|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States568 Posts
On August 05 2019 22:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 22:11 Ryzel wrote:On August 05 2019 21:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
As far as being white, they don't have to be white to be sympathetic to white supremacy.
This is true, but they are significantly less likely. The point I was trying to make was that your post implies that 1/3rd of the mental health field is sympathetic to white supremacy and I don’t believe that ratio is anywhere close to accurate, with the caveat that if you’re limiting the mental health field to those making 200k+ a year it becomes much closer to reality. Lots of poor people and POC are sympathetic to white supremacy. Internalized oppression is a lot more common than many people realize. That said, I didn't mean it as an indictment of the mental health field in general (though there's plenty I could be complaining about regarding it), just our society and that white supremacy isn't only KKK hoods and terrorist attacks. Phrenology, Physiognomy, etc... white supremacy has always been a part of the field (like everything else in the US)
Gotcha, I agree with those points.
|
United States44379 Posts
On August 05 2019 22:26 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 21:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 05 2019 20:32 Pangpootata wrote:Gun-related deaths in the US by year (Source: Wikimedia, from National Safety Council) + Show Spoiler +Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. White supremacy terrorists attacks account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes, but white supremacy deserves credit for a lot more than just those. Surely hundreds of years of white supremacy leading to subjugation, poverty, and criminalization for the explicit purpose of political and literal marginalization of Black people can be credited for a great deal of violence, be it Black on Black or otherwise. A) Look at the violence and lack of human rights in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparatively, blacks in the US have a much better and less violent life. Of course slavery was bad for them during that particular time period, but if you look at history as a whole, the blacks in the US are much better off than those in Africa. B) Many other ethnic groups have been subjugated by whites, e.g. Indians by the British, Vietnamese by the French, etc. I don't see them having high rates of violence against each other. It is a leap of logic to blame black violence on past treatment by whites. C) Only 1.6% of the population were slave owners at the height of slavery. The average white whose ancestors were average working class people and not rich slave owners. But genetically black have around 10%-50% of European genes, varying greatly by state. Example study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govThis is due to slave owners breeding (raping) their slaves. The fact we must face is that blacks are the descendants of both slave owners and slaves. And more so the descendants of slave owners than the average white.
The idea that violence in Africa somehow exonerates slavery is appalling.
The suggestion that there isn’t violence between the people of the Indian subcontinent (currently divided into several nations on the basis of colonial enflamed divisions and engaged in a nuclear standoff) is pretty strange. Similarly the idea that there isn’t violence in Vietnam from colonization seems to forget that there was a pretty violent anti colonial war in Vietnam called the Vietnam war. Indians kill Indians and Vietnamese kill Vietnamese due to colonialism.
If 1% of Americans were slaveowners 15 generations ago then most Americans today descended from slaveowners, assuming no caste marriage restrictions. It’s also wrong to assume the only beneficiaries of slavery were the owners.
|
On August 05 2019 22:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 22:26 Pangpootata wrote:On August 05 2019 21:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 05 2019 20:32 Pangpootata wrote:Gun-related deaths in the US by year (Source: Wikimedia, from National Safety Council) + Show Spoiler +Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. White supremacy terrorists attacks account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes, but white supremacy deserves credit for a lot more than just those. Surely hundreds of years of white supremacy leading to subjugation, poverty, and criminalization for the explicit purpose of political and literal marginalization of Black people can be credited for a great deal of violence, be it Black on Black or otherwise. A) Look at the violence and lack of human rights in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparatively, blacks in the US have a much better and less violent life. Of course slavery was bad for them during that particular time period, but if you look at history as a whole, the blacks in the US are much better off than those in Africa. B) Many other ethnic groups have been subjugated by whites, e.g. Indians by the British, Vietnamese by the French, etc. I don't see them having high rates of violence against each other. It is a leap of logic to blame black violence on past treatment by whites. C) Only 1.6% of the population were slave owners at the height of slavery. The average white whose ancestors were average working class people and not rich slave owners. But genetically black have around 10%-50% of European genes, varying greatly by state. Example study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govThis is due to slave owners breeding (raping) their slaves. The fact we must face is that blacks are the descendants of both slave owners and slaves. And more so the descendants of slave owners than the average white. The idea that violence in Africa somehow exonerates slavery is appalling. The suggestion that there isn’t violence between the people of the Indian subcontinent (currently divided into several nations on the basis of colonial enflamed divisions and engaged in a nuclear standoff) is pretty strange. Similarly the idea that there isn’t violence in Vietnam from colonization seems to forget that there was a pretty violent anti colonial war in Vietnam called the Vietnam war. Indians kill Indians and Vietnamese kill Vietnamese due to colonialism. If 1% of Americans were slaveowners 15 generations ago then most Americans today descended from slaveowners, assuming no caste marriage restrictions. It’s also wrong to assume the only beneficiaries of slavery were the owners.
Your leaps of logic are appalling. I never said that it justified slavery.
Once-off violence due to political revolution is not the same as distributed high rates of violence within communities.
Yes, but by percentage of slave owner ancestor-ship, blacks score much higher than whites. Blacks should accept that their ancestors oppressed each other and not just blame whites. Anyway US blacks are also partially white.
|
On August 05 2019 22:57 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 22:51 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2019 22:26 Pangpootata wrote:On August 05 2019 21:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 05 2019 20:32 Pangpootata wrote:Gun-related deaths in the US by year (Source: Wikimedia, from National Safety Council) + Show Spoiler +Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. White supremacy terrorists attacks account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes, but white supremacy deserves credit for a lot more than just those. Surely hundreds of years of white supremacy leading to subjugation, poverty, and criminalization for the explicit purpose of political and literal marginalization of Black people can be credited for a great deal of violence, be it Black on Black or otherwise. A) Look at the violence and lack of human rights in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparatively, blacks in the US have a much better and less violent life. Of course slavery was bad for them during that particular time period, but if you look at history as a whole, the blacks in the US are much better off than those in Africa. B) Many other ethnic groups have been subjugated by whites, e.g. Indians by the British, Vietnamese by the French, etc. I don't see them having high rates of violence against each other. It is a leap of logic to blame black violence on past treatment by whites. C) Only 1.6% of the population were slave owners at the height of slavery. The average white whose ancestors were average working class people and not rich slave owners. But genetically black have around 10%-50% of European genes, varying greatly by state. Example study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govThis is due to slave owners breeding (raping) their slaves. The fact we must face is that blacks are the descendants of both slave owners and slaves. And more so the descendants of slave owners than the average white. The idea that violence in Africa somehow exonerates slavery is appalling. The suggestion that there isn’t violence between the people of the Indian subcontinent (currently divided into several nations on the basis of colonial enflamed divisions and engaged in a nuclear standoff) is pretty strange. Similarly the idea that there isn’t violence in Vietnam from colonization seems to forget that there was a pretty violent anti colonial war in Vietnam called the Vietnam war. Indians kill Indians and Vietnamese kill Vietnamese due to colonialism. If 1% of Americans were slaveowners 15 generations ago then most Americans today descended from slaveowners, assuming no caste marriage restrictions. It’s also wrong to assume the only beneficiaries of slavery were the owners. Your leaps of logic are appalling. I never said that it justified slavery. Once-off violence due to political revolution is not the same as distributed high rates of violence within communities. Yes, but by percentage of slave owner ancestor-ship, blacks score much higher than whites. Blacks should accept that their ancestors oppressed each other and not just blame whites. Anyway US blacks are also partially white.
I'll suggest you leave this topic for a while and think about what you are attempting to say.
|
United States568 Posts
On August 05 2019 23:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 22:57 Pangpootata wrote:On August 05 2019 22:51 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2019 22:26 Pangpootata wrote:On August 05 2019 21:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 05 2019 20:32 Pangpootata wrote:Gun-related deaths in the US by year (Source: Wikimedia, from National Safety Council) + Show Spoiler +Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. White supremacy terrorists attacks account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes, but white supremacy deserves credit for a lot more than just those. Surely hundreds of years of white supremacy leading to subjugation, poverty, and criminalization for the explicit purpose of political and literal marginalization of Black people can be credited for a great deal of violence, be it Black on Black or otherwise. A) Look at the violence and lack of human rights in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparatively, blacks in the US have a much better and less violent life. Of course slavery was bad for them during that particular time period, but if you look at history as a whole, the blacks in the US are much better off than those in Africa. B) Many other ethnic groups have been subjugated by whites, e.g. Indians by the British, Vietnamese by the French, etc. I don't see them having high rates of violence against each other. It is a leap of logic to blame black violence on past treatment by whites. C) Only 1.6% of the population were slave owners at the height of slavery. The average white whose ancestors were average working class people and not rich slave owners. But genetically black have around 10%-50% of European genes, varying greatly by state. Example study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govThis is due to slave owners breeding (raping) their slaves. The fact we must face is that blacks are the descendants of both slave owners and slaves. And more so the descendants of slave owners than the average white. The idea that violence in Africa somehow exonerates slavery is appalling. The suggestion that there isn’t violence between the people of the Indian subcontinent (currently divided into several nations on the basis of colonial enflamed divisions and engaged in a nuclear standoff) is pretty strange. Similarly the idea that there isn’t violence in Vietnam from colonization seems to forget that there was a pretty violent anti colonial war in Vietnam called the Vietnam war. Indians kill Indians and Vietnamese kill Vietnamese due to colonialism. If 1% of Americans were slaveowners 15 generations ago then most Americans today descended from slaveowners, assuming no caste marriage restrictions. It’s also wrong to assume the only beneficiaries of slavery were the owners. Your leaps of logic are appalling. I never said that it justified slavery. Once-off violence due to political revolution is not the same as distributed high rates of violence within communities. Yes, but by percentage of slave owner ancestor-ship, blacks score much higher than whites. Blacks should accept that their ancestors oppressed each other and not just blame whites. Anyway US blacks are also partially white. I'll suggest you leave this topic for a while and think about what you are attempting to say.
Indeed, the premise your points seem to imply is that blacks are inclined to intraracial violence more so than other races, which is a premise I sincerely hope you are not trying to argue for (with a sprinkling of “blacks aren’t justified at being angry at white culture for slavery when it was their own ancestors fault”.)
|
On August 05 2019 23:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 22:57 Pangpootata wrote:On August 05 2019 22:51 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2019 22:26 Pangpootata wrote:On August 05 2019 21:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 05 2019 20:32 Pangpootata wrote:Gun-related deaths in the US by year (Source: Wikimedia, from National Safety Council) + Show Spoiler +Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. White supremacy terrorists attacks account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes, but white supremacy deserves credit for a lot more than just those. Surely hundreds of years of white supremacy leading to subjugation, poverty, and criminalization for the explicit purpose of political and literal marginalization of Black people can be credited for a great deal of violence, be it Black on Black or otherwise. A) Look at the violence and lack of human rights in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparatively, blacks in the US have a much better and less violent life. Of course slavery was bad for them during that particular time period, but if you look at history as a whole, the blacks in the US are much better off than those in Africa. B) Many other ethnic groups have been subjugated by whites, e.g. Indians by the British, Vietnamese by the French, etc. I don't see them having high rates of violence against each other. It is a leap of logic to blame black violence on past treatment by whites. C) Only 1.6% of the population were slave owners at the height of slavery. The average white whose ancestors were average working class people and not rich slave owners. But genetically black have around 10%-50% of European genes, varying greatly by state. Example study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govThis is due to slave owners breeding (raping) their slaves. The fact we must face is that blacks are the descendants of both slave owners and slaves. And more so the descendants of slave owners than the average white. The idea that violence in Africa somehow exonerates slavery is appalling. The suggestion that there isn’t violence between the people of the Indian subcontinent (currently divided into several nations on the basis of colonial enflamed divisions and engaged in a nuclear standoff) is pretty strange. Similarly the idea that there isn’t violence in Vietnam from colonization seems to forget that there was a pretty violent anti colonial war in Vietnam called the Vietnam war. Indians kill Indians and Vietnamese kill Vietnamese due to colonialism. If 1% of Americans were slaveowners 15 generations ago then most Americans today descended from slaveowners, assuming no caste marriage restrictions. It’s also wrong to assume the only beneficiaries of slavery were the owners. Your leaps of logic are appalling. I never said that it justified slavery. Once-off violence due to political revolution is not the same as distributed high rates of violence within communities. Yes, but by percentage of slave owner ancestor-ship, blacks score much higher than whites. Blacks should accept that their ancestors oppressed each other and not just blame whites. Anyway US blacks are also partially white. I'll suggest you leave this topic for a while and think about what you are attempting to say.
Perhaps I have not phrased my thoughts clearly enough. What I am attempting to say is:
A) Slave owners oppressed slaves.
B) Slave owners had descendants that are purely white, as well as mixed-ethnicity descendants with the slaves.
C) US Blacks have 10-50% European genes which shows how much of their genetic makeup comes from the slave owners.
Conclusion 1) Blacks are also descendants of the slave owners and by percentage are more so than the average white.
Conclusion 2) Instead of fallaciously framing the issue as whites oppressing black, we need to recognize that the modern blacks are partially white genetically, and their ancestors oppressed each other.
|
ancestorship in relationship to current racism is entirely irrelevant. people aren’t treated differently because of who their long deceased ancestors are.
partially white genetically is definitely the stupidest thing i’ll read today. it couldn’t be clearer how off the point this is. well, to others.
how any of this even relates to your stated claim of intra racial violence being the problem is also nebulous? and should anyone actually read this and try to make sense if it (god help us all,) it actually seems specifically against that claim. on one hand, it’s intraracial violence that’s the problem. on the other hand, we’re whitewashing everyone.
|
On August 05 2019 23:09 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 23:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On August 05 2019 22:57 Pangpootata wrote:On August 05 2019 22:51 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2019 22:26 Pangpootata wrote:On August 05 2019 21:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 05 2019 20:32 Pangpootata wrote:Gun-related deaths in the US by year (Source: Wikimedia, from National Safety Council) + Show Spoiler +Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. White supremacy terrorists attacks account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes, but white supremacy deserves credit for a lot more than just those. Surely hundreds of years of white supremacy leading to subjugation, poverty, and criminalization for the explicit purpose of political and literal marginalization of Black people can be credited for a great deal of violence, be it Black on Black or otherwise. A) Look at the violence and lack of human rights in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparatively, blacks in the US have a much better and less violent life. Of course slavery was bad for them during that particular time period, but if you look at history as a whole, the blacks in the US are much better off than those in Africa. B) Many other ethnic groups have been subjugated by whites, e.g. Indians by the British, Vietnamese by the French, etc. I don't see them having high rates of violence against each other. It is a leap of logic to blame black violence on past treatment by whites. C) Only 1.6% of the population were slave owners at the height of slavery. The average white whose ancestors were average working class people and not rich slave owners. But genetically black have around 10%-50% of European genes, varying greatly by state. Example study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govThis is due to slave owners breeding (raping) their slaves. The fact we must face is that blacks are the descendants of both slave owners and slaves. And more so the descendants of slave owners than the average white. The idea that violence in Africa somehow exonerates slavery is appalling. The suggestion that there isn’t violence between the people of the Indian subcontinent (currently divided into several nations on the basis of colonial enflamed divisions and engaged in a nuclear standoff) is pretty strange. Similarly the idea that there isn’t violence in Vietnam from colonization seems to forget that there was a pretty violent anti colonial war in Vietnam called the Vietnam war. Indians kill Indians and Vietnamese kill Vietnamese due to colonialism. If 1% of Americans were slaveowners 15 generations ago then most Americans today descended from slaveowners, assuming no caste marriage restrictions. It’s also wrong to assume the only beneficiaries of slavery were the owners. Your leaps of logic are appalling. I never said that it justified slavery. Once-off violence due to political revolution is not the same as distributed high rates of violence within communities. Yes, but by percentage of slave owner ancestor-ship, blacks score much higher than whites. Blacks should accept that their ancestors oppressed each other and not just blame whites. Anyway US blacks are also partially white. I'll suggest you leave this topic for a while and think about what you are attempting to say. Indeed, the premise your points seem to imply is that blacks are inclined to intraracial violence more so than other races, which is a premise I sincerely hope you are not trying to argue for.
Is it race? Or is it culture?
I don't argue for premises. I simply state the premises and explore the corollaries.
|
This ridiculous racial makeup talk is right out of the 19th century, congrats for time machining us, I guess.
|
United States44379 Posts
Blacks people being responsible for slavery due to seminal guilt passed onto them through rape by their white owners is an interesting take.
I think when people are interested in redressing the historical injustices created by slavery they are more looking at it in terms of financial beneficiaries vs victims, not seminal guilt. For example white people who came to America after the end of slavery still benefited from racism while black people who came to America after the end and whose ancestors were never enslaved still had their opportunities curtailed by it. I don’t think literal ancestry is a useful way of assigning responsibility for redressing the injustice.
|
On August 05 2019 23:12 brian wrote:
ancestorship in relationship to current racism is entirely irrelevant. people aren’t treated differently because of who their long deceased ancestors are.
partially white genetically is definitely the stupidest thing i’ll read today. it couldn’t be clearer how off the point this is. well, to others.
how any of this even relates to your stated claim of intra racial violence being the problem is also nebulous?
Ancestorship is relevant to the current political climate where some left wing people blame whites for the actions of their ancestors.
All my points are sound and refute them if you can instead of name-calling.
That was a side-track from the main point when Kwark blamed historical white subjugation for black intra racial violence.
|
On August 05 2019 22:57 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 22:51 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2019 22:26 Pangpootata wrote:On August 05 2019 21:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 05 2019 20:32 Pangpootata wrote:Gun-related deaths in the US by year (Source: Wikimedia, from National Safety Council) + Show Spoiler +Although mass shootings have been on the rise, they are merely a drop in the ocean compared to homicides and cannot explain the overall increasing trend. White supremacists account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes. Majority of it is black on black violence. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1980 to 2008, 84% of white homicide victims were killed by white offenders and 93% of black homicide victims were killed by black offenders. With regards to gun violence, intraracial homicide within communities is the main problem. White supremacy terrorists attacks account for a tiny percentage of gun crimes, but white supremacy deserves credit for a lot more than just those. Surely hundreds of years of white supremacy leading to subjugation, poverty, and criminalization for the explicit purpose of political and literal marginalization of Black people can be credited for a great deal of violence, be it Black on Black or otherwise. A) Look at the violence and lack of human rights in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparatively, blacks in the US have a much better and less violent life. Of course slavery was bad for them during that particular time period, but if you look at history as a whole, the blacks in the US are much better off than those in Africa. B) Many other ethnic groups have been subjugated by whites, e.g. Indians by the British, Vietnamese by the French, etc. I don't see them having high rates of violence against each other. It is a leap of logic to blame black violence on past treatment by whites. C) Only 1.6% of the population were slave owners at the height of slavery. The average white whose ancestors were average working class people and not rich slave owners. But genetically black have around 10%-50% of European genes, varying greatly by state. Example study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govThis is due to slave owners breeding (raping) their slaves. The fact we must face is that blacks are the descendants of both slave owners and slaves. And more so the descendants of slave owners than the average white. The idea that violence in Africa somehow exonerates slavery is appalling. The suggestion that there isn’t violence between the people of the Indian subcontinent (currently divided into several nations on the basis of colonial enflamed divisions and engaged in a nuclear standoff) is pretty strange. Similarly the idea that there isn’t violence in Vietnam from colonization seems to forget that there was a pretty violent anti colonial war in Vietnam called the Vietnam war. Indians kill Indians and Vietnamese kill Vietnamese due to colonialism. If 1% of Americans were slaveowners 15 generations ago then most Americans today descended from slaveowners, assuming no caste marriage restrictions. It’s also wrong to assume the only beneficiaries of slavery were the owners. Your leaps of logic are appalling. I never said that it justified slavery. Once-off violence due to political revolution is not the same as distributed high rates of violence within communities. Yes, but by percentage of slave owner ancestor-ship, blacks score much higher than whites. Blacks should accept that their ancestors oppressed each other and not just blame whites. Anyway US blacks are also partially white.
To say that because slave owners raped their slaves, blacks should accept that their ancestors oppressed each other, is not a serious argument.
|
On August 05 2019 23:19 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 23:12 brian wrote:
ancestorship in relationship to current racism is entirely irrelevant. people aren’t treated differently because of who their long deceased ancestors are.
partially white genetically is definitely the stupidest thing i’ll read today. it couldn’t be clearer how off the point this is. well, to others.
how any of this even relates to your stated claim of intra racial violence being the problem is also nebulous? Ancestorship is relevant to the current political climate where some left wing people blame whites for the actions of their ancestors. All my points are sound and refute them if you can instead of name-calling. That was a side-track from the main point when Kwark blamed historical white subjugation for black intra racial violence.
you misunderstand, to acknowledge whites are better off as a result of slavery is not laying blame. and it has little to do with ancestorship, and rather it’s as easy as the color of your skin. coincidentally this leads to why your statement was so stupid. to this end, i’d recommend you back track to what whiteness means and who decides who is white. I think it was Kwark and GH that did so with some dark humor, was a pretty easy read. what you won’t find there is a discussion on ancestorship.
i will, soundness is dubious but we’ll get there, but it behooves us all to understand how stupid the idea is.
how do you reconcile the claim that intraracial violence is the problem while similtaneously white washing blacks?
|
I guess I'm confused because, if you take what he says, then it all boils down to white people are to blame for violence in America. Skin color notwithstanding.
|
On August 05 2019 23:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I guess I'm confused because, if you take what he says, then it all boils down to white people are to blame for violence in America. Skin color notwithstanding.
Yes. a particularly small subset of historical white people are to blame.
Modern whites and blacks are both descended from this subset.
It is the obvious truth.
|
United States44379 Posts
On August 05 2019 23:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I guess I'm confused because, if you take what he says, then it all boils down to white people are to blame for violence in America. Skin color notwithstanding.
Hot take.
Black slaves were raped by white slaveowners and therefore their black descendants are responsible for slavery, but are also white. Therefore (partially) white African Americans people are responsible for slavery. Black is white.
|
On August 05 2019 23:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 23:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I guess I'm confused because, if you take what he says, then it all boils down to white people are to blame for violence in America. Skin color notwithstanding. Hot take. Black slaves were raped by white slaveowners and therefore their black descendants are responsible for slavery, but are also white. Therefore (partially) white African Americans people are responsible for slavery. Black is white.
Nope. Nobody in modern times is responsible for slavery. You don't have to be responsible for your ancestors' crimes.
|
United States44379 Posts
On August 05 2019 23:28 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 23:26 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2019 23:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I guess I'm confused because, if you take what he says, then it all boils down to white people are to blame for violence in America. Skin color notwithstanding. Hot take. Black slaves were raped by white slaveowners and therefore their black descendants are responsible for slavery, but are also white. Therefore (partially) white African Americans people are responsible for slavery. Black is white. Nope. Nobody in modern times is responsible for slavery. You don't have to be responsible for your ancestors' crimes.
Then why did you bring up ancestry in the first place?
|
On August 05 2019 23:28 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2019 23:26 KwarK wrote:On August 05 2019 23:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I guess I'm confused because, if you take what he says, then it all boils down to white people are to blame for violence in America. Skin color notwithstanding. Hot take. Black slaves were raped by white slaveowners and therefore their black descendants are responsible for slavery, but are also white. Therefore (partially) white African Americans people are responsible for slavery. Black is white. Nope. Nobody in modern times is responsible for slavery. You don't have to be responsible for your ancestors' crimes.
No individual. As a country? Yes. Have we changed since? Of course. But is "America" responsible and should "America" make things right? Fuck yeah "they" should.
|
So orange is no the new black, but the new white? Too early for this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/1999-2016_Gun-related_deaths_USA.png/745px-1999-2016_Gun-related_deaths_USA.png)
