Do You Get Bullied?

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Excalibur

I'm surprised no one has mentioned drug policy, because in my opinion, that is the single biggest issue affecting income among blacks. (I'm not just talking about sentencing disparities, either)

I'm not sure I follow...

Or, okay, I think I do, but I'm not liking what I'm assuming. Want to try and be clearer?

(Sniped)

[Dantius]

Well, not to take the words out of Excalibur's mouth, but I frankly agree strongly with his statements- I'd rank drug policy #2 behind education policy in terms of their ability to wreak havoc on the lower classes- and make no mistake, this is a class issue, and not a racial one.

 

Look, let me take a bit of time to go over this in detail, since tl;dr posts seem to be the norm in this thread. There are many policies adopted by the federal government that disproportionately affect the poor. Sales tax is a great example, because while it ostensibly affects everyone equally, it actually has the result of vastly raising the cost of living for the poor to a perhaps unsustainable level, while it's a mere annoyance for the middle class and irrelevant for the rich. It's the same with drug policy- while it ostensibly affects everyone equally, it hurts the groups who have the most drug users the hardest- the poor.

 

Now, the problem with this is that when people say "the poor" they mean a group that is both disproportionately black and, if you are black, that you are disproportionately likely to be a member of, for various reasons that have been discussed quite thoroughly above that mostly pertain to education.

 

So anyways, you now have a group that is disproportionately likely to be black and at a increased vulnerability to use drugs. Now one of the big problems of being poor is that you can't actually represent your interests in the political system as well as you could if you were middle class or upper class. So these drugs that you are at an increased risk of taking are illegal (which is incredibly stupid for many, many reasons). This does two things:

1. Raises the price

2. Makes you a criminal for using them

 

So drugs, as a commodity, are way, way more expensive then they should be, which means that if you start taking them, you have o fork over larger and larger proportions of your income than you would if they were legal, and if you are caught with them, you're almost certainly going to jail because the legal recourse you can afford isn't as much as the middle class or upper class users can afford. So now you're in jail. If you had a family, they probably got deprived of at least a portion of their revenue stream, making them more likely to be poor, you now have a felony conviction, making it next to impossible to get a job, you can no longer vote, meaning that in the eyes of the government you are useless, and you've now trapped yourself and possibly your family and kids in a vicious cycle that's incredibly difficult to get out of.

 

And, to make matters worse, the money that you bought the drugs with, instead of being taxed and sent to the federal government and the growers in Mexico who need the money to feed their families, winds up in the hands of various gangs and drug cartels, who then use the money to either make Mexico a warzone or the inner cities of the US one, causing immense civilian casualties and loss of government revenue fighting them.

 

So it's not really that drug policy is keeping blacks poor, so much as it is keeping the poor poor, who are likely to be black. It's just as serious a problem amongst white and Mexican poor people as it is blacks, it just gets slightly less exposure from those groups.

 

EDIT: Since Excal posted a video, I think

It's one of the few thing I agree with Friedman on.

[Callie]

I see that Dantius is much quicker than I am, but I will leave this unedited, despite some redundancy.

---

Of course, you could probably write entire books about the subject, and I probably should have been a bit broader in my statement and referred to government policy in general. But, for the point of discussion, I will attempt to summarize my views, and keep in mind that I am speaking almost purely in the perspective of the United States. I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the status of minority races in other countries so I will not touch upon that. Additionally, I would like to say I am aware that most people on these boards are going to be at odds with my views, so I might try to avoid long debates.

 

Anyway...

 

Like alcohol prohibition in the twenties, modern-day prohibition of recreational drugs has created an immense amount of organized crime. In particular, since Nixon declared a "War on Drugs" the incarceration rate in the United States has increased significantly, to the point where the country now houses roughly 20% of the world's prison population.

 

Our prisons are terrible: rape and other kinds of violence are rampant among inmates. Individuals charged solely with possession of illegal narcotics are imprisoned with murderers and sex offenders. In other words, non-violent people are forced to intermingle with violent people. Of course, that's not a completely fair assessment, as some drug users are violent, but I would argue that the overwhelming majority of people arrested solely on drug charges are generally peaceful people. Exposing these people to a culture of violence usually doesn't make them a better person.

 

Obviously, these drugs have to come from somewhere. Because most recreational drugs are illegal, there is a high risk associated with transportation of drugs, and this is where organized crime comes in. Organized crime often exists to transport illegal goods, and drugs are no exception. In the US, gangs are a common form of organized crime. They have to compete with other gangs to deliver their product to the market, and due the illegal nature of the trade, gangs resort to violence to defend their business.

 

This is one of the huge problems with drug prohibition: it makes the drugs more dangerous. Why smuggle a bag of marijuana when you can smuggle a bag of cocaine? Marijuana is still the most common of the illegal recreational drugs, but the higher value of cocaine and heroin means that smugglers are more inclined to transport those drugs. Likewise, during alcohol prohibition, bootleggers were more inclined to smuggle beverages with a higher alcohol content because of its higher value (hence moonshine). After alcohol prohibition ended the demand for more potent alcohol decreased. Similarly in places like Amsterdam where even just marijuana is legal, the demand for cocaine and heroin decreased accordingly.

 

So here's where black poverty comes in. Drugs (legal and illegal) appeal to poor people because they believe it helps to reduce stress and forget about their problems. One of the more dangerous drugs that I would argue has increased use due to prohibition is crack cocaine. It's relatively cheap and very potent. So what happens is gangs are selling drugs to poor people, so that's where they fight over turf. There's also an appeal to join gangs, because you can potentially make it big selling drugs, whereas an education takes time and money. Because past racism already made blacks poor, this is where a lot of drug violence happens.

 

It's fairly common in black ghettos for a child to have at least one parent in jail, and it doesn't help that the justice system generally gives longer sentences to people of minority races. The gang violence that occurs in those neighborhoods isn't helpful either, so the environment the child is exposed to isn't going to have much in the way of encouragement. Plus, poor areas=poor schools. Children in black slums are almost doomed from the start, and the gang culture sometimes results in children growing up to be gangsters themselves. It's a very sad situation, and even young people who try to break free from their poverty are facing an uphill battle. Additionally, young people are going to experiment, and this might involve drugs. Even a good kid who gets caught smoking marijuana could potentially become violent after being exposed to the prison system (Once again, minority races generally get longer sentences for the same crime).

 

Finally, one problem that applies to prohibition in general is that drug addictions are treated as criminal acts instead of conditions that can be effectively treated. As previously mentioned, exposing a first time drug offender to the prison system can have terrible results.

-------

Another huge factor, in my opinion, is the welfare state. I know most people disagree with me on this, so I'll just link to

, as Walter Williams is far more educated than I am and can explain the situation much more elegantly.

 

[Harehunter]

My next paragraph pointed out that these criteria are, by themselves, superficial. However, they are visible/audible expressions of the character of the individual, and that is what the HR person is trying to determine.

[Harehunter]

Here again, I did not mention the race of the applicant, only his attire and demeanor. You automatically assumed that I am talking only about black people. NAK.

[Harehunter]

ACK.

[Harehunter]

Your conclusion is, sadly, correct. This is one point of my rant. To bring to mind this very conflict, to think seriously about it, and to become aware of. It is my hope that by making people aware of the problem, they will not let their subconscious bias affect their decision.

[Lilith]

dude most people don't read topics in threaded view so when you reply to a bunch of posts without quoting bits for context it's not clear what you're talking about

 

just so you know

[Harehunter]

I did not mention race, I said applicant. You assumed race. NAK.

[Harehunter]

ACK.

[Harehunter]

ACK.

[Harehunter]

ACK.

[Skwish-E]

And as I stated, we can fix this in two generations if we try. The very fact that we (as a mixed race group) are openly and civilly discussing this on a Games Forum may be proof of that in itself.

 

Lilith, your point about how blacks are portrayed in media is well made. What can we do about it? I'm renewing my commitment to do my best to avoid movies and tv where such stereotypes are used. And I don't let my kids listen to Gangsta-Rap. (If it is even still called that.)

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Lilith, your point about how blacks are portrayed in media is well made. What can we do about it? I'm renewing my commitment to do my best to avoid movies and tv where such stereotypes are used. And I don't let my kids listen to Gangsta-Rap. (If it is even still called that.)

sorry, i'm a lot better at depressing people than i am at finding solutions

[Harehunter]

Quote:

so you say. we've provided empirical evidence for our claims: it's time for you to pony up with yours, if you have any

From personal experience. Sorry, that's the best I can do. Just recently we hired a new programmer. He came to me one day basically trembling in his shoes. Our boss is, shall we say, brusque, and had confronted the newbie for a status report. I explained to the newbie that our boss is rough to deal with, but the key to success was to be prepared to answer his questions, and be confident. In a meeting later in the week I was able to demonstrate that technique. Newbie took it to heart, and there has been a tremendous change in his relationship with our boss. I myself had begun to question whether or not he would work out, but now I see that he will become a valuable asset.

As to your diversity question, I again speak from personal experience. People I have met who have come to this country from various countries, all of them question the use of the hyphenated american. They came here to be Americans. They still wear the dress of their native country, they still worship the same as they did before. But they are the people I mention who ask the question; Why do people born in this country, whose parents and grandparents were born in this country, choose to say they are from another continent that they have never been to?

Re Malcom X. Point taken.

[Harehunter]

Quote:

Quote:
How do we promote awareness without causing such regulation that will drive businesses to economic or regulatory failure, an outcome which does no one any good?

Are you really suggesting that education is going to drive businesses to failure? Citation please!

This was meant with regard to EEOC regulations vis a vi small businesses. Regulations become a financial burden on a business. The Americans With Disabilities Act required businesses to expend significant sums of capital to comply with the requirements of that bill. I don't say that the bill was wrong; in fact I agree with it wholeheartedly as both my wife and I are handicapped. The Clean Air Act required expensive refits to industrial facilities. Not a bad regulation, but again, it required large amounts of capital in order to comply. Regulations have their burden on a company. Larger companies have more capital and can more easily absorb the cost. Small businesses, don't.

Your quote from MLK is well taken.

[Harehunter]

Yes their history is unique. But how do you explain the wide separation within their own race. Many, many black people have risen out of the poverty they grew up in and become members of the upper middle class and more. How did they accomplish this, and why do so many lanquish in poverty? My grandparents were immigrants to this country, long after slavery was abolished. Why must I and others like me bear the responsibility that once we had slavery in this country? How long must their history define their socioeconomic status, rather than their present and their future?

[Harehunter]

The naturalized citizens I talk to do retain their culture. They are the ones who choose to be un-hyphenated. They are the ones who question the hyphenation of native born citizens.

[Harehunter]

Excalibur, you have usurped this thread with a very deft hand. This is a very interesting direction you have taken, but very valid. I yield the 'floor'.

 

IMHO, I think too much resource is thrown at combating a problem that will never go away. Just as Prohibition failed miserably, the war on drugs goes the same way. This topic could well deserve its own thread with a poll attached.

[Skwish-E]

Harehunter,

What's wrong with me calling myself a Scottish-American and wearing a kilt? (JK, don't get your PIAW).

 

Skwish-E feels that this thread is about played out, and will probably go back to simply making trivial, humorous posts now.

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Harehunter,
What's wrong with me calling myself a Scottish-American and wearing a kilt? (JK, don't get your PIAW).

Skwish-E feels that this thread is about played out, and will probably go back to simply making trivial, humorous posts now.

You're Scottish? Why havent we been picking on you for that?!

[Tyranicus]

Hey now!

[Skwish-E]

I'm descended from a long line of Scots, and can trace my family back to King Nomenoe of Brittany who died in 851 AD. We fought for the freedom of Scotland with William Wallace, supported Robert the Bruce, were targeted for death by the English king, lost our lands and clan status (we were late taken into the Clan Douglas as a sept, but had to give up our tartan which has been lost to history), had to flee Scotland for Ireland (and then the New World), and were some of the first Americans. (OK, not going to argue the Native American thing here. I also have a healthy dose of Cherokee blood in me. Does that make me an American-American?) Charleston, WV was founded by one of my ancestors. If you want to pick on me for that, go ahead. I can take it. :-P

[nikki.]

I think the real question is: Are you ginger, or did that get washed away in the journey across the Atlantic.

[Slawbug]

Harehunter, what the HECK is going on with your posts in this thread? You have 13 posts practically in a row, most with no content and few with quotes so we know what you are talking about. This is really crazy.

 

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Here again, I did not mention the race of the applicant, only his attire and demeanor. You automatically assumed that I am talking only about black people. NAK.

If this is in response to me, you'll notice that I quoted you saying "If a black man..." If it is in response to somebody else, you have specified black people throughout most of your arguments.

 

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

As to your diversity question, I again speak from personal experience. People I have met who have come to this country from various countries, all of them question the use of the hyphenated american. They came here to be Americans. They still wear the dress of their native country, they still worship the same as they did before. But they are the people I mention who ask the question; Why do people born in this country, whose parents and grandparents were born in this country, choose to say they are from another continent that they have never been to?

 

Now you're manipulating words, and you know it. Nobody chooses to say that SHE is from another continent that she has never been to. But people will certainly identify their ethnicity and descent as coming from an outside country. Why is this important?

 

In the case of "African-American", maybe because hundreds of years of intercontinental kidnapping, slavery, exploitation, rape, and abuse, followed by over a century of profound oppression and civil rights abuses, is not something that deserves to be quickly forgotten?

 

And in the case of young people whose parents are immigrants, I can tell you another reason. Many young people don't want to be thought of as Americans, because they are ashamed at some of our country's actions. And up until 3 years ago, the country had only ever been led by straight white male Christians. For people who don't belong to those groups, and who have heritage elsewhere, it's easy to feel like the country you don't live in is more accepting of you. Of course, the country has still only been led by straight Christian men, so the majority of the country's youth can still look at other countries and feel more accepted.

 

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Originally Posted By: Slarty

Are you really suggesting that education is going to drive businesses to failure? Citation please!

This was meant with regard to EEOC regulations vis a vi small businesses. Regulations become a financial burden on a business. The Americans With Disabilities Act... The Clean Air Act...

This is totally ridiculous, Harehunter. Neither one of those acts has anything to do with racial discrimination. Meanwhile, the ADA certainly places FAR more of a financial burden on businesses than EEOC regulations ever could. But I note that you support the ADA since you identify with the group against whom it prohibits discrimination. I suppose it is the American tradition to stick up vehemently for your own rights, but to ignore those of others, but that doesn't make it rational policy.

 

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

My grandparents were immigrants to this country, long after slavery was abolished. Why must I and others like me bear the responsibility that once we had slavery in this country?

Who's asking you to bear the responsibility? No one's asking you to pay reparations.

 

But I suppose you're right. These things should be Somebody Else's Problem! Einstein was wrong when he talked about being a citizen of the world. We should only support our own, and when others have endured grave injury, we should leave them to their wounds.

[Alorael at Large]

Relatively few immigrant groups still strongly identify as (Country of Origin)-American three or four generations in. All those Western European immigrants are just white now, and many of the Eastern European ones as well. It's a little different when you're phenotypically identifiable, but even the late generation Japanese- and Chinese-Americans I know don't really identify as that. Asian-American, yes, because they're lumped together by appearance and treated accordingly, but they don't really care about origin so much as contemporary experience.

 

But those early generations are important! Most are glad to be in America and eager to adopt American lifestyle, but they also hold onto their own traditions and culture. And their children go to school and have two cultures at once. Acknowledging that can be seen as simple realism, and letting their immigrant experiences be part of the American experience is validating.

 

—Alorael, who has trouble with African-American as a term. Yes, it's generally the most politically correct. It also works poorly. Firstly, it leaves no way to describe black Africans who aren't American (African-Africans? African-. Secondly, it does not distinguish between African immigrants and the descendants of slaves, who are actually quite demographically distinct. Thirdly, it doesn't apply to anyone who isn't black, including quite a number of Africans. Fourthly, it has completely overwhelmed meaningful distinctions: Zimbabwean-Americans aren't really like Ghanaian-Americans.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Harehunter,
What's wrong with me calling myself a Scottish-American and wearing a kilt? (JK, don't get your PIAW).

Skwish-E feels that this thread is about played out, and will probably go back to simply making trivial, humorous posts now.

So long as you don't mind this German-Scottish-American wearing leiderhosen under his kilt?

((Why don't you give me a straight-line why don't you?))

[Skwish-E]

If ya don't wear your kilt true, why even wear it at all, laddie?

[Handyman]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Einstein was wrong when he talked about being a citizen of the world. We should only support our own, and when others have endured grave injury, we should leave them to their wounds.

Einstein was definitely wrong: He used the word "should." Of course, if we befriended the fair and gentle negro, he would undoubtedly join our political party of peace and liberty.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

Charleston, WV was founded by one of my ancestors. If you want to pick on me for that, go ahead. I can take it. :-P

Okay, now we know who to assign blame to for Charleston.

One of my college memories was the sound of bagpipes at night. This was long before I met the player as a classmate.

[Student of Trinity]

Scots try to make it seem macho that you're supposed to wear a kilt with nothing underneath, since kilts as garments predated underwear. But see, lederhosen also predate underwear. Now you know why Bavarians drink so much beer.

 

In fact kilts are quite comfortable, even in winter. Heat rises.

 

Maybe not in extremely cold weather, though. I don't recall either of the Canadian highland regiments I was in ever really putting that to the test. I, uh, guess I would remember if it had happened. For winter warfare training, we always went modern.

[Micawber]

Kilts don't predate underwear; we know from letters at Vindolanda that Roman soldiers stationed in Britain wore underpants.

 

I would believe, however, that kilts predate the Scots' use of underwear.

[Skwish-E]

Would that make the old Scots the first commandos?

[nikki.]

Originally Posted By: Micawber

I would believe, however, that kilts predate the Scots' use of underwear.

...must resist urge to mock Scots in this thread.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Here again, I did not mention the race of the applicant, only his attire and demeanor. You automatically assumed that I am talking only about black people. NAK.

If this is in response to me, you'll notice that I quoted you saying "If a black man..." If it is in response to somebody else, you have specified black people throughout most of your arguments.

I have tried to keep my usage of reference to race to specific examples. Where I deliberately obscure such reference it is to lay the trap that so many people fall into. This is to point out how quickly people will jump to the conclusion that I am speaking about race when in fact I mean something more general, say across generational lines, not racial lines. This is the source of my original argument that racism is called out when in fact some other characteristic is being discussed. It is easy to be confused by this because of the disproportional bias of many demographics to one racial group.

BTW, would it surprise you that I don't believe the percentage of people falling into the demographic of angry, violent ex convicts is all that high? I don't have any hard data but I would guess 15% would be well on the high side. Why does this demographic become important? Because it is the one you see daily in the news. The vast majority of people, of all races and backgrounds, are good, honest people just trying to support and raise their families. You don't see them because they are too busy doing that. It is only a small minority of people who make the biggest noise.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

As to your diversity question, I again speak from personal experience. People I have met who have come to this country from various countries, all of them question the use of the hyphenated american. They came here to be Americans. They still wear the dress of their native country, they still worship the same as they did before. But they are the people I mention who ask the question; Why do people born in this country, whose parents and grandparents were born in this country, choose to say they are from another continent that they have never been to?

Now you're manipulating words, and you know it. Nobody chooses to say that SHE is from another continent that she has never been to. But people will certainly identify their ethnicity and descent as coming from an outside country. Why is this important?

As I said, I get the question from people who have immigrated to this country. That is their perspective. The usage of hyphenated american is a fairly recent thing. Having lived the first half of my life without the term, it sounds peculiar to my ears.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

In the case of "African-American", maybe because hundreds of years of intercontinental kidnapping, slavery, exploitation, rape, and abuse, followed by over a century of profound oppression and civil rights abuses, is not something that deserves to be quickly forgotten?

I don't advocate that it be forgotten, just put behind us, so we can move forward together. The anger that rises from the memory of that past only serves to re-open old wounds, never to let them heal. Shall we become as the Palestinians and Israelis, fighting a war of nearly 2 millennia? I know that 200+ years is a very short time compared to that, but for how much longer will we continue to be divided by this anger?

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

And in the case of young people whose parents are immigrants, I can tell you another reason. Many young people don't want to be thought of as Americans, because they are ashamed at some of our country's actions. And up until 3 years ago, the country had only ever been led by straight white male Christians. For people who don't belong to those groups, and who have heritage elsewhere, it's easy to feel like the country you don't live in is more accepting of you. Of course, the country has still only been led by straight Christian men, so the majority of the country's youth can still look at other countries and feel more accepted.

I have no experience with the children of immigrants, only the parents. They are so happy to be in a land of freedom and opportunity, they don't care about the race or creed of our leaders. Interestingly, though, they tend to hold conservative political ideals. Just my observation. I do not dispute your observations among their children.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Originally Posted By: Slarty

Are you really suggesting that education is going to drive businesses to failure? Citation please!

This was meant with regard to EEOC regulations vis a vi small businesses. Regulations become a financial burden on a business. The Americans With Disabilities Act... The Clean Air Act...

This is totally ridiculous, Harehunter. Neither one of those acts has anything to do with racial discrimination. Meanwhile, the ADA certainly places FAR more of a financial burden on businesses than EEOC regulations ever could. But I note that you support the ADA since you identify with the group against whom it prohibits discrimination. I suppose it is the American tradition to stick up vehemently for your own rights, but to ignore those of others, but that doesn't make it rational policy.

The point here is not about race relations but to point out that government regulations place an economic burden upon businesses. Most small businesses work on a profit margin of 3% or less. That doesn't leave a lot of capital for things that grow their business, which in turn grows our economy which in turn creates jobs. The more the government regulates a business, the more it costs those businesses to just stay in business.
As for the ADA, I was in total support with it for as long as it has been around. I have gotten out of my car specifically to clear the shopping carts of the handicapped space for decades. I have never minded the extra walking I had to do. I never expected to be afflicted with Parkinsons Disease, but now when I am having a good day, I will leave that handicapped spot open for someone who needs it worse than me.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

My grandparents were immigrants to this country, long after slavery was abolished. Why must I and others like me bear the responsibility that once we had slavery in this country?

Who's asking you to bear the responsibility? No one's asking you to pay reparations.
But I suppose you're right. These things should be Somebody Else's Problem! Einstein was wrong when he talked about being a citizen of the world. We should only support our own, and when others have endured grave injury, we should leave them to their wounds.

In 2001, there was a call for reparations. That is all fine and good, but how do we fund it, especially in these economic times. But this goes to my main complaint. How many more centuries will it take before we can bury the anger, establish true equality and become a united people?

((I've been trying to get this done for about 12 hours now, but it has been a <Monday>.))

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

If ya don't wear your kilt true, why even wear it at all, laddie?

Aye, you've a valid point there, meine freund.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I have tried to keep my usage of reference to race to specific examples. Where I deliberately obscure such reference it is to lay the trap that so many people fall into.

pro tip: "laying traps" is not the route to productive discussion, unless you care more about winning arguments than learning things. if you do care more about winning arguments than learning things, then you don't get to criticise us for treating you as if you're arguing in good faith and are in fact saying what we could reasonably assume from context that you're trying to say

[Slawbug]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

The usage of hyphenated american is a fairly recent thing. Having lived the first half of my life without the term, it sounds peculiar to my ears.

African-American is a newer term (created deliberately to emphasize the common history of African-Americans with ancestry from different countries), but hyphenated American terms in general are much older than you are. They at least predate 1889, since they prompted the formation of the term "hyphenated American." Here's wikipedia, which quotes President Roosevelt in 1915 saying:

"...German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans..."

Quote:

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

...hundreds of years of... abuses, is not something that deserves to be quickly forgotten?

I don't advocate that it be forgotten, just put behind us, so we can move forward together. The anger that rises from the memory of that past only serves to re-open old wounds, never to let them heal.

You don't heal old wounds by pretending they don't exist. You heal them by addressing the problems that lie hidden underneath the skin.

Quote:

Shall we become as the Palestinians and Israelis, fighting a war of nearly 2 millennia?

I don't even know where to begin to correct the historical inaccuracies in the above sentence. Let's start with the fact that there was no distinct Palestinian ethnic group 2 millenia ago. Actually, I'm not sure where you can be getting that date from other than Christianity, which has little to do with the conflict. If you're trying to look at the persecution of the Jews throughout history, I don't want to start a flame war, so I will just say that Arabs are not the best place to look, not by a long shot.

Quote:

I have no experience with the children of immigrants, only the parents. They are so happy to be in a land of freedom and opportunity, they don't care about the race or creed of our leaders. Interestingly, though, they tend to hold conservative political ideals. Just my observation. I do not dispute your observations among their children.

Just to get an idea of how broad this remark is, how many immigrant parent opinions is this based on?

Quote:

How many more centuries will it take before we can bury the anger, establish true equality and become a united people?

You can't bury the anger until you have addressed the source of the anger. That means addressing both ill treatment on a personal level (we've made some pretty great progress on this front: the younger generations really don't want to be racist or hateful) and on a civic and economic level.

By the way, the "my ancestors weren't around for slavery so it's not my responsibility" argument falls apart unless you are also willing to renounce all of the progress made by other people's ancestors, from which you benefit.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S

By the way, the "my ancestors weren't around for slavery so it's not my responsibility" argument falls apart unless you are also willing to renounce all of the progress made by other people's ancestors, from which you benefit.

lolwut? That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. There's no reason that I should renounce, say, lightbulbs because they were invented before my ancestors emigrated to America. What, exactly, does giving up technological innovations and progress have to do with my ancestors culpability or lack thereof with he slave trade?

(BTW, I'm not even sure what aforementioned culpability has to do with the discussion. If my great-great-great-great granduncle Jeremiah Stone owned slaves [full disclosure: I'm a late-1800's immigrant on both sides of the family, so this is hypothetical], how does that have anything to do with my current position on the subject? They're independent of one another- I wouldn't automatically be racist if my ancestors were, I'd be racist if I were racist. Don't punish the son for the sins of the father and all that.)

[Nicothodes]

I don't think it's as much of a "you must pay for what your ancestors did" thing as a "this affects all of us today, whether your ancestors contributed to it or not" thing. I get uncomfortable when people phrase it as the former, since I think it tends to put people on the defensive as opposed to getting them to want to help you. That being said, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of knowing about these issues and not doing anything about them, and I don't think I could be satisfied with myself if I tried to ignore them.

[Slawbug]

Dantius, Harehunter wrote: "My grandparents were immigrants to this country, long after slavery was abolished. Why must I and others like me bear the responsibility that once we had slavery in this country?" That's where it came into the topic. My argument is that it's a little hypocritical to gladly welcome the bounty past generations, related or not, have produced, but to want to be free from the problems that those same past generations, related or not, have left us with. Hopefully that's clearer than what I wrote before.

[Dintiradan]

Once again, I think this miscommunication is just due to semantics. I would say that no one is responsible (i.e. culpable) for what happened before they were born, regarding the slave trade or anything else. On the other hand, it's everyone's responsibility (i.e. duty) to ensure that no unfair dealings go on under their watch, and that society at large promotes fairness.

 

Sometimes you have to clean up messes that aren't your fault. That's life.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Sometimes you have to clean up messes that aren't your fault. That's life.

don't get me started on diapers

[Skwish-E]

I got started on diapers, then I learned to use the potty like a big boy.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Skwish-E

I got started on diapers, then I learned to use the potty like a big boy.

+1

Just to add some (almost) meaningful content to this before I leave, I think that Slarty and Dantius are saying the same thing from opposite ends. Just because we (in the most general sense of the word possible) didn't bring about the socioeconomic issues of many people in out nation doesn't mean that we shouldn't help them out. Our ancestors did some great things and some awful things, and we can't just chose to ignore those awful things when they still exist today. Now, I don't propose that we go and find everyone descended from a slaveholder and try them crimes or anything, and I don' think that they alone should try to fix anything.

We're all in this place together, even though we're all far from equal. You can't preach about equality and then ignore the reasons for inequality. As Slarty said, you can't just wipe the slate clean and ignore the past - you have do play with the cards you've been dealt.

Saying this is a bit strange for me, as I was a long supporter of "ignore everything about their race and background and whatnot." The more I see, the more I realize that this approach is just as flawed as every other approach. This whole mess is a just that, a big mess. A complicated mess. And there is no easy or fast solution, and I certainly can't think of anything resembling a good solution at the moment. That's why I plan on electing people to do that for me. But now we've got to worry about American politics.... oh boy....

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

I have tried to keep my usage of reference to race to specific examples. Where I deliberately obscure such reference it is to lay the trap that so many people fall into.

pro tip: "laying traps" is not the route to productive discussion, unless you care more about winning arguments than learning things. if you do care more about winning arguments than learning things, then you don't get to criticise us for treating you as if you're arguing in good faith and are in fact saying what we could reasonably assume from context that you're trying to say

I did notice, however, that very few people fell for them. We have a very astute group of people here.

[Harehunter]

Quote:

Quote:
Shall we become as the Palestinians and Israelis, fighting a war of nearly 2 millennia?

I don't even know where to begin to correct the historical inaccuracies in the above sentence. Let's start with the fact that there was no distinct Palestinian ethnic group 2 millenia ago. Actually, I'm not sure where you can be getting that date from other than Christianity, which has little to do with the conflict. If you're trying to look at the persecution of the Jews throughout history, I don't want to start a flame war, so I will just say that Arabs are not the best place to look, not by a long shot.

You are astute as ever, and you are correct in that Christianity was not the crux of the comparison, so to speak. Also I was not making reference to the persecution of the Jews either. And the conflict predates Jesus by several centuries. Basically there has been fighting between the nation of Israel and Arab ancestors of the Palestinians ever since the day of Joshua. I hope we don't have to wait that long.

However, you have answered my questions satisfactorily. There is still much to be done and it will cost what it will cost. And with respect to the non mea culpa, I will do my share toward solving those problems.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Master1

We're all in this place together, even though we're all far from equal. You can't preach about equality and then ignore the reasons for inequality. As Slarty said, you can't just wipe the slate clean and ignore the past - you have do play with the cards you've been dealt.

Saying this is a bit strange for me, as I was a long supporter of "ignore everything about their race and background and whatnot." The more I see, the more I realize that this approach is just as flawed as every other approach. This whole mess is a just that, a big mess. A complicated mess. And there is no easy or fast solution, and I certainly can't think of anything resembling a good solution at the moment. That's why I plan on electing people to do that for me. But now we've got to worry about American politics.... oh boy....

I think that we have made progress on this theme. I thank you all, especially Mr. Slarty, for your input and thoughtful considerations. I have enjoyed playing the devils advocate for you, but it is time I got back to regular job.

[Slawbug]

1) I'm not sure who you mean by the "Arab ancestors of the Palestinians" but suggesting that the Neo-Assyrians or the Achaemanids were ancestors of the Palestinians is kind of like saying that the Etruscans were ancestors of the British: I'm sure you can find some descent, but it definitely isn't primary.

 

2) There has definitely been a lot of fighting in that area throughout human history. However, most of it hasn't been between those two parties, and even had it been, that would not be the same thing as "a war of nearly 2 millenia."

[Callie]

Quote:

You are astute as ever, and you are correct in that Christianity was not the crux of the comparison, so to speak. Also I was not making reference to the persecution of the Jews either. And the conflict predates Jesus by several centuries. Basically there has been fighting between the nation of Israel and Arab ancestors of the Palestinians ever since the day of Joshua. I hope we don't have to wait that long.

Are you confusing Philistines with Palestinians? And even then...