black people were suing the government for stuff that happened under segregation I'd have no problem with it, same as I don't have with these Norwegian people suing the government.
However once you leave actual harm done to you personally by actions taken while you were alive you get into a whole different ball game. Cause where do you draw the line? Can the poorer white people in America sue the UK for the religious repression that caused them to flee the UK? Can the descendants of the Christans burned by the Romans sue them?
-
Don't ask me, ask the US Judiciary.
It'd stand to reason though that if your government legally oppressed your grandfather through segregation, substantially diminishing the quality of his life, culture and community, which proceeds to affect his people's, and by relation, your status in society - then that same government decides some decades later that it was actually in error, you'd probably be a little "peeved" and expect something in return more than some words.
Racism doesn't end at a single person or with a single generation. I think you're missing the fact that a lot of the people looking for compensation have on some level or another, found themselves affected ("harmed") personally by it. In fact, I'd say that that's the reason they're looking for compensation. If they hadn't been harmed by it, they probably wouldn't be looking for anything in the first place.
-
Alright kids, so what have we learned today?
Affirmative action is reverse racism.
No matter the wrong, no minority or oppressed group should seek to punish the descendants of the racists for the sins of the father.
Both of the above do little to amend past discrimination, but only remind people in a very inappropriate way of how certain groups' ancestors were treated.
-
Affirmative action is basically good racism.
-
Supposedly. I tend to think that some of the ways it's applied do more harm than good.
Don't ask me, ask the US Judiciary.
It'd stand to reason though that if your government legally oppressed your grandfather through segregation, substantially diminishing the quality of his life, culture and community, which proceeds to affect his people's, and by relation, your status in society - then that same government decides some decades later that it was actually in error, you'd probably be a little "peeved" and expect something in return more than some words.
Racism doesn't end at a single person or with a single generation. I think you're missing the fact that a lot of the people looking for compensation have on some level or another, found themselves affected ("harmed") personally by it. In fact, I'd say that that's the reason they're looking for compensation. If they hadn't been harmed by it, they probably wouldn't be looking for anything in the first place.
But everyone can look back on something that happened in their past and say that their life would be better if that hadn't happened. It's nonsensical to say this happened to my grandparents and my life is **** because of it.
But okay. Give it your best shot. What do you think should be done to redress this supposed injustice then? Go ahead.