Dudeist Wrote:The funny thing is that blacks were closing the gap with whites on pretty much every measure. Well until the 60's when attitudes went from "frig them let them pull themselves up" to a combination of "blame whitey for everything" and "shut up and take our money/quotas".
This is completely false. African-Americans were not considered full citizens until 1964, and before that time the discrimination that exists today was even stronger.
Dudeist Wrote:Well until the 60's when attitudes went from.
Yeah it was definitely their
darn attitudes, and not because they were disproportionately discriminated against due to the individual and collective racism. See the
GI bill,
The FHA, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986,
being intentionally targeted for sub-prime loans and
suffering disproportionately worse during the mortgage crisis.
Dudeist Wrote:"shut up and take our money/quotas"
The funny thing about people who make this argument toward African-Americans is that the American white middle class was essentially created
with the Homestead Act and the
hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of free land it gave out to white men (any free man was "technically eligible" but we know what that really means in 1890). Not "hard work". Government money and quotas as you like to say.
I have absolutely no problem with this, but racist people and conservatives
love to pretend that welfare is some kind of "black thing" in the US while they sit on family land given to them by the federal government. An amount of welfare that even ten thousand years of food stamps used to buy bologna sandwiches and powered juice wouldn't add up to.
Dudeist Wrote:Best way to keep any people down forever is to constantly tell them that they have no responsibly for their fate and it is the role of "the man" to fix their problems.
This is a ridiculously dishonest strawman that I've already addressed. It relies on the racially charged assumption that this is about "helping lazy people, aka black people, when they can do it themselves". Dealing with major problems concerning institutional racism and discrimination in society has nothing to do with things you can "do yourself" on a personal level. These are societal problems that are unfairly affecting a lot of people.
Instead of acknowledging that institutional racism exists, which makes you uncomfortable, you'd instead rather just call black people lazy. Americans know they live in an unequal society where whites benefit and blacks get screwed. They feel guilt about that at some level because they believe in equality and believe that racism is wrong. Since they want to believe they are good people they either fight against that inequality – or make up excuses. Making up excuses is way easier.
If they can blame blacks for their troubles, then they have no reason to feel guilty at all. Then
they can still see themselves as good people. Case closed.
Dudeist Wrote:It was hilarious, McMaster did a study on it, found a difference of about 3500 bucks so they upped female wages by that much. 3500 bucks, at a Canadian university. That's a rounding error
A "rounding error" that consistently only applies to one side. Hmm. It might be hard to understand this as a man, but if that "rounding error" was on your side you might care about it a little more.
And that's significant enough. In STEM fields here equally qualified women tend to earn 8-20% even when you control for the amount of hours worked.
Stansfield123 Wrote:yudantaiteki Wrote:Did I miss something? Is this a parody/satire post?
No, it's a factual post. Slavery was a global phenomenon, not an American one. While it was an accepted practice, there were slaves of all races, and slave owners of all races, all across the world.
Blaming slavery on whites is stupid.
Dudeist Wrote:I also find it interesting that when it comes to payback for slavery it never seems to concern the descendants of the people who actually enslaved those slaves... the blacks of West Africa.
"Africans sold their own people as slaves" is a stock argument racists often use when the subject of slavery comes up. This is a common derail. It's like the excuse you hear in school when kids say, "But they were doing it too! How come I'm getting in trouble?". The immaturity equivalent of throwing your milk on the ground and stomping up and down. First, simply as an
argument of fact it fails:
-
Africa was not a country. Africans were not selling "their own", they were selling their enemies, just as the Greeks and Romans once did. Africa, then as now, was made up of different countries. They were no more selling "their own" than, say, "Europeans" were killing "their own" during the Holocaust.
-Most African countries did not sell slaves and some even fought against it.
But because Europeans back then could control the supply of guns there was little Africans could do to stop it. Europeans turned slavery into a
global enterprise and they had the guns to make it happen.
-
The Transatlantic slave trade was on a much greater scale than anything the Africans or anyone else ever did in the history of slavery. Countries were destroyed and millions died.
-The Transatlantic slave trade was racist. The African slave trade, for all of its other ills, was not that. Neither was the Greek and Roman slave trade. So slavery in places like Haiti, West Indies, and America was much much more cruel. Slavery in Africa was more of an indentured servitude with a beginning and an end. Many slaves ended up marrying into the families they served. What's important to note here is that slaves maintained their humanity and were not "born into" slavery. The child of a slave was born free.
As a
moral argument it fails as well:
-It excuses an evil of one’s own past by finding the same sort of evil done by others. Whites sold slaves, but Africans and Arab traders did too! Which, morally speaking, is at the same level as an eight-year-old saying, "He did it too!" when caught doing something bad. We do not accept this argument from eight-year-olds, nor from bank robbers or wife beaters. This is no better.
It's main purpose is used by white supremacists to draw attention away from what happened by turning the tables, because acknowledging certain things might contradict a lot of white supremacist arguments concerning blacks innately being lazy or innately inferior. That part of their past that makes the white supremacist crowd uncomfortable. But instead of facing up to it they have
built up defenses against it:
-Get over it™!
-You did it!
-Blacks are just lazy!
-It was the times.
-Slavery did not make economic sense.
-
Slaves were treated better anyway
-That was Ancient History.
It's a very defensive and childish argument, and it amazes me that anyone even tries it for two reasons:
-That anyone would
waste more than two seconds trying to excuse something so clearly evil, like the slave trade, the Japanese American prison camps, racism, etc.
-That they would try to use such a bad argument with a straight face and not see just how bad it is.
But the modern neo-nazi and white supremacist crowd loves to make this argument. Not only does it help push a racist agenda,
it also seems to bring comfort to them. However that comfort is completely
one-sided. It brings no comfort to those who have to suffer their evil. Like when the Jews were being sent to the death camps, did it bring any comfort to them to know Chinese people were also being massacred in the so-called rape of nanking?
Dudeist Wrote:Women who probably never spent more than a month in their lives without a date slagging "losers" really hard with no concept of empathy for those of us who couldn't get laid in the Orange is the New Black prison with a fist full of pardons... even from crazy eyes or the cancer girl. One would think a forever alone brah would be used to getting looked down upon and marginalized after decades of such treatment but nope.
Translation: "Girls are immoral creatures, and I never get laid. Why don't they have empathy for people who cannot get laid like me?"
So women have no empathy because they won't have sex with people who lack prospects? Do you not realize how realize bitter and ridiculous that argument is? The perceived lack of empathy that you receive from women is probably around the same amount of empathy you have for black people. Are you going to cry about it now all of a sudden? What do you expect? Pity sex from women? Just get over it™. Pull yourself up. Stop asking for handouts.
Dudeist Wrote:"Nobody ever says this" is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery
It's not true. It's a strawman caricature used to discredit people fighting for racial justice, often by people who prefer things as they were in the 18th century, based on the notion that people just want "handouts".
Even in that extremely sparse Wikipedia page there's no direct mention of the USA.
Dudeist Wrote:I am not an American and even I knew reparations was thing...
We can only imagine where you're getting your warped view from.
Dudeist Wrote:It isn't a coincidence that those two things happened at the same time, but it is very interesting how it worked out. At the time when legal impediments were eliminated and social impediments were drastically reduced all progress dating back decades all of a sudden stopped.
No. The black middle-class is larger than it's ever been. A black middle-class wasn't even existent in the 60s.
You really need to stop repeating this because it's objectively wrong. You just want to convince yourself that somehow things "got worse" after the 60s because the "good old days" when you could get away with your thoughts without having to use codeword are now gone.
Stansfield123 Wrote:It's a coincidence. Civil rights isn't the cause of black poverty in America, the welfare state is.
There is no "welfare state". This is another racially charged conservative myth that has been
debunked countless times.
Dudeist Wrote:Interesting, I am pretty sure somewhere earlier in this thread someone said the GI bill was not open to blacks. Which is it.
Objectively false. Observe:
-"The G.I. Bill aimed to help returning World War II veterans adjust to civilian life by providing them with a series of benefits, including low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans, and financial support to allow veterans to pursue an education. African Americans did not benefit from the provisions of the G. I. Bill
nearly as much as European Americans. Although the G.I. Bill did not specifically advocate discrimination, the law would be
interpreted differently for blacks than for whites. Historian Ira Katznelson argues that "the law was
deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow". Because the programs were directed by local, white officials, many veterans could not reap the benefits of the G.I. Bill. Of the 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill, fewer than
100 were taken out by non-whites."
john555 Wrote:Like a typical liberal, you have no sense of humor.
It has to be funny for it to be a joke. Like a typical conservative you aren't... nevermind.
