@adramalech ...and with good reason too. Science, debate and common courtesy dictates that you provide a reference for a claim.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the audience hearing the claim.
Truthfully, it's not even a matter of "disproving" because dialog doesn't work like that, you can't prove an negative. You can confirm a statement... which brings us back to the claimant.
Without it, those claims will be disregarded. Even ignored.
This post makes a very good point. All the noise made these days about the sins of the forefathers carrying on to trouble their sons, here's the polar opposite, except these acts aren't acknowledged for their greatness. Being smug is necessary since every time you make a mistake, everyone makes a big deal of it. So make a big deal of the good acts too to counter balance that shitstorm
Apple... the British "made a mistake" making slavery legal. Then they made owning people illegal... but instead of owing the slaves for time lost- they assigned a dollar value to each person as property and paid the slave owners as a kick back to compensate them. They were under no obligation to do so- from drugs, cars, and guns, governments seldom feel compelled to pay people for things they make illegal. Part of why this took so long to pay off was people were embarrassed or ashamed to collect, or didn't want "dirty money." They didn't pay the slaves (any "fair" amount) for their suffering, forced relocation, or lost time in life- but paid the mostly white slave owners for their losses from "setting it straight." They my have avoided a civil war by doing this, and thusly also helped ease later racial tensions in the country, but they can't really claim the high ground, or imply this somehow assuages the issues of slavery.
That's the thing. Everyone accepts the shitstorms. So let's accept the 'positive version' of the shitstorm as well and not ignore it as 'smugness'. Also, all acts committed by the British were down by those people. Their descendants did not have any say or part in it, yet still are held somewhat responsible. I'm not saying the slave trade was okay, nor am I a saying it was perfectly gotten rid off.
This is a two parter. First- When you edit or omit information to obscure the truth what you have isn't a "version" based on perspective, but one based on incomplete information. This not only is a self serving insult to those who suffered a wrong, but is also a form of revisionist history with removes or lessens the impact of wrong. When looking back at history (personal or world), it may be more pleasant to absolve some of our guilt but means that the wrong is more likely to be forgotten and repeated. A version of truth is by default never the truth. We all have relative perspective in our limited scope but the closest to real truth we can get is to gather all information we can detached from self interest, and not form whatever version is most convenient or pleasant
Part 2: I agree that few are alive today who directly profited from slavery. However here's the thing- if your grandfather is a robber and drug dealer, and leaves the money to your father, who leaves the money to you, you after he dies, you did nothing wrong. Maybe your dad never did anything wrong. But that is still dirty money. Even if your father went to school and invested and earned the money, he had those advantages because of ill gotten gains. He still profited from wrong doing. He can do good in his life but you cannot erase that fact or make right on. So while you may not have participated in slavery, those descended from still benifit to this day from the fruits of slavery, including institutions who trace their start to slave money.
Part of my family emigrated here from Europe after being displaced by the potato famine and others by the Franco-Austrian war and earned citizenship by serving in the Union Army in the 1860s. Others worked in NY and PA factories making material for the Union army. Being Irish immigrants at that time put you at the bottom of the social ladder and German speaking immigrants weren’t any better off. Am I responsible for slavery too?
All @guest_.
Dirty money isn't something I'd hold anyone accountable for. I disagree with you on that. That money was earned in a situation where something terrible was legal. The problem isn't the money owned through a terrible practice, but rather the fact that that practice was legal. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean on part 1. I think you're going way over your head trying to explain something we haven't even touched on in this discussion.
@Apple- Being legal and being right are not the same thing. If you believe that profiting off human misery is fine so long as it is legal that is your right. We have seen through history that many even in times s wrong is legal and normal have known it wrong, and many laws such as abolition cake about because of the fact people knew it was wrong but many simply allowed it because it was the best way to achieve their financial goals. Part 1 was directed at your sentiment that if we accept the shitstorm we should accept the "positive" revisionist version of things. You'll find few comic book villains in history. Every "great" person had dispicible elements, and every disposable figure had elements of humanity. Being realistic isn't about vilifying things but the counter to vilification isn't to try and wash over unpleasant events and hope the average sum of propaganda is nuetral truth. The only people who thought slavery was "right" were those who saw other human beings as not human.
@pokethebear- Anyone selling slaves was culpable. However the African slave traders weren't responsible for foreign laws or treatment of slaves, those buying the slaves were. As for Irish/German/Italian/polish/ and many others treated poorly as immigrants, some may have owned slaves (most would have been too poor) but they could have benefited. Hard to say. What I can say is that given the choice it is unlikely any of your ancestors would have chosen to trade places with a black man in their day and age, and even in 2017 you probably wouldn't find as many whites willing to trade what they have for the life of a person of color as you would people of color willing to trade for the benefits of being white. Someone always has it worse, and it's hard to compare human misery, but if you wouldn't trade places with someone you can assume they have things worse that you.
I can say with absolute confidence that if I were a black man in 2017 as opposed to Native/Hispanic, my life would be way easier. Between affirmative action, preferential treatment, and whites rushing to blame every mistake I make on institutional racism, I'd have it made.
@Famousone- Maybe that's true in your case. Notice I said "whites wouldn't trade" not other groups. This isn't a discussion on what group has it worse in America, in some parts of the country particular types of bigotry are most rampant. As a mixed child of primarily native decent I've never felt discriminated against for being native, and was offered many opportunities because of it such as scholarships. As for the advantages to being black- You refer to preferential treatment etc. Is that the preferential treatment that puts a disproportionate number of blacks (especially men and youth) in prison or as dead at a young age? That still has black people as a whole more likely to make less or be underemployed compared to the average, or underrepresented in universities film etc? Other races face this too, not just blacks- but aknowleging blacks are discriminated against doesn't mean others aren't. Can you explain why so many young blacks end up in prison or dead to me? I'm interested.
@pokethebear- No one is asking you to apologize for being white. No one controls the circumstances they are born into. We have no control over what those who came before us did. But we live in the world they created, with the benefits and drawbacks that comes with. We have the ability to shape the world we live in now for the future, and when we see something wrong we can work to fix it, or we can shrug and say it isn't our problem. I don't know about your home but in my home if I'm home alone and there's a mess I don't leave it until the person who did it comes home, I clean it up because I choose not to live in a dirty house. In America the ancestors of slave descendents didn't have a choice in how they built their legacy. They didn't have the chance to succeed. The institutions of racism that followed slavery have held back black Americans long after slavery was abolished and effected those who came after. So we can't turn back time or rightly asses a value,
and we shouldn't take anything from whites who did nothing wrong- they were just born white, so what do we do? Maybe we make up for it by aknowleging terrible things happened and providing the opportunity now that was denied. Maybe to offset the 200 or so years in which racism against blacks has been alive and well in America (and the historically documented period up until recent times when it was unarguable that a white man could kill a black man for no good reason and have it not be a crime,) and provide opportunity. Not tear down white people of today, but build up the black community (and other groups who have suffered racism). The fact you think you need to apologize for being white shows me an "is vs them" mentality where you're looking to prove someone is wrong or innocent. No one is perfect, no race is better than another. This isn't about that. It's about hurrying antiquated ideas like that by finally giving everyone the same chance to succeed.
Why are so many blacks in prison or dead? Because they commit just under 75% of crimes in America.
Why are they unemployed and poor? Because they drop out of school or steal from their employers.
I've seen all of this first hand all across the western US.
The black community is the only one that has not risen above the circumstances of a century and a half ago. The Irish rose above, the Chinese rose above, the Vietnamese rose above, the freaking Russians rose above. I don't get it, but I know that at this point it is nobody's fault but their own.
So your statement is that black people are inherently prone to commit crimes? Something fundamental in the combination of genes that create a person we would call "black" be that African, Dominican, Jamaican, or other ancestry- that from a group of people who's ancestry is far spread by distance and culture, simply all happen to statsictally have something inborn which makes them prone to crime by their nature?
As to "rising above the circumstances of a century and a half ago" I was not aware the Tuskegee experiments of the 1940's-60's were a century and a half ago? I was not aware that desegregation of schools was so long ago. I was not aware that racial lynching had stopped so long ago. Very surprised to find out that the 1970's and 1980's were a century and a half ago, in which the United States Government was proven to have specifically funneled drugs into inner cities with the implicit intention of repressing the minority community was a century and a half ago. That the FBI program aimed at getting Dr King to commit suicide in the 60's was so long ago, or the infilitration of the black panthers by US agents specifically to increase militant violence and push them to be identified as a public threat and not an activist group was so long ago. I'm glad you are here to educate me on my flawed concept of history.
You literally just said that you believe black people are racially pre disposed to be criminals. You didn't even bother to refute that I had misunderstood your stance, merely that your point was proved. The original issue we are discussing was one of "white guilt," I provided the other information for historical context as your statements seem to make it clear that you were either unaware of the fact these things happened, or do not see where there could be a connection to the current social state and events which came before. These are not excuses for behavior they are possible causes. If we address the possible causes and there is no longer a disparity in crime statistics between groups you may have an argument for your theory, although a weak one as the eugenics you are a promoter of have been disproved. I would wager that it wouldn't get that far as if we corrected many of these causes we would see these statistics normalize themselves over a few generations.
I never claimed it was racial. Frankly, my theory is that it's cultural.
Now stop putting words in my mouth. I never promoted eugenics, and I never blamed genetics.
You didn't refute my earlier understanding of your position, and held it up as proof of your point so I logically assumed you weren't contesting my previous assertations. We were discussing "Black" which is a race and not an ethnicity or nationality- but a diverse group from many origins who's defining characteristic tends to be related to average skin tone and not other factors, thusly when you say "black" it is logical to assume you are speaking of a race as opposed to the unique American Subculture shared by those identified as black and accepted as such. Apologies for any offense in that vein. So I'm quite interested to hear not only your views on this cultural phenomenon, but how this culture can be properly contextualized without acknowledging much of the interference which helped create and shape it, and the hostility that may have created in various communities. If you please I'll be around to read it.
You pretentious ass.
Black-American culture idolizes drugs, murder, sleeping around, and other things that tend to leave kids worse off. This leads to them running about trying to find the scarface fantasy, knocking women up with no intention of raising the kid or even paying child-support.
Furthermore, drug addiction makes it kinda hard to keep a job, pushing them to either sell drugs, mug, or kill for money.
Which leads to the next point, they've convinced themselves that money is the end all be all.
Among this and other things, even those rising above are routinely killed for refusing to push, or they're just caught in the cross-fire, hit in a drive-by or butchered for something their brother or cousin did (as almost happened to me when I visited my cousin in the hood).
I suppose my beef is more hood culture than black culture, but they're wrapped tightly around one another anyways, perpetuating a senseless cycle of blood and tears just because they don't think to help themselves.
I'll readily admit to being an ass, but take offense to being called pretentious. Sub Cultures in many places idealize crime- it is historically the only avenue many people are readily presented with in these sub cultures, and even the suburban middle class romanticizes criminal fantasies. Some people live it as a reality. Help out of... the institutionalize poverty which has generationally been forced? I was alive when the CIA was funneling drugs to the inner city even if you weren't. This isn't distant history we are talking about. those drugs you say "they" are hooked on. The government wanted them hooked. The war on drugs began when white suburbanites started using and drug violence spilled out of "minority" neighborhoods. For a large part of black history in America mayor, lawyer, cop, tycoon, these weren't achievable dreams. Crime was not only a path to success but for many the only way to survive. Continued....
You equate black culture to criminal culture as if the two are interchangeable and universal. It's undeniable there are themes of crime throughout many black cultural works- much as going back to Robbin Hood and so many Hollywood movies between it is a theme in mainstream culture in general. The only thing we've come to as a factor is poverty. That "the hood" an economically disenfranchised area seems to have more crime, and it seems to be occupied by many but not exclusively black people. The United States government created "hoods" and projects, pumped them full of drugs and weapons and hoped black America would be too busy dying and robbing each other to participate. So even if we remove all culpability from today's generation, how is this not a problem for us to fix, especially when you've already noticed a lack of opportunity and money tends to create crime?
Wow guest_ . all famous one said was that statistically black people are known to commit the most crimes, explaining why such a high % of them are in prison or unemployed. No need to put words in peoples mouths. Facts being as they may, why it is so can just be assumed with no concrete proof and is not worth arguing about.
Apple_.... I'm not sure how quoting someone is putting words in their mouth, or referencing the exact concepts of their arguments. I don't have to put words in anyone's mouths, This conversation began on "concrete" factual ground to correct the statement that the British bought slaves freedom. We went to a more philosophical question of when one should own up to a mistake in general, and wether it is ok to use a more "pleasant version" of facts to counter balance negative bias. It morphed into this- continued....
And I am the one who asked for an explaination of why such a disproportionately large number of blacks were in prison to other races, famous replied finally stating because they commit "75% of the crimes." When I asked why- I was told it is because of "black culture" and how it "idolizes drugs and...." I was told clearly that we weren't talks about a race- but a culture, that is named after a race, belonging to a race, and primarily practiced by a race. There was no mention of wether black Americans who aren't criminals are still part of black culture, or if the "good ones" are those who grow up with some other non racial culture. Can you see where there isn't a lot to be left out that needs filled in there? despite constantly brining it up the only time any historical cause beyond "that's how they are" was answered with "...whites rushing to blame every mistake I make on institutional racism, I'd have it made."
Does it seem to you- being honest an objective, that we can ignore the entire body of historical evidence and hang a point of view on "that how they are and I don't know why" when there are entire libraries full of writings on exactly why things are how they are in modern American race relations? That our anecdotal and biased experiences with our limited world surroundings can outweigh the combined record of testimony and historical proof? I don't know how you get more concrete than that, but some people believe the earth is flat, so what more can I say? My participation on this line of things is done, I can tell you the world isn't flat, I can show the proof, but what you believe is up to you.
For how many generations has affirmative action been practiced? For how many generations have the benefits cards gotten easier to obtain? Families now teach their bastard children how to maximize their benefits collection. The result of these racist programs is a now permanent class thoroughly dependent on handouts. The left wrings their hands and points to cisgendered white makes as the source of this covert enslavement all while using feel good legislation and the media to further the programs and cast a wider net for the purpose of subjugating higher and higher numbers of people. Enough, jail parents that don’t send their kids to school, reopen reformatories and teach life skills, offer trade school, offer college scholarships to those proven worthy, thirty years of this could break the cycle of ridiculousness.
I think you say perfectly- breaking the cycle. Things can never be made right, we can never know what the effects of truly erasing slavery and racial discrimination from history would have made different in each persons life at the time, let alone through the ages.
As you answer yourself later in your post we have had affirmative action for about 2 generations now, sadly even if repairing the damage takes half the time of causing it as opposed to the twice as long it usually takes to fix what's been decimated, we have a long way to go. I agree Hand outs are seldom the best method of help, especially when the root cause isn't necessarily a lack of money but a lack of certain types of experience and opportunity. I think 30 years is an optimistic estimate, but would be happy to see that come true.
No. They did not "buy slaves freedom." They outlawed owning people as property, then reimbursed slave owners for the loss of wealth from the slaves being taken. The debt that was recently paid was a collection of debts spanning 200 years, including this, but also the massive south sea bail out and Irish famine.
Further more, part of the reason it took so long to pay the slave debt was that many didn't come forward to collect. As time passed and slavery developed more stigma, many individuals and institutions didn't want to remind the world their empires were built on or once funded by the slave trade. As such many never bothered to come forward. Also I think it should be emphasized that this was only slaves within the empire owned by citezens of the empire. The slaves in Haiti and other areas of British control were not included in this- and in the empire this moneybwasnt for the slaves but the slave owners.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not the audience hearing the claim.
Truthfully, it's not even a matter of "disproving" because dialog doesn't work like that, you can't prove an negative. You can confirm a statement... which brings us back to the claimant.
Without it, those claims will be disregarded. Even ignored.
Dirty money isn't something I'd hold anyone accountable for. I disagree with you on that. That money was earned in a situation where something terrible was legal. The problem isn't the money owned through a terrible practice, but rather the fact that that practice was legal. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean on part 1. I think you're going way over your head trying to explain something we haven't even touched on in this discussion.
Why are they unemployed and poor? Because they drop out of school or steal from their employers.
I've seen all of this first hand all across the western US.
The black community is the only one that has not risen above the circumstances of a century and a half ago. The Irish rose above, the Chinese rose above, the Vietnamese rose above, the freaking Russians rose above. I don't get it, but I know that at this point it is nobody's fault but their own.
Now stop putting words in my mouth. I never promoted eugenics, and I never blamed genetics.
Black-American culture idolizes drugs, murder, sleeping around, and other things that tend to leave kids worse off. This leads to them running about trying to find the scarface fantasy, knocking women up with no intention of raising the kid or even paying child-support.
Furthermore, drug addiction makes it kinda hard to keep a job, pushing them to either sell drugs, mug, or kill for money.
Which leads to the next point, they've convinced themselves that money is the end all be all.
Among this and other things, even those rising above are routinely killed for refusing to push, or they're just caught in the cross-fire, hit in a drive-by or butchered for something their brother or cousin did (as almost happened to me when I visited my cousin in the hood).
I suppose my beef is more hood culture than black culture, but they're wrapped tightly around one another anyways, perpetuating a senseless cycle of blood and tears just because they don't think to help themselves.
As you answer yourself later in your post we have had affirmative action for about 2 generations now, sadly even if repairing the damage takes half the time of causing it as opposed to the twice as long it usually takes to fix what's been decimated, we have a long way to go. I agree Hand outs are seldom the best method of help, especially when the root cause isn't necessarily a lack of money but a lack of certain types of experience and opportunity. I think 30 years is an optimistic estimate, but would be happy to see that come true.
Further more, part of the reason it took so long to pay the slave debt was that many didn't come forward to collect. As time passed and slavery developed more stigma, many individuals and institutions didn't want to remind the world their empires were built on or once funded by the slave trade. As such many never bothered to come forward. Also I think it should be emphasized that this was only slaves within the empire owned by citezens of the empire. The slaves in Haiti and other areas of British control were not included in this- and in the empire this moneybwasnt for the slaves but the slave owners.