15 Things You Should Know About "The Race"

[Archangel M]

I guess what Im asking is, if you take the proportion of black, white, hispanic, etc. (whites make up X% of the total pop., blacks makeup x%...etc) as part of the entire population and compare those stats, how the rates compare to their segment of society.

 

[jks9199]

Forgot to mention this, but this is already being done.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, they have a Magnet program run by (or should I say, with the assistance of) the LAPD. Of all the school programs within this district, this is the only one that has a 100% rate of all graduating students go on to college. And, having looked into the program, it is because they do not take any crap from the students. If you mess up, you are out.

How about that. Holding people to a standard, including minorities, and finding that they will often rise to the level of your challenge. But, if as a lot of people do here, we continue to make excuses for poor and negative behavior, people will also fall to the level of your expectations. It works both ways, although there are exceptions.

I'm actually aware of several areas with various similar programs across multiple career paths, and didn't mean to imply that they weren't actually being done.

 

[Kacey]

Race is a factor in who is incarcerated - that's true. But so are other things. Poverty is a correlative factor as well - unfortunately, more minorities are poor than whites, and poor criminals, regardless of race, are less able to hire their own lawyers.

Poverty rates in the US, in 2005 and 2006, by race, can be seen here, with further breakdowns of information here;the races withhigher poverty rates can be seen to be the same as the ones with higher incarceration rates as well. This is, remember - a correlative, not a causal factor; I am in no way saying that poverty leads to criminal behavior, just that criminal behavior can be correlated with poverty. Is this due to greater need? In some cases. Due to better lawyers getting better deals for well-heeled defendants? Again, in some cases? Is this due to a variety of interlocking societal factors of which race is an integral - but hardly the only - piece? Of course it is.

Past issues with equity in terms of access to wealth (education and other training, money in the family with which to start building wealth, the attitude of those around you toward certain careers, societal expectations, etc.) mean that poverty is more common among some racial/cultural groups than others - not all, by any means; Asians, for example, have a higher rate of education that most, if not all, other racial groups, and a concomitantly higher level of income.

Rather than spending time focused on the inequities that exist today and the historical factors that influenced them - wouldn't it be better to concentrate on finding a way to change all that? Not by claiming that people of one race or cultural group should be compensated by the wrongs done their ancestors, but rather by finding ways to provide equal opportunities for all, and to encourage all to take advantage of them. Finger pointing does nothing but deepen the divide and make it harder to reduce the inequities that exist; working to help all children have a better future seems to me to be a much better use of time, than teaching them to hate - for any reason.

 

[zDom]

:lfao: Oh my, you think I'm black don't you?

Um.. I did get that impression I guess yer not eh?

(embarressed cough)

That's funny

 

[zDom]

... only white people that do meth here. Black people are more likely to do cocaine.
Sean

Yep that's how it is around here as well (with the cocaine being the crack form), according to local law enforcement authorities.

 

[zDom]

The problem is historic, cultural (black AND white cultures), economic, educational and political. NOT race.

Well put.

 

[CuongNhuka]

The problem is historic, cultural (black AND white cultures), economic, educational and political. NOT race.

The problem with that statement is that Race is the problem. Race is the cause of the Historical Problems ('white mans burden' + slavery + "...the great truth that the Black man is not our equal" = The root of the Historical Problems).
* The Historical Problems caused most of the Cultural Problems ('white mans burden' + "...the great truth that the black man is not our equal + the fact that many African Tribes were 'headless').
* The Historic problems caused the Economic problems (being kept out of the means of production until the The Civil Rights Movement + being forced to work the same job, for the same hours, to produce the same thing, for half the wages of a white worker = a history of serious poverty).
* The Historical Problems caused the Educational Problems (much the same as the Economic ones; the extremly poor tend to be less well educated then the Middle Class/Upper class).
*The Historical Problems caused the Politcal Problems (not being allowed to run for office until about 1866, and then only being a token delegate to appease the Federal Government; and then once Reconstruction Ended, so did many of the terms of Black City Council men, Mayors, and so on; and then, only re-gaining that right with The Civil Rights Movement).

So, you are partly right. The Problem is not (directly) because of Race. It is all related to Historical Problems... which were created by Race. We (that is to say, Our Government) cannot truelly be held responsible for The First Slaves brought to the Shores of what is now the U.S., but we will still have to deal with the consequences. We had Slavery on our shore for 211 years. We had De Facto slavery on our shores for another 99 years. We had slavery (in form or another) for 310 years. Do you really think we only need 44 years to fix all that it brought?

 

[Twin Fist]

We had slavery (in form or another) for 310 years. Do you really think we only need 44 years to fix all that it brought?

2008-310=1698.

wait, you were talking abut 1964, the cvil rights act. ok.

1964-310=1654

1654, huh? When the United states would not even exist for another 120-130 years.


interesting

 

[Kacey]

The problem with that statement is that Race is the problem. Race is the cause of the Historical Problems ('white mans burden' + slavery + "...the great truth that the Black man is not our equal" = The root of the Historical Problems).
* The Historical Problems caused most of the Cultural Problems ('white mans burden' + "...the great truth that the black man is not our equal + the fact that many African Tribes were 'headless').
* The Historic problems caused the Economic problems (being kept out of the means of production until the The Civil Rights Movement + being forced to work the same job, for the same hours, to produce the same thing, for half the wages of a white worker = a history of serious poverty).
* The Historical Problems caused the Educational Problems (much the same as the Economic ones; the extremly poor tend to be less well educated then the Middle Class/Upper class).
*The Historical Problems caused the Politcal Problems (not being allowed to run for office until about 1866, and then only being a token delegate to appease the Federal Government; and then once Reconstruction Ended, so did many of the terms of Black City Council men, Mayors, and so on; and then, only re-gaining that right with The Civil Rights Movement).

So, you are partly right. The Problem is not (directly) because of Race. It is all related to Historical Problems... which were created by Race. We (that is to say, Our Government) cannot truelly be held responsible for The First Slaves brought to the Shores of what is now the U.S., but we will still have to deal with the consequences. We had Slavery on our shore for 211 years. We had De Facto slavery on our shores for another 99 years. We had slavery (in form or another) for 310 years. Do you really think we only need 44 years to fix all that it brought?

I disagree that all problems are racial in origin. There was slavery in Biblical times, in Roman times, in all sorts of historical times when race was not the factor - and although there was sometimes a difference in how slavery applied to people from the "home" culture and people from elsewhere, skin color or other racial characteristics didn't play into it. Religion often did, as did socioeconomic standing - but in times before long-distance travel was common, people made do with looking down on their social "inferiors", because that's who was around.

Other examples have been mentioned as well - the Irish, when they first started coming to this country, were often considered the lowest of the low; in feudal England, peasants were the lowest of the low, and considered barely human, except for new brides on Jus Primae Noctis, as it was the lord's right to deflower the bride, should he so choose. The poor have always been targeted, as so many people believe that anyone who is born poor deserves what they get - regardless of why they were born poor in the first place. You have only to read books such as The Adventures of Oliver Twistor Huckleberry Finn to see how the poor were routinely treated for the crime of being poor... yet no one sees the descendants of the poor in Europe rising up and asking for compensation.

Religious persecution is cultural, and has existed as long as there have been religious. As recently as last year I had someone exlaim in shock that I was Jewish, based solely on my appearance; I was, she said, too fair skinned, too blond, and my nose too small - upon further discussion, I should be short, dark, and have a soft, blobby nose... in short, I should look like a female version of Hitler - who went after ethnic groups, that's true - Jews and Gypsies (do you realize nearly as many Gypsies died as did Jews in the Holocaust? But it's rarely discussed) among the many, but also Jehovah's Witnesses, communists, trade unionists, Poles, Russians (and other Slavic peoples - especially POWs), gays and transsexuals, Freemasons, and anyone with any kind of "defect" - blind, deaf, retarded, mentally ill, physically handicapped - anyone who might oppose his "Master Race" or hinder the forming of it. An interesting aside, to me, is how little Hitler resembled his "Aryan Ideal".

Children had it even worse, until very recently; they were third class citizens, good for the labor they could produce on farms, and then, even worse treated in factories. It was illegal to beat a horse to death before it was illegal to beat a child; in fact, the first child abuse case was based on a legal precedent of a law making it illegal to beat your horse to death, because it was cruel. This was the case in many cultures; domesticated animals were valuable - but given the rates of death from disease, malnutrition, and accident, children were cherished - but expendable; many cultures had children as often as possible, as only 1 in 5 would survive to adulthood.

In addition, slavery is hardly limited purely to Europeans; many of the first African slaves were sold by their tribes or their conquerors to the first European explorers... and were slaves at the time it happened. Yes, the Europeans started to capture Africans and deport them wholesale when the supply of already-enslaved dropped below the demand - but it's hardly specific to European culture.

You have some very good ideas - but you are too committed to some of them. You need to do some broader research, and see the issues that go beyond those you consider to be vital. There is no one, single, absolute, answer to any situation - no matter how clear it seems at the outset.

 

[CuongNhuka]

* You are right Kacey, there was slavery before it became a Western Trend. But, there were some serious differnces. Jews in Biblical times kept slaves, but only for so long, at which point they were free (or could remain a slave if they so choose). They could also keep a form of wage. Greek slaves could keep a form of wage, and would commonly buy there freedom, and go on to do all kinds of things (even own a slave of there own). African Tribes that kept slaves would do so for only so long, then would be freed and become equals. It was not uncommon for those former slaves to go on and be important members of there new home. Many slaves in Islamic States would become the elites in the military, making them valuable (and respected members of society). There is another point that you sort of brought up in mentioning Rome. You are in Rome in the year 44. There are two people walking down the street together (one is Black, one is White). How do you now that either is a slave? Or which one is a slave? How could you know that the Black man 'owns' the White man? Do the same thing with Lousiana in 1844, and you can figure out the rest. The differnce being in Pre-Modern Slavery, you had no way of telling who was a slave and who was not simply by the color of there skin. Modern Slavery, well...
The thing is, when Modern Slavery made it 'white man owning black man' they changed it so that it would be obvious who was and who was not a slave, or descendant there of.

The reason why the Poor in Eurpoe don't ask for compensation is like what I said abouve. If you take two people, give them a bath and put them in similar clothes, you have no way of knowing who is from what Social class. But, if you were Black, the assumption could be made. Like in The Prince and the Pauper.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to in your third paragraph. But, if you are seeking to say that those groups should also recieve compenstation, there is another problem. What Hitler did affected one or two generations (directly). Slavery in on US shores (like I said), lasted around 300 years. What Hitler did was horrid beyond compare, but since it affected fewer people and fewer generations, the ramifcations take less time to fix. Also, wasn't the point of creating Israel to compensate the Jews for what happened to them from the Middle Ages to the end of Hitler?

Again, a brilliant point, but slightly missed. Childern have been heavily compenstated for De Facto Slavery. Working on the Family Farm was one thing (since you would literally reap the rewards, and would likely work less hours then in a factory). But, what happened in the Factory's was something differnit all together. You would work 14 - 16 hours a day, 6 days a week (and half on Sunday), and earn 'slave wages'. So, that is about 70 years (1880 was the start of the Industrial Revolution, I think the first Child Labor Laws were passed in the 50's). That is alot less then 300. It is also already been outed by the fact that very few childern works before there 16. And, there are more Labor laws appling to Childern (if I'm not mistaken). Another point is that many of the problems childern faced, women faced also. And now, there are similar laws for women as there are for Minoritys.

I've already covered this point.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'too comitted', but ok. I've actually spent most of the last year studying (in more depth then I care do ever do again) the Civil War, and about 100 years in both directions. So, I'm not an expert, but I do know somethings. I've also spent about the last month doing little other then training and researching. I also never said that Race was the sole problem, but meant to imply that it is the origin of most of them.

 

[jks9199]

I've already covered this point.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'too comitted', but ok. I've actually spent most of the last year studying (in more depth then I care do ever do again) the Civil War, and about 100 years in both directions. So, I'm not an expert, but I do know somethings. I've also spent about the last month doing little other then training and researching. I also never said that Race was the sole problem, but meant to imply that it is the origin of most of them.

Quite bluntly -- you don't know half of what you seem to think you do. And the leaps you've made have been unsupported. While slavery was a major polarizing issue in the Civil War, for example, it was much more about very significant economic differences, as well as a difference in the concept of the United States of America that dated back to the writing of the Constitution.

You seem to be trying to make a very circular argument: If there weren't different races, there'd be no different historical treatment, so there'd be no problems if it weren't for the different races. Can you see how silly that sounds?

 

[Archangel M]

The idea that anybody alive is directly responsible for slavery or is directly affected by it anymore is utter ********. What about people like myself whos ancestors were never even in this country till after the Civil War, are we exempt? Or by the nature of MY skin am I responsible?

That whole concept is what is troubling the African American culture. Regardless of how many years their ancestors were slaves, THEY never were. My Italian ancestors were persecuted, when do I get something for THAT?

In the United States, Italian immigrants were subject to extreme prejudice, racism, and, in many cases, violence. During the 1800s and early 20th Century, Italian Americans, being seen as non-Anglo and non-white, were the second most likely ethnic group to be lynched. [9]

 

[CuongNhuka]

The idea that anybody alive is directly responsible for slavery or is directly affected by it anymore is utter ********.

When did I say that? And, did I not just explain the differnce is that the color of there skin makes it obvious who was a slave, or so on?

 

[Archangel M]

The problem with that statement is that Race is the problem. Race is the cause of the Historical Problems ('white mans burden' + slavery + "...the great truth that the Black man is not our equal" = The root of the Historical Problems).

What I can say though, it that there probably are still people alive that can remember the 50's-60's and the civil rights movement. I can understand the resentment that can still be lingering from that era.

 

[Archangel M]

I must say that this thread taught me something I never knew before about my ancestors.

During World War II, thousands of Italian Americans as well as thousands of Italian Canadians were put in internment camps on American and Canadian soil, along with Japanese Americans, German Americans, and ethnic Germans from Latin America. Thousands more were placed under surveillance or had their property repossessed by the government. Joe DiMaggio's father, who lived in San Francisco, had his boat and house confiscated. One official[who?] stated that if it had not been for Joe DiMaggio's status as a celebrity baseball player, his father would most likely have been sent to an internment camp. Countless Italian owned businesses in North America were vandalised and boycotted during this period. Many of Italian origin were phyisically assaulted and intimidated. Unlike the Japanese Americans, Italian Americans and Italian Canadians have never received reparations, even though President Bill Clinton made a public declaration admitting the US government's misjudgment in the internment. [16]

My relatives though had been in the country many years and had married into other ethnic groups. I dont remember any of my relatives mentioning any discrimination during WWII. But they lived in a pretty heavily Italian populated community.

 

[Kacey]

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to in your third paragraph. But, if you are seeking to say that those groups should also recieve compenstation, there is another problem. What Hitler did affected one or two generations (directly). Slavery in on US shores (like I said), lasted around 300 years. What Hitler did was horrid beyond compare, but since it affected fewer people and fewer generations, the ramifcations take less time to fix. Also, wasn't the point of creating Israel to compensate the Jews for what happened to them from the Middle Ages to the end of Hitler?

I'm not even going to try to answer all the mistaken assumptions you put into that post... but I will with this one.

Are you trying to tell me that what happened to my relatives during the Holocaust isn't worth compensation because it didn't last as long? Or are you saying that it isn't worth compensation because when you put me next to a Catholic you can't tell us apart physically? Have you ever seen a Hasidic Jew (long beard, earlock - the long strips of hair by the ears - in men; women cut their hair short - buzz cut short - and wore wigs)? Are you aware that one of the ways that the Nazis found Jewish men was because the religion requires them to be circumcised, and no one else was? Today it wouldn't matter - but then being circumcised (for whatever reason) could have gotten you killed.... are you saying that wouldn't matter because you can't see it with your clothes on?

I have no idea why time or inability (if such exists) to tell those who suffered atrocities apart physically would matter. If it was horrific - it was horrific. How long does something like that have to last before you would consider compensation necessary? And from whom?

You've studied the Civil War - that's great. Go study a broader scope of world history. And yes... you've said repeatedly that without race, the evils of the world wouldn't happen - so I suggest you start with religion... the Inquisition is a good place to start, I think. Race had nothing to do with it - but major atrocities were performed nonetheless.

 

[jks9199]

When did I say that? And, did I not just explain the differnce is that the color of there skin makes it obvious who was a slave, or so on?

No, it doesn't and it didn't really, except in parts of the South.

There were free blacks predating the Revolution (see Benjamin Banneker as one example) and there were indentured servants whose only hope was to earn enough through their indenture to pay the costs incurred in bringing them to the New World.

Your views of racial and social tensions are idealistic and naive and simplistic. Yes, I'm telling you that you're a kid again. It's a simple fact; you are young and naive. Both will likely take care of themselves in time, if you allow them to.

 

[Kacey]

No, it doesn't and it didn't really, except in parts of the South.

There were free blacks predating the Revolution (see Benjamin Banneker as one example) and there were indentured servants whose only hope was to earn enough through their indenture to pay the costs incurred in bringing them to the New World.

When did I say that? And, did I not just explain the differnce is that the color of there skin makes it obvious who was a slave, or so on?

I agree with jks... I have a neighbor whom I've mentioned previously in this thread; she's black, her children are black, her husband is black... she's from the Bahamas, and none of her ancestors were slaves; her husband is from Africa (directly) and none of his ancestors were slaves - therefore none of their childrens' ancestors are slaves. But according to you, the color of their skin must make it obvious that they were descended from slaves... and it just ain't so.

Your views of racial and social tensions are idealistic and naive and simplistic. Yes, I'm telling you that you're a kid again. It's a simple fact; you are young and naive. Both will likely take care of themselves in time, if you allow them to.

Again, I agree with jks. Your comments in discussions prove that you are intelligent, and that you have more knowledge of certain topics than many others your age... but you don't have the life experience with which to balance it out, and the knowledge you do have is limited, both by the time you've had to learn and process it, and by the filters through which you view it. In addition, you do not have the breadth of knowledge that would allow you to filter out the biases of the authors whom you have read. I will say again what I said before: plenty of people here believe that you have potential, and that's why we're willing to go the extra step in these discussions with you... but if you keep throwing that in peoples' faces, we're going to take the gloves off and stop considering your youth and inexperience when responding. At this point, it's up to you.

 

[Big Don]

Quite bluntly -- you don't know half of what you seem to think you do. And the leaps you've made have been unsupported. While slavery was a major polarizing issue in the Civil War, for example, it was much more about very significant economic differences, as well as a difference in the concept of the United States of America that dated back to the writing of the Constitution.

You seem to be trying to make a very circular argument: If there weren't different races, there'd be no different historical treatment, so there'd be no problems if it weren't for the different races. Can you see how silly that sounds?

Sadly, some are so misinformed that bringing up the state's rights part of the Civil War, just drives them to make nuttier comments about racism.

 

[Big Don]

I agree with jks... I have a neighbor whom I've mentioned previously in this thread; she's black, her children are black, her husband is black... she's from the Bahamas, and none of her ancestors were slaves; her husband is from Africa (directly) and none of his ancestors were slaves - therefore none of their childrens' ancestors are slaves. But according to you, the color of their skin must make it obvious that they were descended from slaves... and it just ain't so.

By the way, assuming what one's ancestors were based on what they look like is textbook racism...