BF2S Forums racism

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

You speak as if ALL white people are previldged and do not have to work for anything. You speak as if there is no such thing as poor white trash. The excuse is old and tiresome, it is time to give it a rest and take control, if not responsibility for your successes and failures just like the rest of us. Stop insulting those that actually did suffer and endure by trying to make like that pain is yours.

Where did I say that this principle applies only to black Americans?

The knock-on effect of socio-economic deprivation is not race specific - it effects all skin-pigmentation-variants equally.

I only used black Americans as the example because that is what the thread, your thread I hasten to add, is about.

However, to answer your point - the comparative proportions of black/white/asian/latino/martian/whateverian that start life in a disadvantaged situation, compared to their representation within the entire population, determines the apparent vocality of each group - the minority black population contains a much higher proportion of disadvantaged poor than the majority white population.

And don't say that socio-economic background bears no influence on the level of 'success' that an individual can achieve in his lifetime.

Equal opportunity is not the same as equal advantage.

Those that start the race half a lap ahead the course will, on average, do better than those that start half a lap behind.

Again, the only "advantage" anyone has are those that are born into wealthy families. Other than that there is no other distinguishing difference between the two races other than what is self inflicted.

I was not born rich, I also was given no advantage toward anything. In fact, affirmative action has done more to keep me out than any advantage you say I have for being white. So, by all means, be specific, tell me just what advantage a white person has in society over a black person in every day life.
Tell me what "whitey" has done to keep the black man down today. Is this the point where you will blame a lack of education, skills, ambition, training, effort, or attitude, on the whitey? All of which, by the way, is in the personal control of each of us, as individuals.

*SIGH*

I'm NOT SAYING IT'S BLACK vs WHITE.

I'm saying it's RICH vs POOR.

It just so happens that, due to racist oppression of the blacks in the past, proportionally more black people are poorer than the notional 'average' (of irrespective colour) than there are, again proportionally, white people who are poorer than same said notional average.


I'm sooo trying to avoid pointing out that it is you that is making this into a black vs white issue - wouldn't want to have to start pointing out the bigotry of that stance...

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Again, the only "advantage" anyone has are those that are born into wealthy families. Other than that there is no other distinguishing difference between the two races other than what is self inflicted.

I was not born rich, I also was given no advantage toward anything. In fact, affirmative action has done more to keep me out than any advantage you say I have for being white. So, by all means, be specific, tell me just what advantage a white person has in society over a black person in every day life.
Tell me what "whitey" has done to keep the black man down today. Is this the point where you will blame a lack of education, skills, ambition, training, effort, or attitude, on the whitey? All of which, by the way, is in the personal control of each of us, as individuals.

*SIGH*

I'm NOT SAYING IT'S BLACK vs WHITE.

I'm saying it's RICH vs POOR.

It just so happens that, due to racist oppression of the blacks in the past, proportionally more black people are poorer than the notional 'average' (of irrespective colour) than there are, again proportionally, white people who are poorer than same said notional average.


I'm sooo trying to avoid pointing out that it is you that is making this into a black vs white issue - wouldn't want to have to start pointing out the bigotry of that stance...

This thread is not about rich and poor, it is about racism. If it were about rich or poor than your statements would apply to poor white people as well as poor anyone else. YOu are trying to use poor vs rich as an excuse for racism against white people. A racism that I maintain has been given a pass and is aceptable.  Now, if you care to address the double standard as to why blacks are given a pass for their racism while white are continually crucified for it. I am all ears.

Do not threaten me with that racist bigot bullshit you are so fond of. I have heard it all before. I already know that you have no problem when backed into a corner that you will use such a tactic and run for the woodwork.

The thread is about what you perceive as racism against whites, by blacks.

I'm saying colour has nothing to do with it except for the on-going effects of the very real racism against blacks that was really perpetrated by the whites, in the very recent past.

For poor black Americans to say "we're poor, we're black and we're American" is not racist.

Saying "they are anti-white for saying that" could be seen as racism.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

paul386 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

paul386 wrote:

No its not quite like that.

Again you are attaching the group mentality to the situation.

In your example, the guy gets punched.

The people stop punching him.

He has children, they were never punched.

I never punched anyone, yet his children are mad at me because I resemble the people that punched him.

Well, the chances are, those children will have shitty life growing up because they're dad, rightfully, has a chip on his shoulder from being punched so much, and, so, the children are pissed off about how what was done to their dad has effect their own lives.

paul386 wrote:

You are saying that I did wrong and I should have to pay for it?

No, I'm saying that this is the way the world works, and to some degree is understandable.


In essence, yes.

In time things will change, but it takes more than a generation or so for an entire population to get over the misdeeds done to that population in the past.

And it is only a generation or so - thinking just in terms of when slavery ended is wrong - as I have said before, blacks in America were still being oppressed for quite some time after the abolition of slavery - those, more recent, acts are still fresh in the minds of many black-americans.

Give it time.

So you want to assume that all black Americans should be given special benefits because people that resembled their skin color (but were not necessarily related to them in any way) were enslaved and opressed in the past?

No, I am saying that many people in America understandably feel aggrieved because people that are related to them were oppressed in the very near past.

One also has to remember that those same Americans, because of the oppression of there forebears, have had a disadvantaged start in life, in a society that is meant to provide 'an equal opportunity' to all.

No society is truly equal and the disadvantaged of today are the product of events in the society of yesterday. And this will always be the case.

The exact racial mix of the disadvantaged will shift with time, but, because of very recent oppression of blacks in America a statistically higher proportion of Americans of black origin, than Americans of white origin, currently start life at a disadvantage.

This will change, but this kind of societal change takes many generations, not one or two.

Also, it is my belief that society has a duty to help it's disadvantaged members, irrespective of any form of categorization.

lowing wrote:

I guess it doesn't matter that those that have been "punched in the face" are not the same as those that are claiming an aggrieved status does it?

It matters that they started life at a disadvantage because their parents/grandparents were punched in the face.

Again, you continue with the group mentality.

Because they are black they must have had disadvantages in life. Their parents must have made less money, ect

Because they are white they must not of had a hard time growing up... they must of had good influence and parents with money.

These generalities, that you continue to use, are the definition of racism.

People in a society have a moral obligation to help those who are disadvantaged. The government does not have the right to force people to do it. Additionally they are quite illsuited for the task and cause the majority of racial tension with "they are getting more than I am".

What of whites that have a disadvantage growing up. They are out of luck because they are white?

You logic fails. You use racist group mentalities consistently.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

paul386 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

paul386 wrote:

So you want to assume that all black Americans should be given special benefits because people that resembled their skin color (but were not necessarily related to them in any way) were enslaved and opressed in the past?

No, I am saying that many people in America understandably feel aggrieved because people that are related to them were oppressed in the very near past.

One also has to remember that those same Americans, because of the oppression of there forebears, have had a disadvantaged start in life, in a society that is meant to provide 'an equal opportunity' to all.

No society is truly equal and the disadvantaged of today are the product of events in the society of yesterday. And this will always be the case.

The exact racial mix of the disadvantaged will shift with time, but, because of very recent oppression of blacks in America a statistically higher proportion of Americans of black origin, than Americans of white origin, currently start life at a disadvantage.

This will change, but this kind of societal change takes many generations, not one or two.

Also, it is my belief that society has a duty to help it's disadvantaged members, irrespective of any form of categorization.


It matters that they started life at a disadvantage because their parents/grandparents were punched in the face.

Again, you continue with the group mentality.

Because they are black they must have had disadvantages in life. Their parents must have made less money, ect

Because they are white they must not of had a hard time growing up... they must of had good influence and parents with money.

These generalities, that you continue to use, are the definition of racism.

People in a society have a moral obligation to help those who are disadvantaged. The government does not have the right to force people to do it. Additionally they are quite illsuited for the task and cause the majority of racial tension with "they are getting more than I am".

What of whites that have a disadvantage growing up. They are out of luck because they are white?

You logic fails. You use racist group mentalities consistently.

Please show me where I state that "because they are black" that anything therefore follows.

You can't because I didn't.

Just because apples are fruit and green, it does not mean all green things are fruit.

Ummmmm, you do know that this thread is about black and whites in America?? If you are not talking about blacks, who the hell are you talking about as victims against white oppression? Stop trying to be difficult, just acknowledge the double standard in regards to racism or don't, and expalin why. Stop mentioning blacks then tell us you were not talking about blacks.

Spark wrote:

Not that I've paid much attention to the thread, but my thoughts are that black people are by and large disadvantaged - but not because they're black. The reason they get extra help is because they are disadvantaged, not because they are black. A white person similarly disadvantaged would get similar help - it's just that not too many white people fall into that situation.

Coincidental, if you will.

............and how much of that "disadvantage" is self induced in America today. Considering any black person that becomes successful is viewed as an "Uncle Tom", and a sell out? No one on this forum has been victimized by "whitey", and certainly not to the point where you can blame life long failure on it.

How much of that disadvantage is nothing more than attitude reflecting failure? Does any one in the black community know any of the black astronauts, I bet not, but we all know who Snoop Dog and Tupac and 50 Cent are.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Not that I've paid much attention to the thread, but my thoughts are that black people are by and large disadvantaged - but not because they're black. The reason they get extra help is because they are disadvantaged, not because they are black. A white person similarly disadvantaged would get similar help - it's just that not too many white people fall into that situation.

Coincidental, if you will.

............and how much of that "disadvantage" is self induced in America today. Considering any black person that becomes successful is viewed as an "Uncle Tom", and a sell out? No one on this forum has been victimized by "whitey", and certainly not to the point where you can blame life long failure on it.

How much of that disadvantage is nothing more than attitude reflecting failure? Does any one in the black community know any of the black astronauts, I bet not, but we all know who Snoop Dog and Tupac and 50 Cent are.

No, but generational change isn't that big. If a father is severely disadvantage (and let's face it, a lot of the disadvantaged today would have had fathers who lived in the period just before the Movement). It's not easy to break a generational pattern - if your parents are poor, it makes it that much harder to break out of the cycle. Not saying it's impossible, but less likely.

Your second point would make sense if said black astronauts were in a proportion to white astronauts roughly equivalent to the proportion of all blacks to whites in America. In that case it would be perfectly reasonable to say that the disproportionate amount of black people who are disadvantage is due to some race-related attitude thingy.

But I doubt it.

So then, I think it is logical to assume that there are still some inherent disadvantages in being black which are due to social factors. Attitude, and a race-related psychological fix could and probably does play a role but I don't think it is as important as you say.

So you think that the high percentage of blacks in prison and the low percentage of black astronauts, is due to oppression and not personal responsibility for your actions behavior and decisions.....Sorry blaming the white man is far too easy and convenient. Which is why I speculate it is done. I am not gunna accept responsibility for someone else's failures, and more than I can accept credit for someone else's successes.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

No, but generational change isn't that big. If a father is severely disadvantage (and let's face it, a lot of the disadvantaged today would have had fathers who lived in the period just before the Movement). It's not easy to break a generational pattern - if your parents are poor, it makes it that much harder to break out of the cycle. Not saying it's impossible, but less likely.

Your second point would make sense if said black astronauts were in a proportion to white astronauts roughly equivalent to the proportion of all blacks to whites in America. In that case it would be perfectly reasonable to say that the disproportionate amount of black people who are disadvantage is due to some race-related attitude thingy.

But I doubt it.

So then, I think it is logical to assume that there are still some inherent disadvantages in being black which are due to social factors. Attitude, and a race-related psychological fix could and probably does play a role but I don't think it is as important as you say.

So you think that the high percentage of blacks in prison and the low percentage of black astronauts, is due to oppression and not personal responsibility for your actions behavior and decisions.....Sorry blaming the white man is far too easy and convenient. Which is why I speculate it is done. I am not gunna accept responsibility for someone else's failures, and more than I can accept credit for someone else's successes.

I think it's a little of both. I don't see it as oppression now. In some regards it is a psychological issue (which you regard as 'personal responsibility'... though the way you've used this term is so broad I'm not sure what you mean). I think it is a leftover from 50 years ago, black people are still levelling the playing field. I think that in another 50 years, if things continue in the right direction, we won't have this problem. Most important point: I don't see it as 'self-induced'. I don't think they make a conscious decision to do this or that or not pursue goals or whatever. Perhaps this is because the social net of 50 years ago (where blacks stuck around blacks and were fiercely defensive, and usually to their own detriment) hasn't dissolved yet. It might be some unconscious thing drilled into them by their parents that this or that is what's best for them and damn what anyone else says. I don't know, because I'm not American.

However, I don't think it's right to point fingers. Certainly not at the whites - in my opinion they have reacted to the Movement's success more smoothly than blacks have. But it's not really right to blame blacks either. They didn't put themselves in the predicament which led to the creation of this psychological fix where I am part of this group, whitey is part of his, and we're cool as long as we stay a mile apart.

I firmly believe there has been no greater achievement of a people than the endurance of the black community that has suffered through slavery and civil rights to emerge as the equals they have become in society's eyes. I think it is an insult to all of those that fought, suffered and ACTUALLY endured these historical eras only to have a community that tries to cash in on it, and expects everyone to pay THEM for their ancestors suffering, instead of taking the freedom and equality that has been won for them and build their own American dreams unabated and as equals. It is the Rev. Jacksons, NAACP, Rev. Sharptons, Farrakhan's, etc.....that keeps re-igniting the fire that society has put out 50 years ago. And I blame the black community for actually listening to them and feeding them. It does not honor the strides made by our country to over come these inequalities.

killcommies wrote:

I feel oppressed because the country my ancestry fought and died for is becoming a horrific epidemic of stupidity and liberal nonsense. They try to change history with their "diversity" - placing blacks in places they never were (in combat locations, etc) Afrocentrists try to claim Egypt was black (what a joke that is)  They slam diversity on us in schools saying "learn this or your a racist" "worship them and if you hate this your a racist" We are forced to learn their culture but they never learn ours. They are a minority of the population but create a great portion of the crime - but when we present these facts we are labeled racists? why is it when a white person attacks a black its a hate crime and when its the other way around its just a fight? why is it blacks are 50 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around?

Fact is, blacks are highly more racist than white people are - even though we are told differently in the television - statistics say otherwise, oh - and so does a bit of reality.

I wouldn't call you racist, but delusional seems to be a nice fit.

Nativism rarely gets you anywhere, but I've been accused of it by a few for my stances on illegal immigration.

It's not "liberal nonsense" that is to blame for the grievances you perceive -- it has to do with how people like yourself continually think in terms of race when class is really what separates us as individuals.  MLK explained this quite well shortly before he was assassinated.

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Do you not know how to comprehend english?

I'm going to say this one more time, in as simple terms as I can:

1. - I am NOT saying "blacks get more help in america because they are black" - which is essentially what you are saying.

2. - I am saying "blacks get more help in america because more blacks are poor".


Now, if you can't understand that, then you're either terminally stupid, or just being a twat.

Either way, conversation over.

If you want to have a proper constructive debate, then let me know.

I would love to have a proper conversation, we can start by telling where I meantioned blacks getting more help than anyone else.

My point is, and always has been, the black community has been given a pass for the same racism that they loath. Whites in todays society can not get away with the racism that blacks can. I maintain there is a double standard in this society regarding this. Plenty of examples have been given regarding my point. So feel free to dismiss them with an explaination, or agree that it does exist and it is wrong.

Now, if you want to address this, please do, if not, then yeah, the conversation can be over. .

What do you mean by "given a pass" then?

lowing wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I would love to have a proper conversation, we can start by telling where I meantioned blacks getting more help than anyone else.

My point is, and always has been, the black community has been given a pass for the same racism that they loath. Whites in todays society can not get away with the racism that blacks can. I maintain there is a double standard in this society regarding this. Plenty of examples have been given regarding my point. So feel free to dismiss them with an explaination, or agree that it does exist and it is wrong.

Now, if you want to address this, please do, if not, then yeah, the conversation can be over. .

What do you mean by "given a pass" then?

Racism from the black community is not scrutinized, it is accepted. Their attitudes/actions are not considered racist.

Plenty of examples have been given throughout this thread.

I haven't seen any clear examples of this so called 'racism' given in any of the posts I read.

OK.

Ghettos are violent because they are poor.

The existence of 'blacks groups' is not a racist act in and of itself.

Women have 'womens groups', like in the UK, there's the 'NCT' (National Childbirth Trust) - is that sexist?

No.

Same with college funds and so on.

In fact, none of the OP is anything to do with racism against whites.


Where in America are there, organised groups of blacks going round, in identity-concealing clothing, burning down white churches, for example?

Nowhere.

That would be racism against whites. Not anything listed in the OP.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-06-09 18:17:32)

Except that you already have all of those, just by a different name.

lowing, it is not necessarily that it is racist to establish Caucasian organizations, but that it is difficult to imagine these organizations existing under any other pretense than racism. The key is identity. There is African-American identity, Christian identity, Australian identity- All belonging to national or religious groups that identify with common members of that group. I do not believe that there is an overall straight, white male identity, especially with those categories being the majority or the dominating denomination, and have a lessened effect of identity. I am a straight, white male, but only male is a clear identity to me.

With no clear identity, it is difficult to see a white television broadcast done without its establishment as targeting other races. However, there are white ethnic groups that do clearly exist, from Irish to Polish to Italian, all well developed within the United States. Those are the white communities you wish to see in equivalence to the black community. In the United States, particularly, the ethnic divide of black Americans has been somewhat lost in comparison to the white ethnic divide. The new common history of black slaves permeates over the African or Caribbean history that the majority holds.

Again, the key is identity. Who do you identify with? Perhaps you are proud of being white, but that is a strange identity, and often assumed to be racist, simply because the identity does not exist in the manner that other identities do. Yet, look and see Irish-American organizations, gay parades, black churches, etc. These identities make sense. Even being American is an identity that is clearly something that millions acknowledge as part of their identity. White organizations that transcend ethnic divisions can exist, but the lack of common identity of being white prevents white organizations.