COMMENTS:
More racism by cranky, disguised as a "joke."
I see you age is 4 on your user page. You certainly do act like a 4 year old.
White men didn't enslave Africans. Africans enslaved other Africans and sold them to Europeans who brought them over to America.
Segregation- I oppose segregation, but you don't seem to concerned about people like Malcolm X or the Black Panthers.
The KKK- The south were Democrats back in the day not Republicans. Republicans freed the slaves in America. A couple of the Democrats in office now are or were KKK members.
Vietnam- Democrats dragged the USA into Vietnam along with every other major war America fought in.
Southern Succesion was due to the North picking on the South.
These are un-detailed facts that true and if you took enough time from your constant insulting of Republicans and Bush, maybe you could further expand you knowledge of American history.
Seeing as this is a "joke" ballot, ill give you a joke answer shall i?
Cranky sucks off old men for fun
We should do away with all bullshit make minorities feel better history months.
Why not? It'll keep the ppl like Herzog from whinning.
by aya on Wed May 25, 05 12:08pm
[+]
Aya:
I'm afraid that nothing will keep people like him from whining ;-)
Hes advocating minority history months whilst mocking the arguments against them, he has created an unfair parody of what he perceives conservative white people would argue for. Hes doing this in a totally serious way whilst disguising it as a joke ballot.
I KNOW you arent that naive Mojo, so why are you playing along with his game?
Theres nothing funny about this whatsoever
Well, to be quite honest, whites are by far the most responsible for making this the great country it is today. I absolutely hate the fact that many of my white ancestors were so blatantly racist towards others, but I was not 1 of them so I won't apologize. No, I am fine with black history month, as long as all are given the opportunity to be recognized.
Rogue, might I ask what version of U.S. history you picked up in school? The one I got says that the matter of Southern secession was primarily over the issue of states' rights. The "picking" you refer to was simply the sovereign government the Southern states swore allegiance to insisting that those sovereign rules be obeyed. Absolutely TRUE about slavery, Vietnam and segregation, though. As for the Klan, that came primarily out of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era, when Federal troops often raided Southern towns they were billeted near in order to take what they wanted in the way of better food, whiskey, etc. The Klan were originally a force mustered to protect those towns from Federal troop threats. Over time, as that threat diminished, Klan leadership began to turn the anger Southerners felt toward the North into hatred toward Blacks, blaming them for their troubles because, in their estimation, freeing the slaves was the primary justification for the war.
Sure, let's have a white history month and get rid of black history month. See if people whine about that being unfair. Begin to see the problem?
How about schools just teach history every month?
except that he's not saying to get rid of a black history month along with adding a white history month.
by aya on Wed May 25, 05 6:17pm
[+]
I meant do you see the problem people have with black history month, that they choose to celebrate on group of people in america and give everyone else the shaft.
White accomplishments would take well of a year not a month. Women's history month should stoped as well.
^herz:
That's because white males have been the least oppressed group during the course of American history; (and long before that). It's only been a couple-three decades since it's become the norm to make white males the subjects of jokes and ridicule. Many people personalize and exaggerate the importance of this phenomenon. It's the natural result of our honorable desire to level the playing field, (more or less). But I'll take that any day over living as a human slave; having my culture annihilated by an invading force; or being systematically treated as inferior, in a very real way that people our age can never fully understand. No one will ever convince me that white American males have gotten a raw deal, compared to everyone else.
It's interesting to see the reactions this ballot has gotten.
^Black Africans had thousands of years before there were even other races around. They weren't oppressed by whitey back then. Do they have anything to show for it?
Blacks could only BE oppressed because they were at a level of development whites had reached 2000 years before, whats their excuse for that?
And Applerod, the shit blacks went through counts for NOTHING if the situation is just going to be reversed onto whites, two rights dont make a wrong. You cant justify one wrong with another.
Yes, but this is why you can't compare the racism that they have had to endure to the "racism" that white men have had to endure in this country. I agree with the basic principle that two wrongs don't make a right, but given the historical context in which race relations in America are occuring today, I feel the analogy is inaccurate and oversimplified. Inaccurate because, if the comparison was sound, white men would have to be enslaved, or regarded as sub-human. This concept is so far outside the norm that it's difficult to wrap your mind around it; but it is genuine.
And thc, what is it that you would have "them" show for it that would be sufficient to mollify you?
And with regards to the first part of your message, that sounds like a rationalization for slavery. Could you rephrase or clarify what it is that your saying on this point?
Applerod
Two wrongs dont make a right does not specify that the wrongs must be equal in severity, its the principle that counts. A wrong is a wrong, thats the principle. If you start blurring the distiction with half wrongs and minor wrongs the principle is null and void, and again it comes down to some sort of revenge or retribution, rather than improving the situation as a whole by eradicating prejudice and double standards entitrely.
Things must be EQUAL, nothing else. Plus i had nothing to do with slavery etc, so it is an infringement of my rights, and a prejudice against me that i must suffer for sins committed by others of my race. I am an individual with individual rights, i shouldnt be lumped into the "white race" who kept slaves and spat at blacks on the buses.
ah what a great "joke" ballot. Haaahaa what high irony and knee-slapping jokery.
Do you really believe that it's possible to eliminate all forms of prejudice?
I agree that suffering for the sins of the fathers is wrong, but how exactly are you suffering? And of course you can't be held personally responsible for the crimes against humanity that have been committed by the ancestors of white men in this country. That's ludicrous. But if you feel at the same time persecuted ,and you believe it's realistic for that sort of persecution to go away for ever, doesn't that leave you in a rather uncomfortable position on this topic?
int, it's sad that we couldn't go ONE comment without falling back into the pattern again--though I must say that the question itself would be easy to misunderstand or misinterpret.
That's because white males have been the least oppressed group during the course of American history; (and long before that).by Applerod on May 25, 2005
Other white groups have been treated bad by other Whites. The Irish, Italians and Polish for example.
I'm saying that white oppression is not the reason for the lack of black accomplishments.
So what is the reason for blacks lack of accomplishment?
Crank: the fact that african society never progressed out of the primitive tribalism stage, and most remained as hunters and gatherers. You have to have an advanced civilization to accomplish things of importance, like their buddies to the north, the egyptians. Stone age people don't really do much of note.
Apple: if we gave every group who's ancestors had faced some sort of oppression a month we'd run out of months pretty quickly. Wether people accept it or not blacks didn't do that much in american history, not enough to warrant 1/12 of our attention for a year. They had some great people of course, but focusing on them at the exclusion of everyone else for a month does non-blacks a great disservice. What if we were to only teach about the accomplishments of indians and ignore what everyone else did for a while, they had a rough time afterall. Would that be fair to all the other groups of people who contributed far more, but because of the color of their skin will be ignored?
Look at the nations that love to politicize history, to rewrite it the 'correct way'. They aren't free happy democracies.
cranky
I don't know but it wasn't whitey. Maybe culture, genetics, bad luck. Stop trying to pin it on Europeans.
"So what is the reason for blacks lack of accomplishment?"
A college prof. (HE WAS BLACK) told us they have a more layed back lifestyle and that is why a lot of black people come to class late every day. We began to notice that it was true and the same ones came 15 minutes late every day and didnt seem to care. This happened in almost all of my classes. Maybe this has something to do with what your talking about. I don't know much more about this subject to expand on this comment. But I found that interesting.
He mentioned something about how they tend to be louder out on public because they are more relaxed and don't like being told what to do or something. I guess it is all genetics. But I don't see the point of blaming white conservatives when they have nothing to do with it.
Side note- my college roommate was as liberal as he could get, plus he was a red sox fan im a yankees fan,,, he was an eagles fan im a dallas fan... it was an interesting year... but one day he wopke up because there were a ton of black people yelling outside our window for a good half hour and he sits up in bed out of nowhere and yelled "What the hell, don't those people ever shut up? they are only here because of affirmative action"! I was VERY confused.... but also very ammused. haha.
Well what I'm interpreting (and hopefully misinterpreting) so far is that 'white civilization' is superior to 'black civilization' because whites have more to show for it? By what right do we presume to judge the value of another civilization of people in relation to our own?
When I said that blacks are the most oppressed race in the history of America, I meant it, and I'm sticking to it. This country was built on the backs of human slaves. So I find it pretty ignorant to deny that fact when evaluating the impact and opportunities that black people have had on this country since its inception.
And if we start theorizing and making assumptions based on how genetics might account for the differences between our cultures, we're gonna slide down a very slippery slope based on a totally unproven idea--and one which has been the basis for some of the greatest atrocities in history. I myself have wondered about this very question; but until we have some real data to either prove or disprove this notion, I don't feel it's wise to bring it up in discussing sociology.
My belief is that black people are totally deserving of a month devoted to their history, but I also wouldn't mind it if whites, or any other culture or race had some time devoted to the exploration of their history, AS LONG AS it didn't whitewash things such as the systematic extermination of the Indian civilization.
There's a ton of data but deluded leftists don't want to believe it. "White" civilization is superior to "black" civilization by the common definition of those terms.
So white people are then, by definition, superior to black people?
I can't tell if you're being serious, or just stringing me along to be provocative.
That's not what I said. This isn't too difficult to understand. The achievements of white civilization are greater than those of black civilization.
Zerhog, you wrote:
"Look at the nations that love to politicize history, to rewrite it the 'correct way'. They aren't free happy democracies."
You mean the nations where the politically dominate group is re-writing history to say that the earth is only 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs and man co-existed up until a great flood wiped out all organisims, except those that were carried onto a large boat?
I will agree that Bushy doesn't want America to be a happy, free democracy.
Would that include the atomic bomb, the Holocaust, and the Spanish Inquisition?
Crank: no one in the government is suggesting that, you have created what we call a 'strawman argument'. However, people in the government ARE trying to rewrite history so as not to offend certain protected groups of people, and to offend the hell out of everyone else. This is a fact, unlike your point.
However, let's assume that what you said was true, would that be a good thing? Obviously not. So how can you suggest that doing something which is basically the same is alright?
Applerod
Don't ask stupid questions. You get the good with the bad. It does however include nuclear energy, the abolition of slavery and classical liberalism.
Exactly my point. You can't just look at one side.
So when someone points out white accomplishments, I don't see the relevance.
Take it all and add it up. The good outweighs the bad.
How about taking away the West ever gave other cultures? Oh wait! They would starve!
All right, if what it is that you're saying is that white civilization is more advanced than black civilization, I'll of course cede that point because it's true.
The point I'm trying to make is that you can't say that white civilization is any better than black civilization, or any other civilization. In comparing the two, I feel that it's wrong to place a value judgement on either.
Apple: Ok. So we agree that european civilizatin has given us penicillin, space travel, televisions, vaccines, toilets, soap, and individual freedoms. African civilization has given us rampant superstition, famine and aids. But from that we can't conclude one is better than the other.
Well this is what thc and I have been talking about--you can't take the good without the bad, or the bad without the good. As I mentioned before, one's bias is made extraordinarily obvious if you exclude things such as the Spanish Inquisition, the atomic bomb, biological weapons, the Holocaust, the near-total disregard for the sanctity of nature and the health of the planet, capitalism, systematic sexual repression, the pervasiveness of sensationalist or irresponsible journalism (particularly as it exists today)...
Now we can argue all day about those particular topics, but that's missing the point.
A great deal of the so-called advancements in technology and the offshoots of that technology, are, have been, and likely will forever exceed our capacity to create and use them in a responsible manner.
Military technology is a good example. It is only going to become more advanced; and you have to think about what that means in the long term. And all the while, the human race remains hoplessly inept as one big group, or collection of groups. A person can be smart and wise; but people are nothing more than highly evolved apes when they get together. The only differences I see between the interaction of our political parties and the warring tribes of the Native americans are cultural, historical, and that there were way more than 2 big tribes in pre-colonialist America.
Anyways, perhaps my point was best articulated in my last post. Who are we to judge? I think our superpower status is clouding our better judgement.
Try to flip the situation. What if there was a culture on Earth even more advanced than us? (and not just in terms of technology) How would you feel if we were regarded as inferior, and therefore expendable? This "ultra-power" swoops in and destroys our culture, our people, enslaves us, or banishes us to another part of the world. I'm sure they had their reasons...
I'm for the superior culture, whether or not it's my own. There are certainly aspects of other cultures that we should adopt but overall I believe Western culture is superior to all others.
btw, Capitalism is up there with calculus in the great contributions of the West.
applerod that is because white males have made this country what it is today. They have given up more than any other race. They made this country great so they deserve to have more. I dont see the problem
Rawiron, there not laid back. they are lazy and have an attitude of entitlement. If you say something to them about being late they will cry racism. They feel they are above the rules because they are black.
applerod this country was founded by the blood of white men. Blacks try to take credit but it was the blood of white men that we have this great country.
|
