[samiam]

No penis size threads.

[Nuke]

its more of a result from transitioning away from slave culture to one that values civil rights over the course of only about 100 years. if i remember my history most of europe had abolished slavery long before we did, and so the wounds between blacks and whites had longer to heal. but here its only a few generations back. seems black people are still holding a grudge though, especially where the n word is used.

[NGTM-1R]

Protip: It's because americans are super sensitive about these things.
We dutch? We don't care nearly as much. It's a difference in culture. Everything is bigger in america 

Yeah, you never had a slavery issue the way we did, so we actually kind of give a **** about racial issues in a way you've never had to.

[swashmebuckle]

Don't the Dutch have a comic relief blackface character they parade around at Christmas or is that a different country?

[General Battuta]

Don't the Dutch have a comic relief blackface character they parade around at Christmas or is that a different country?

Robert Downey Junior?

[StarSlayer]

Don't the Dutch have a comic relief blackface character they parade around at Christmas or is that a different country?

Robert Downey Junior?

There is a bit in that film, I think when he's pep talking them the night before they raid the drug village where it dawns on him how absurd the whole scene is and he almost breaks character.  It's great that they left it in because it was hilarious watching him struggle to keep it together.   

[deathfun]

Difference being, him breaking character isn't actually breaking character as he's just playing a character playing another character so in reality his character would be breaking the character portrayed by the previously mentioned character whom is the one who realizes how absurd the scene is and is breaking character but not really because he's still in character just as another character

Charception

[swashmebuckle]

This Dude!

On the plus side, at least the Dutch Santa dresses like a pimp too.  Look at that cane!

[swashmebuckle]

You went full minstrel, man. Never go full minstrel. You don't buy that? Ask Jar Jar Binks, 1999, "The Phantom Menace." Remember? Went full minstrel, went home empty handed.

[Mongoose]

God I love that movie.  So much.

[Spoon]

This Dude!
*image*
On the plus side, at least the Dutch Santa dresses like a pimp too.  Look at that cane!

Hell yeah mother****er.
This guys and his sidekicks give presents and candy to kids like a boss.
Protip: Your Santa was partly based on the Sint.

Yeah, you never had a slavery issue the way we did, so we actually kind of give a **** about racial issues in a way you've never had to.

How long ago was slavery abolished in america?

[Nuke]

This Dude!
*image*
On the plus side, at least the Dutch Santa dresses like a pimp too.  Look at that cane!

Hell yeah mother****er.
This guys and his sidekicks give presents and candy to kids like a boss.
Protip: Your Santa was partly based on the Sint.

Yeah, you never had a slavery issue the way we did, so we actually kind of give a **** about racial issues in a way you've never had to.

How long ago was slavery abolished in america?

at the end of the civil war. durring the civil war, in 1862. before the war states had the right to decide whether they wanted to allow slavery or not. the war really had nothing to do with salvery. the south didnt like the federal government to have much power, preferring to let the states do things their own way. while the north was pushing for a stronger federal government. lincoln would have even allowed the south to have slaves if they stayed in the union. but they wanted to do their own thing, while the north didnt want to loose in on the tax revenue it was getting in the cotton trade. lincoln had his emancipation proclamation essentially ending slavery in the usa (though in the csa it persisted till the end of the war). it was originally used to get slaves, even freed slaves from the south, into the union army. when the south lost the war, it effectively ended slavery. last year was the 150th anniversary of the civil war so 150 years is a close approximation.

[karajorma]

But segregation carried on until much later. And that's definitely a cause of racial issues in America.

[Nuke]

yea, but only in the south. it took the civil rights movement in the 1960s to put that to an end.

[Astronomiya]

Nuke, go read the declarations of secession of all the Southern states and then try and tell me with a straight face that the Civil War really had nothing to do with slavery.  You might also want to read the discourse and personal letters of prominent Southern politicians of the time.  That war had everything to do with slavery, so much so that just about every last one of the states that seceded (might even be every single one, not sure) mentioned it prominently as a primary reason that they were seceding.  This "states rights" bull**** that the South has been peddling ever since they got their asses rightfully kicked and were forced to stop enslaving other human beings needs to ****ing stop.

Also, -Joshua-, "nigger" is just about the most offensive thing you could call a black person in the US ever.  To a Southerner in the not-so-distant past, saying that they treated black people like dirt would have been a grievous insult to dirt.  Race relations in the US really were that bad, and it is not an exaggeration to say that the repercussions of the US' slave-holding past are still felt today.

[Nuke]

it did not. it had everything to do with the power of the federal government. the south didnt like having their state rights limited by a larger federal government, and yes slavely was one of those rights, but it was not the only one. the north certainly wasnt fighting for the negros, if you would have asked a northerner to go to war to free a negro he whould have laughed at you. no they were sent into battle to "preserve the union" while the south was going into battle to defend their state's rights. before the civil war, states had a lot more power than they do now.

[Spoon]

Cheers, Nuke

But segregation carried on until much later. And that's definitely a cause of racial issues in America.

This is actually something I forgot about. I was almost going to say "150 years ago yo, time to get over it."
But then this post reminded me that not until all that long ago, there were seperated places for black and white people in public transport and what not. Making it all a wee bit more recent.

[Astronomiya]

I'll just quote straight from the horse's mouth, then.  This particular horse happens to be Alexander H. Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy:

"Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees."

He wrote this in his memoirs in 1866, basically right after the war ended.  The "rendition of fugitives from service" he mentions was referring to the Fugitive Slave Act, which essentially required Northern states to return escaped slaves to their masters based on nothing more than someone's say so (i.e., all they had to do was say, "Hey, I recognize that guy!  He's one of my employer's slaves!").  This ran completely roughshod over the Northern states' rights, by the way, since it removed from them the ability to determine if a claimed escaped slave actually was, and how to determine this.  Now, while Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution did require the return of escaped slaves, and the Northern states had attempted to circumvent this to varying degrees, it does not excuse trampling their rights, now does it?

Another bit of hypocrisy regarding the fugitive slave business is that the Southern states held nullification of federal law to be an explicit right of all the states (look up the Nullification Crisis for more on that subject), so if they were consistent with this, there should have been no complaint about the Northern states exercising their rights by not complying with the law!

The South also didn't think much of Lincoln or the Republican Party, and one of the other reasons they seceded can basically be boiled down to the fact the country elected a President they didn't like!  See, for example, a portion of Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession:

"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state."

[Bobboau]

anyway as far as the subject of this thread goes, ITT; Observer Bias.

I have some voices recorded in a haunted house, I think it says 'huperdink', or maybe 'plum pudding', or it could be 'dumb boutique'

[Nuke]

I'll just quote straight from the horse's mouth, then.  This particular horse happens to be Alexander H. Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy:

"Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees."

He wrote this in his memoirs in 1866, basically right after the war ended.  The "rendition of fugitives from service" he mentions was referring to the Fugitive Slave Act, which essentially required Northern states to return escaped slaves to their masters based on nothing more than someone's say so (i.e., all they had to do was say, "Hey, I recognize that guy!  He's one of my employer's slaves!").  This ran completely roughshod over the Northern states' rights, by the way, since it removed from them the ability to determine if a claimed escaped slave actually was, and how to determine this.  Now, while Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution did require the return of escaped slaves, and the Northern states had attempted to circumvent this to varying degrees, it does not excuse trampling their rights, now does it?

Another bit of hypocrisy regarding the fugitive slave business is that the Southern states held nullification of federal law to be an explicit right of all the states (look up the Nullification Crisis for more on that subject), so if they were consistent with this, there should have been no complaint about the Northern states exercising their rights by not complying with the law!

The South also didn't think much of Lincoln or the Republican Party, and one of the other reasons they seceded can basically be boiled down to the fact the country elected a President they didn't like!  See, for example, a portion of Georgia's Declaration of the Causes of Secession:

"A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state."

wikipedia is not a valid source when it comes to politics.

much of the history of the civil war underwent a rewrite during the civil rights movement. i see this as a guilt reduction amongst whites for holding slaves. to say "were not the bad guy, we went to war for you and your rights!". i also think this was a major factor in getting obama elected, in addition to the anti-republicanism developed following the bush years. but thats beside the point. to say that the war was all about slaves is just an oversimplification.