PDA

View Full Version : Apologizing for slavery



shugarbabies
April 24th, 2007, 09:31 AM
Should the government (or anyone) be required to apologize for slavery?

ITA. No one living today had anything to do with that, so why should we be personally sorry? I hate that it happened, but it also didn't happen to anyone living.

Gaius
April 24th, 2007, 09:40 AM
Should the government (or anyone) be required to apologize for slavery?

ITA. No one living today had anything to do with that, so why should we be personally sorry? I hate that it happened, but it also didn't happen to anyone living.

I agree, what happened in the past has no effect on anything at all today. So lets keep the past in the past. lets just pretend it didnt happen

Plastic Baggie
April 24th, 2007, 09:54 AM
You have just reaffirmed my belief, Gaius, that you are, in fact, a troll. Keep the past in the past, it has no affect on us. Its like saying "If I don't study for this next big test, it will have no affect on my future."

Just Me
April 24th, 2007, 10:21 AM
I for one do not think the states should have to give an apology for something that happened back then... I had nothing at all to do with it, So I feel since "WE" did not have anything to do with it, we should not have to give an apology.

However we can not just act like it never happened because it did. We can not go back in time and change things, we can only move forward. I am not a prejudice person. I hate what happened. My great grandparents didnt even own slaves.I am proud of my heritage, Just not proud of some of the things that went on back in history.

shugarbabies
April 24th, 2007, 10:24 AM
I for one do not think the states should have to give an apology for something that happened back then... I had nothing at all to do with it, So I feel since "WE" did not have anything to do with it, we should not have to give an apology.

However we can not just act like it never happened because it did. We can not go back in time and change things, we can only move forward. I am not a prejudice person. I hate what happened. My great grandparents didnt even own slaves.I am proud of my heritage, Just not proud of some of the things that went on back in history.

agreed

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 10:32 AM
Stephen Colbert had an interesting author on a few nights ago that was arguing that Barrack Obama wasn't black because he isn't descended from slaves. Well Im not descended from slave owners, so am I not white? Further more, since I am descended from Irish who were all but legally enslaved by the British until the 20s, does that make me more black than Barrack Obama? hmm.

ladyphoenix
April 24th, 2007, 10:38 AM
Hahahaha, Squatch, I'm going to have to keep an eye on you...

I'm irish too... I never knew I was black. That's amazing. My bright red hair and my very, very pale skin... I would have for sure thought I was white.

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 10:40 AM
I know, I was kinda suprised. Luckily it opens a whole new vocabulary to me, yo!

shugarbabies
April 24th, 2007, 10:50 AM
Stephen Colbert had an interesting author on a few nights ago that was arguing that Barrack Obama wasn't black because he isn't descended from slaves. Well Im not descended from slave owners, so am I not white? Further more, since I am descended from Irish who were all but legally enslaved by the British until the 20s, does that make me more black than Barrack Obama? hmm.

I have irish, American indian, dutch, german in me...does that make me black to??:grin:

noman
April 24th, 2007, 11:32 AM
gaius
I agree, what happened in the past has no effect on anything at all today. So lets keep the past in the past. lets just pretend it didnt happen

Such a selective memory you have. You rant about the atrocities committed by some cultures against others in the past and yet conveniently choose to hide the skeletons in your own closet.


Should the government (or anyone) be required to apologize for slavery?
Yes , in the sense that it acknowledges that it was a part of the history and development of the country that was wrong and should not be repeated.


ITA. No one living today had anything to do with that, so why should we be personally sorry? I hate that it happened, but it also didn't happen to anyone living.

No, but then you have to ask, does the past still effect the people of today and if the answer is yes then should some form of compensation, in the way of an apology or anything else, be given.

wanxtrmBANNED
April 24th, 2007, 11:34 AM
Should the government (or anyone) be required to apologize for slavery?

ITA. No one living today had anything to do with that, so why should we be personally sorry? I hate that it happened, but it also didn't happen to anyone living.

Why? It was a legal and excepted means of labor for thousands of years.

HappyLady
April 24th, 2007, 11:35 AM
I don't really see what the big deal is about apologizing on behalf of our ancestors. In some cultures, they believe our ancestors remain a part of us for eternity. What's the harm in apologizing? All an apology will do is demonstrate that there is accountability on behalf of our ancestors for being barbaric. It's not to say that white people are the only barbarians that ever lived or that we are still barbarians. It is simply taking accountability on behalf of our ancestors.

With that being said, the notion is also rather silly, since very few Americans are purely one ethnicity. I have German, Irish, French, English, Jewish, Welsh, etc...I'm sure that all of those peoples at one time or another were the bad guys and all of them were the good guys. "I'm sorry, HL, for the wrongs that were committed against your people by...your people." :idiot2:

So, essentially what happens is if your skin is white, you're apologizing to someone whose skin was black, when there is no inherent proof that either person descended from the ancestors responsible for or victims of the wrongdoing.

However, there are still people in parts of our country who act like their skin color is pure as the driven snow and that it somehow makes them better. As long as a$$es like that continue to exist, someone should apologize on their behalf, since they are too narrow-minded to do it themselves.

In the end, it isn't about a people apologizing to another people as if "WE" are apologizing to the black population. It is the government, who allowed it to go on, who, IMO, is responsible for apologizing on behalf of the government of the past which is still adherent to the same processes. Even though slavery is no longer a government issue, the government of today is greatly impacted by the government of yesterday. Therefore, there is some accountability there.

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 11:36 AM
Noman are you seriously asking for reperations? I think 680,000 dead federal troops was one hell of an apology.

wanxtrmBANNED
April 24th, 2007, 11:37 AM
I don't really see what the big deal is about apologizing on behalf of our ancestors. In some cultures, they believe our ancestors remain a part of us for eternity. What's the harm in apologizing? All an apology will do is demonstrate that there is accountability on behalf of our ancestors for being barbaric. It's not to say that white people are the only barbarians that ever lived or that we are still barbarians. It is simply taking accountability on behalf of our ancestors.

With that being said, the notion is also rather silly, since very few Americans are purely one ethnicity. I have German, Irish, French, English, Jewish, Welsh, etc...I'm sure that all of those peoples at one time or another were the bad guys and all of them were the good guys. "I'm sorry, HL, for the wrongs that were committed against your people by...your people." :idiot2:

So, essentially what happens is if your skin is white, you're apologizing to someone whose skin was black, when there is no inherent proof that either person descended from the ancestors responsible for or victims of the wrongdoing.

However, there are still people in parts of our country who act like their skin color is pure as the driven snow and that it somehow makes them better. As long as a$$es like that continue to exist, someone should apologize on their behalf, since they are too narrow-minded to do it themselves.

Why apologize for them losing in battle and being sold to us by their people?
Also if you apologize for black slaves than I want to hear an apology for scottish and irish slaves as well.

It is documented that we have had many of us as slaves.


why cant you APOLOGIZE> :sly:


Duh, because we don't complain.:idiot2:

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 11:38 AM
However, the government never engaged in the slave trade, yes it allowed it, but the actual people or if you really feel the need, thier descendants are the ones to apologize. There is another issue not brought up yet, does this need for an apology represent a victim mentality that has held people back in this country, or is there really a force that holds them back?

southernbelle
April 24th, 2007, 11:39 AM
What's the harm in apologizing?

apologizing is admitting that you did something wrong....and nobody in this time or period HAS done anything wrong. I can't apologize for my ancestors..because I am not my ancestors. I don't think like them, I don't live like them...the only thing we share is blood. And because of that connection...I should take responsibility for the wrong they have commited and apologize for it?

wanxtrmBANNED
April 24th, 2007, 11:41 AM
Nothing Was Done Wrong Period. It Was Legal Commerce.

HappyLady
April 24th, 2007, 11:47 AM
Why apologize for them losing in battle and being sold to us by their people?

They are people. And no matter how you slice it and dice it, slavery had an impact on the system of our country today.


Also if you apologize for black slaves than I want to hear an apology for scottish and irish slaves as well.

If the Scottish and Irish were suffering in our country as a result of past government decisions, then sure, why not.


why cant you APOLOGIZE> :sly:


Duh, because we don't complain.:idiot2:

Well, I'm half Irish, so it would be silly to apologize on behalf of the ethnic part of me that enslaved the Irish...wouldn't it?

We aren't talking about a black/white issue here. It is really about the government.
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

However, the government never engaged in the slave trade, yes it allowed it,

If my 10 year old daughter wanted to drive my car while drinking a six-pack who do you think would be held accountable when she gets caught? Admitting that the government allowed it IS admitting that the government does hold some responsibility.


There is another issue not brought up yet, does this need for an apology represent a victim mentality that has held people back in this country, or is there really a force that holds them back?


I think if racism wasn't STILL a huge deal in America, there would be no need for an apology. But it is still a big issue. The "victim mentality" is more of a personal thing really. I don't think an entire people are crying "victim".

wanxtrmBANNED
April 24th, 2007, 11:50 AM
Racism is a big deal on both sides. RE-phrase ALL SIDES.

Go to a black neighborhood as a white person.
Or hispanic as a black. or well you get the picture.


And sorry but it is all about who COMPLAINS the most.

I have many "underprivileged" black friends that are doing very well.

So please.

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 11:51 AM
There is a huge difference between your 10 year old daughter who is a minor and grown adults who choose to act in a economic system that later is decided to be immoral, thats an incredibly specious analogy.
What racism? Where? And don't site Imus, show me an example of where black people were materially harmed (in the last 50 years) by white people.

Slipnish
April 24th, 2007, 11:57 AM
It happened. Move on. No apology, no reparations, no more BS about something that happened 200 years ago. For crying out loud. Did the British apologize for trying to keep us as economic slaves?

This is a pretend issue. An apology serves no purpose, wastes time that government officials could use to do something else, and is a total lemon-headed idea.

If you're offended by a lack of an apology, move to some country where your views would be more appreciated. Then send back for your relatives once you get settled.

noman
April 24th, 2007, 12:12 PM
squatch347Noman are you seriously asking for reperations?

In the case of slavery, it would be difficult, because of the mxied heritage thats allready been mentioned. Aswell they were freed and given citizenxhip and although the racial inequality still exists, they have the ability to do something about it for themselves.
But (off topic, my apology) in the case of the indigenous people of the country its different. Theres was a theft of land and stealing is stealing, they are owed comprnsation.

HappyLady
April 24th, 2007, 12:15 PM
apologizing is admitting that you did something wrong....and nobody in this time or period HAS done anything wrong. I can't apologize for my ancestors..because I am not my ancestors. I don't think like them, I don't live like them...the only thing we share is blood. And because of that connection...I should take responsibility for the wrong they have commited and apologize for it?

YOU are not the one apologizing. The government is.

Suppose your great-great-grandma started a business selling homemade chocolate chip cookies. And they were the yummiest cookies EVER. Her business grows and grows and the recipe gets handed down through the generations and the business stays in the family and so today, you now are baking your great-great-grandma's cookies and selling them all over the country. You've changed the recipe a bit, but the secret ingredient is still the same.

A scientist discovers that the secret ingredient in your great-great grandma's cookies cause cancer. Thousands upon thousands of people have died because they consumed your great-great grandma's recipe.

OR, you could do the scenario saying the secret ingredient was removed in 1945, but the scientist still discovers it was the secret ingredient that caused thousands and thousands of people to die. Even though you aren't making the same cookie for the last 50 years, you still run the business that your great-great grandma founded.

You didn't create the recipe, so you aren't responsible, right? You didn't kill all those people, right? Your great-great grandma didn't do it on purpose, right? So, no one should feel obligated to offer up an apology for taking away people's mothers, fathers, and children 50 to 100 years ago, right?

The government apologizing for slavery on behalf of the past government that allowed it isn't saying the government takes blame TODAY. It is only saying, "It sucks that this happened and that the government of the past allowed it to happen and that because it happened we are still dealing with negative repercussions today." How is that a BAD thing?

wanxtrmBANNED
April 24th, 2007, 12:18 PM
In the case of slavery, it would be difficult, because of the mxied heritage thats allready been mentioned. Aswell they were freed and given citizenxhip and although the racial inequality still exists, they have the ability to do something about it for themselves.
But (off topic, my apology) in the case of the indigenous people of the country its different. Theres was a theft of land and stealing is stealing, they are owed comprnsation.

Or send them back to countries of origin? Hmmm they owned nothing when here, and were in fact owned in stead. However its possible that their ancestors owned land in other countries send them back. If it is really that hard here.

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 12:18 PM
So are you saying that descendants (many of whom are way worse off than their ancestors) of slave owners should be punished? Doesn't sound very american to punish someone for what their ancestors did. Not to mention that if the government gives anything away, it is my tax dollars they are spending to. And none of my ancestors arrived till atleast the 1930s I am certainly not paying for something I had nothing to do with.

wanxtrmBANNED
April 24th, 2007, 12:20 PM
Well in the case of punishing descendants why not just re institute slavery, and get all them back so they wont complain any more!

HappyLady
April 24th, 2007, 12:25 PM
What racism? Where? And don't site Imus, show me an example of where black people were materially harmed (in the last 50 years) by white people.


The last 50 years? Um...didn't slavery end more than 50 years ago? 50 years ago, segregation was still a huge issue in America. It still is in some parts of the country.

This is exactly my point. Slavery, which the government allowed, and which the government had full control to end at any given time in this country, had an aftermath that is still playing out today.

When many Europeans immigrated to America, there may have been ethnic clashes, but the difference was, the Europeans were free and came by choice. The blacks that came to America originally did not come by choice, but rather by force. They are the only people who were forced into this country and who did not have freedom upon arriving. When they finally did get their freedom, they were starting at the bottom of the barrel.

While things have changed a lot since then, many things also have not. As a result of beginning at the bottom of the barrel, there is a propensity for them to stay there due to societal influences.

I am not saying the government SHOULD apologize or that the government is responsible to apologize. I don't think there should be reparations or anything like that. I'm saying that if the government apologizes on behalf of the government of the past, I don't see why it's a big deal.

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 12:26 PM
Ok the flag and the comment, you are about to get protested or boycotted by jesse jackson.

ladyphoenix
April 24th, 2007, 12:27 PM
I think the Egyptians should pay untold fortunes to the jews for enslaving them. I also think that the germans should pay the jews for hitler. I think that white people in south africa should be forced to pay black south africans for their injustice.

I know I'm forgetting someone in here... Someone huge... Any suggestions? Who else has been enslaved?

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 12:28 PM
Nope, segregation existed in one part of the country and ended more than fifty years ago. Look, we all started at the bottom of the barrel, just like when the slaves were freed. And how is it playing out today? You still haven't answered my question. Give me just one material way that any black person has been 'disadvantaged' in the last 50 years?

wanxtrmBANNED
April 24th, 2007, 12:30 PM
Ok the flag and the comment, you are about to get protested or boycotted by jesse jackson.

Hahaha hey I mean they complain when they get grant money, to go to school, they complain when they are guaranteed jobs (merely by being black) they complain about ghettos and yet thrive on building that culture. They complain

Thats all they do, so give them their land back. AFRICA!
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

I think the Egyptians should pay untold fortunes to the jews for enslaving them. I also think that the germans should pay the jews for hitler. I think that white people in south africa should be forced to pay black south africans for their injustice.

I know I'm forgetting someone in here... Someone huge... Any suggestions? Who else has been enslaved?

Indians in North America.

But than again they have casinos.


Also SCOTTISH AND IRISH.

Both early Britain and North America had them as slaves. I WANT PAID!

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 12:38 PM
Wait shouldn't Islamic countries have to pay reperations, after all, 99 percent of slaves from Africa were captured and sold by Muslim slavers? This is my point there is no end to blame. Maturity involves moving on.

ladyphoenix
April 24th, 2007, 12:40 PM
:) That was my point as well.

wanxtrmBANNED
April 24th, 2007, 12:44 PM
Wait shouldn't Islamic countries have to pay reperations, after all, 99 percent of slaves from Africa were captured and sold by Muslim slavers? This is my point there is no end to blame. Maturity involves moving on.

Dang good idea, they have lots of oil money as well. :afro:
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

:coolsmiley: didn't i just post this?? LMAO

Posting is great, contributing is better.

HappyLady
April 24th, 2007, 12:55 PM
Nope, segregation existed in one part of the country and ended more than fifty years ago.

Bull. I grew up in town in Pennsylvania and anytime a black family moved in, they were rapidly driven out. This still happens today in many parts of the country. While it might not fall under the government's definition of THE segregation, it is still segregation.


Look, we all started at the bottom of the barrel, just like when the slaves were freed. And how is it playing out today?

Welp...let's see. When I think of my ethnic background and how those various people were enslaved or otherwise at the bottom of the barrel, it played out in great big wars where the powers often shifted.


You still haven't answered my question. Give me just one material way that any black person has been 'disadvantaged' in the last 50 years?

Here:

Misperceptions Cloud Whites' View of Blacks

By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 11, 2001; Page A01



Whether out of hostility, indifference or simple lack of knowledge, large numbers of white Americans incorrectly believe that blacks are as well off as whites in terms of their jobs, incomes, schooling and health care, according to a national survey by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

Depending on the question, the poll found that 40 percent to 60 percent of all whites say that the average black American is faring about as well and perhaps even better than the average white in these areas.

In fact, government statistics show that blacks have narrowed the gap, but continue to lag significantly behind whites in employment, income, education and access to health care.

These misperceptions have consequences, the survey suggests. Among whites, the pervasiveness of incorrect views seems to explain, at least in part, white resistance to even the least intrusive types of affirmative action. And more broadly, these mistaken beliefs represent formidable obstacles to any government effort to equalize the social and economic standing of the races.

"The results suggest there is the overwhelming sense among most whites that this is 2001 -- we could not possibly be saddled with segregation and discrimination and therefore things can't possibly be as bad as black Americans say they are," said political scientist Keith Reeves of Swarthmore College, an expert on racial attitudes and a consultant on the survey project.

These results also defy conventional wisdom. They indicate that many whites do not broadly view blacks as particularly disadvantaged or beset by problems that demand immediate attention. Instead, these whites believe exactly the opposite -- that African Americans already have achieved economic and social parity. For these broadly misinformed whites, equality between the races is a reality.

"Blacks and whites are pretty much equal in terms of income and other things these days," said Emily Reed, 48, who lives in Russell, N.Y., and was questioned in the poll. "It's good that the bad days are past and blacks have come up. As a whole, you don't hear about [problems] now as you used to. Now if something occurs, like a black guy being mistreated for a job or something, you hear about it."

Others were less upbeat. "I think it's pretty even, but you'd never get blacks to admit it," said Thomas Ripley, 71, a retiree who lives in Belleville, Ill. "It keeps the pressure on government for more programs."

Overall, the survey found that a majority of whites favored federal government action to ensure that all races had access to schools and health care. A larger majority said the government should make sure that blacks and whites were treated the same by police and the courts.

Still, whites with accurate views of black circumstances were more likely (69 percent versus 57 percent) to say the federal government has an obligation to make sure black and white children attend schools of equal quality.

Informed whites also were more likely to say the government had an obligation to ensure that the races were treated equally by the courts and police (79 percent versus 60 percent).

Black Gains in Society


Blacks have a far more negative view of their own circumstances, the poll found. Majorities of those polled said blacks continue to lag behind whites in terms of their educational achievement, income, jobs and health care. (Still, anywhere from a quarter to just over a third of all blacks also thought that African Americans were doing as well as whites in the areas tested.)

This survey is the latest in a series of polls on public policy issues conducted by The Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University researchers and includes questions on racial attitudes asked in the first Post/Kaiser/Harvard project in 1995.

A total of 1,709 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone from March 8 through April 22. The sample included 779 non-Hispanic whites, 315 Hispanics, 323 blacks and 254 Asians. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. It is plus or minus 4 points for whites, 6 points for blacks, 7 points for Latinos and 9 points for Asians.

Blacks have made dramatic progress in many, if not most, areas of American life. There have never been more blacks in the middle class or a larger share who have graduated from high school, gone to college, or entered professional schools. Virtually everywhere, from law firms to corporate board rooms to college faculties, African Americans are rapidly closing the achievement gap with white America.

But economic and social distance between blacks and whites is far from closed, except in the minds of many white Americans.

Six in 10 whites -- 61 percent -- say the average black has equal or better access to health care than the average white, according to the poll.

In fact, blacks are far more likely to be without health insurance than whites. In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey found that blacks were nearly twice as likely as whites to be without health insurance.

The survey found that half of all whites -- 49 percent -- believe that blacks and whites have similar levels of education, a perception that again is out of step with reality.

About one in six blacks -- 17 percent -- have completed college, compared with 28 percent of all whites. And 88 percent of all whites are high school graduates, compared with 79 percent of all blacks 25 years old or older.

"I'm surprised at those numbers; I thought everybody was the same these days," said Jeffrey Thomas, 42, an ironworker who lives in Salem, Ore.

Thomas said his views on African Americans were based largely on the blacks that he knows and those he sees in his community. "I have black friends, and my son's friend is black, and everybody's in the same boat around here in Salem," he said. "Maybe if you went to Portland, things would be different."

Half of all whites -- 50 percent -- say that the average black is about as well off as the average white in terms of the jobs they hold, according to the Post/Kaiser/Harvard survey. Again, the hard data are less positive: A third of all whites hold professional or managerial jobs, compared to slightly more than one-fifth of all blacks, according to census data.

Blacks are about twice as likely as whites -- 23 versus 12 percent -- to hold lower-paying, less prestigious service jobs. Blacks also are more than twice as likely to be unemployed; in May, the jobless rate for blacks stood at 8 percent, compared with 3.8 percent among whites.

"Those figures are probably correct," said Brian Clayton, 35, director of information technology for a law firm in Dayton, Ohio. "But what were they 10 years ago? Twenty years ago? I think we're moving in the right direction. You shouldn't just make a black a manager because he's black. It's going to take more time."

The poll found that a majority of whites -- 57 percent -- recognize that blacks on average earn less than whites. Still, four in 10 whites -- 42 percent -- believed incorrectly that the typical black earned as much or more than the typical white.

In fact, substantial differences persist between black and white earnings. The median household income for whites was $44,366 in 1999, compared with $27,910 for blacks. Fewer than three in 10 whites earn less than $25,000; nearly half of all blacks in 1999 earned less than that. And the poverty rate for African Americans is more than double the white rate.

Blacks were twice as likely to have reported having difficulties recently paying their rent or mortgage and about half as likely as whites to have money invested in stocks, bonds or mutual funds, according to the Post/Kaiser/Harvard poll.

Another way to look at the extent of these misperceptions is to see what proportion of whites holds at least one false belief about black circumstances. When analyzed together, seven in 10 whites hold at least one of these misperceptions, and a majority -- 56 percent -- held two or more. Three in 10 whites -- 31 percent -- believe that the average black fared as well or better than whites in each of the four areas tested.

Perception of Competition


The sources of these misperceptions remain elusive. Swarthmore's Reeves suggests that part of the answer is that black success, in part, may be masking lingering black disadvantage. As the black middle class swells, more whites see blacks who have the same skills, earn the same money, and live in the same kinds of neighborhoods.

Another part of the explanation is that whites may be feeling increased competition from blacks for jobs, promotions and college admission, Reeves said.

The survey found that less well-educated and lower-income whites -- groups most likely to be competing directly with blacks -- were significantly more likely to be misinformed about black circumstances. These pressures could breed resentment among whites, particularly toward any actions that would seem to provide additional and undeserved benefits to blacks.

And part of the answer, Reeves said, is that it simply is convenient for some whites to claim that blacks and whites are equal. Such beliefs eliminate the need for whites to take action on problems that disproportionally face the black community. "There remains an unwillingness to acknowledge reality and an unwillingness to move forward on the difficult question of race," he said.

The survey provides evidence for this view. Misinformed whites were far less likely to view black problems as being serious, or to favor government action to correct persistent social and economic disparities.

"They're treated just like anyone else," said Tom Morford, 54, a steelworker who lives in Export, Pa. "Some may use it as an excuse to get things. For some, complaining is a way of life. But discrimination is not a problem, from what I can see."

These divisions echo loudly in the policy arena, where they help to shape attitudes on an array of high-profile and racially charged issues such as affirmative action.

The survey found that an overwhelming majority of all whites and blacks continue to reject giving outright preferences to blacks and other minorities in employment or admissions to college, views that differed little by how much whites knew about black circumstances.

But "hard" preference programs are vanishing fast from the scene, either ended by judges who ruled these programs constituted reverse discrimination or abandoned by their besieged sponsors. In their place, many corporations and colleges are mounting "outreach" programs that aggressively seek qualified minorities.

But the Post/Kaiser/Harvard survey revealed that even these outreach programs are not popular with whites: only half -- 49 percent -- favor them, while 45 percent are opposed.

John Straley, 30, a firefighter in Rockford, Ill., opposes preference and outreach programs if the result is that blacks receive more consideration than equally qualified whites.

"That boils down to reverse discrimination," Straley said. "I think education and jobs should be open to everybody. If they want to recruit minorities, fine, as long as an equally qualified white isn't replaced. If that's a problem, make the school bigger."

_______________________

What I have in bold is the aftermath of slavery and the government hasn't done much to fix it. It isn't saying there aren't disadvantaged of all kinds. But "all kinds" haven't had to face the same dilemmas and restrictions that blacks had to face due to slavery in the United States.

I am not saying anyone deserves preferential treatment or a band-aid to fix it. But an apology from the government certainly won't stop the world from revolving.

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 01:00 PM
And you are arguing that the government should be held responsible for the actions of a a few private citizens?
I fail to grasp your second point at all.
The article you cite fails in two regards, one it fails to cite any of its sources. Second the view that whites have of blacks doesn't constitute material harm. The fact is that blacks as a group face the same opportunities and hardships as every other group, which is all the government is responsible for doing.

Ibelsd
April 24th, 2007, 01:45 PM
In the end, it isn't about a people apologizing to another people as if "WE" are apologizing to the black population. It is the government, who allowed it to go on, who, IMO, is responsible for apologizing on behalf of the government of the past which is still adherent to the same processes. Even though slavery is no longer a government issue, the government of today is greatly impacted by the government of yesterday. Therefore, there is some accountability there.

Except for one problem, we are living under a representative democracy. So, an appology by our government is nothing short than an appology from each of us. I did not even have relatives in this country until 1940. So, I don't feel an obligation to appologize for slavery.

Penn and Teller have a show that discussed reparations. Many interesting points were made. One interesting point was that slavery on the African continent was begun by blacks themselves. The original slave traders were black people. Should blacks start appologizing to themselves?

This debate also brings to mind an episode of Family Guy. Stewie and Brian were at Gettysburg. Stewie went up to a black guy and made some comment about how much the white man paid for his freedom and that he would appreciate a "thank you". The black man noted that due to the previous 200 years of mistreatment, they were about even. Then Stewie replied, "No, we definitely did more."

So, is that what it is all about. How much of a price is enough? How many appologies are enough. When you consider affirmative action and welfare are basically reparations, how much is enough? It seems to me, as Stewie noted, the white man has paid in full for his past misgivings in this matter.

GoldPhoenix
April 24th, 2007, 01:46 PM
Should the government (or anyone) be required to apologize for slavery?

ITA. No one living today had anything to do with that, so why should we be personally sorry? I hate that it happened, but it also didn't happen to anyone living.

I do not think that we should apologize for something that happened 140 years ago; however, I think that we can sufficiently apologize for something that happened 60 years ago.

I think that a bit of a different order should be brought about to help not only Africans, but all children --a universal education from the Federal government. I'm against most "universal" social programs, but I figure as long as we are paying for it with Federal money anyways, we may as well at least make it run a little more universally so kids in Harlem get an education equal (as equal as possible) to those in the Bronx. A lot of preparations and plans would need to be formulated and surmised, but I think it could be fully within the realm of possibility.

KevinBrowning
April 24th, 2007, 02:40 PM
I'm not sure if anyone has noticed this, but all the slaves have died. A bit too late to apologize to them.

HappyLady
April 24th, 2007, 03:14 PM
And you are arguing that the government should be held responsible for the actions of a a few private citizens?

A few private citizens? That's cute...how you minimalize and all.

And no, the government should be held responsible for itself. The government had the ability, and um...eventually DID...step in to end slavery.


I fail to grasp your second point at all.

I was addressing you saying that other ethnicities had been enslaved and at the bottom of the barrel and you asking how that has played out today. For the most part, in those countries, there were wars where the powers shifted back and forth ending slavery for those people.


The article you cite fails in two regards, one it fails to cite any of its sources.

Tisk, tisk...you didn't read thoroughly.

From the OPENING paragraph:

Whether out of hostility, indifference or simple lack of knowledge, large numbers of white Americans incorrectly believe that blacks are as well off as whites in terms of their jobs, incomes, schooling and health care, according to a national survey by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

From the article:

This survey is the latest in a series of polls on public policy issues conducted by The Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University researchers and includes questions on racial attitudes asked in the first Post/Kaiser/Harvard project in 1995.

The nitty gritty details from the project:

A total of 1,709 randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone from March 8 through April 22. The sample included 779 non-Hispanic whites, 315 Hispanics, 323 blacks and 254 Asians. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. It is plus or minus 4 points for whites, 6 points for blacks, 7 points for Latinos and 9 points for Asians.

And the rest of the statistics:

In 2000, the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey found...


Second the view that whites have of blacks doesn't constitute material harm. The fact is that blacks as a group face the same opportunities and hardships as every other group, which is all the government is responsible for doing.

That's cute how you disregarded what I put in bold print. I purposely put the parts that were significant to countering your question about showing proof in bold because those were the parts that addressed your question. In the article, what the whites or black think is irrelevant to the debate, true. But the statistics themselves, which I bold printed, are significant and damaging to African Americans, which demonstrates the disadvantage blacks are faced with.

If you think they are not faced with any disadvantages, then you are a victim of the same misperception issues that the other 40 to 60 percent of whites were, according to the study.

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 03:27 PM
Again, your point being? A few citizens say 500,000 though I imagine it was extremely smaller, which is by the way 1/600th of the population took actions that were immoral (if illegal than arrest them), I fail to see how that is the government's fault.
Yes, that was my point, many other cultures have been enslaved and oppressed worse than blacks and have done much much better in getting past that and moving up the social ladder.
I stand corrected on my third point. However, it still doesn't answer my question. You have still failed to show material disadvantage! Oh no blacks face misconceptions about them! That does not hold them back in any real way, its a victim mentality. The proof is in the blacks who have moved passed that and become a success in modern society.

HappyLady
April 24th, 2007, 03:40 PM
Again, your point being? A few citizens say 500,000 though I imagine it was extremely smaller,

So, we're "saying" and "imagining" now. I had to offer up real proof! You're using your imagination.

Where are your statistics on how many citizens utilized slaves and how many slaves there actually were?


which is by the way 1/600th of the population took actions that were immoral (if illegal than arrest them), I fail to see how that is the government's fault.

Doing nothing was permitting it. If it was so moral, then slavery never would have ended. What you're saying doesn't make any sense. THe fact is, the government is in place to take care of the people of the country. That doesn't mean it's there to mother us and cut our meat up for us, but it is there to institute laws and programs to keep us equally safe and productive. It failed to do this during slavery.


Yes, that was my point, many other cultures have been enslaved and oppressed worse than blacks and have done much much better in getting past that and moving up the social ladder.

So, your suggesting a revolution then. Rise up and kill whitey!!! It's really the only way they'll get to do better, right? Because that's the only way the other cultures who were victims of slavery did better.


I stand corrected on my third point. However, it still doesn't answer my question. You have still failed to show material disadvantage! Oh no blacks face misconceptions about them! That does not hold them back in any real way, its a victim mentality. The proof is in the blacks who have moved passed that and become a success in modern society.

You're still not getting it. The FACT is, according to the 2000 census, that blacks make a median of nearly $17,000 dollars less a year than whites.THAT puts them at a disadvantage.

It is a broad brushstroke to say they aren't disadvantaged because some succeed. INDIVIDUALLY, the typical black might have the same shot as the typical white. But on the whole, this is not true.

Have you ever entered an inner city school? You can't possibly walk into an inner city school and a rural upscale school and NOT see the disadvantages the black kid is faced with.

There are thousands and thousands of victims of sexual abuse who grow up to lead productive lives. Does that mean they were not disadvantaged? So the ones who end up in trailer parks on drugs with five kids and ten possible daddies for all of them should have succeeded just as the others who lead productive lives? They were not disadvantaged?

Poverty is a disadvantage, regardless of color. And it happens to be that more blacks are in poverty than whites.

I don't really get how you can make the leap that just because some succeed, and the majority do not, is proof that they ALL have the same opportunity to succeed as the white person does. How do you reconcile that point?

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 03:50 PM
No, I was refering to your growing up, how many people 'disadvantaged' those who moved in and 'forced' them to move away?
My point is that in other places slaves have won or been given their freedom and then integrated into society and moved up the social ladder, I find it curious that many blacks think of this in a negative connotation.
But you aren't asking why. I am asking you why. Why do they make less is it thier fault or ours?
Why don't they have the same shot as a group as whites? What actually makes it harder for them to succeed? I went to school in an inner city school, we all had the same choices, the same chances, the books were there, the classes were there some of us (including the blacks I mentioned) chose to succeed, to learn and better ourselves.
Show me how blacks have had a harder time than say the Irish who weren't allowed to own property in Ireland until 1910, yet it is a thriving country now. Or native americans who suffered much more than slaves, but have turned themselves around. Look the reason you can't show me a reason for a material disadvantage is because there is none. Blacks have the same opportunities as whites in this country, failure to succeed cannot be based on skin color.

HappyLady
April 24th, 2007, 04:02 PM
No, I was refering to your growing up, how many people 'disadvantaged' those who moved in and 'forced' them to move away?

Could you please rephrase the question? I don't quite understand what you're asking with the way it is worded.


My point is that in other places slaves have won or been given their freedom and then integrated into society and moved up the social ladder,

Maybe it's time to start digging into history to find out how this occurred. Let's pick a group. I like the Irish. I'm Irish (half). How did they become enslaved, how did they overcome it, and how many years did it take for them to reintegrate into a powerful country?

Noting, that other countries don't tend to be "melting pots" as America is.

If we're going to use all these other enslaved people as examples, then we should probably have a grasp of how history played out for them.


I find it curious that many blacks think of this in a negative connotation.
But you aren't asking why. I am asking you why. Why do they make less is it thier fault or ours?

It is a societal problem. Blame can't be laid in one direction or another.


Why don't they have the same shot as a group as whites? What actually makes it harder for them to succeed? I went to school in an inner city school, we all had the same choices, the same chances, the books were there, the classes were there some of us (including the blacks I mentioned) chose to succeed, to learn and better ourselves.

What city was your school in?


Show me how blacks have had a harder time than say the Irish who weren't allowed to own property in Ireland until 1910, yet it is a thriving country now.

Because blacks are members of a melting pot nation where they live among the whites in constant competition for the same things.

Admittedly, I don't know much about Irish history. What other ethnicities occupy their country?


Or native americans who suffered much more than slaves, but have turned themselves around.

Wait...I gotta wipe the herbal tea off my screen that I just spit out as I laughed when I read this. Have you looked at the alcoholism rate of Native Americans? Have you looked at the mental health issues that plague Native Americans? You REALLY think they've "turned themselves around"???


Look the reason you can't show me a reason for a material disadvantage is because there is none. Blacks have the same opportunities as whites in this country, failure to succeed cannot be based on skin color.

I did show you. It's getting repetitive. You simply disagree. It doesn't mean the evidence hasn't been shown to you.

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 04:16 PM
Sorry, what I meant was, how many people were involved in the forcing out that you mentioned earlier during your childhood. That was the number I was refering to, not slave owners (undoubtedly a larger number, but all long dead now).
Ok, I'm more than happy to use the Irish. The Irish were enslaved by the English in everything but name, kicked off thier land, given no rights of voting, owning or court. They were often deported (jamaica, america and australia) and were kept in that bondage for seven hundred years. Slowly they gained thier rights back during the nineteenth century, but did not gain thier independence till 1921. There was a brief civil war following, but now they are an economic power house. They moved up in 80 years, not just in Ireland but in most of western civilization. They turned their forced emmigration into an advantage and despite being worth less than slaves here (there are numerous examples) and suffering extreme amounts of racism (the no nothings and the no Irish need apply movement) they prospered and thrived.
Seattle
Again I live in Washington, and they've done quite well. Built thriving merchandise industries and service industries, protected thier native cultures. Alcholism in this context is a genetic problem, not much we can be blamed for there.
What, please just show me one more time, again not a perception problem a material problem, IE they recieve less education, they are prevented from getting jobs, they earn less doing the same work, etc. Please show me statistics or actual effects that stop them from succeeding.

FruitandNut
April 24th, 2007, 05:32 PM
While I can understand a parent 'apologising' for something a very young child may do, I can't otherwise see the rationality or logic of someone not complicit before/during/after the fact feeling the urge to apologise for something others had done.

I can understand expressions of regret that bad things were done by others in the past. I can even understand some voluntary and material proof of such regret; but it is the place of those who do the wrong, to do any apologising. (If - for the benefit of the skeptics) there is an afterlife, then acknowledgement and unselfish remorse by the slavers to their victims, at least in my personal opinion, will be/is a prerequisite to any consideration of forgiveness.

Tryx
April 24th, 2007, 06:07 PM
I agree, what happened in the past has no effect on anything at all today. So lets keep the past in the past. lets just pretend it didnt happen
I agree and you are not a troll. just because you have differing views does not make you/i a troll. That is sooo immature.:idiot2:

mog
April 24th, 2007, 06:08 PM
But (off topic, my apology) in the case of the indigenous people of the country its different. Theres was a theft of land and stealing is stealing, they are owed comprnsation.

It agree that the colonisation of America, Australia, New Zealand etc. practically amounts to theft. But, the problem is, the indigenous tribes also waged war on each other and stole each other's land. If it was the done thing for the aboriginal tribes to fight each other for land, why should I be financially responsible, or even feel guilty, for the fact that one day my tribe landed and we were stronger than all of them?

Squatch347
April 24th, 2007, 06:12 PM
There is also the squatter principle. If the owner of the land is doing nothing with it and you can prove that you will, you can own that land.

AliceLiddell
April 24th, 2007, 07:45 PM
What racism? Where? And don't site Imus, show me an example of where black people were materially harmed (in the last 50 years) by white people.

Does James Byrd count? James Byrd, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Byrd_Jr).

starcreator
April 24th, 2007, 07:50 PM
Why should today's Americans apologize? They didn't enslave anyone.


Stephen Colbert had an interesting author on a few nights ago that was arguing that Barrack Obama wasn't black because he isn't descended from slaves. Well Im not descended from slave owners, so am I not white? Further more, since I am descended from Irish who were all but legally enslaved by the British until the 20s, does that make me more black than Barrack Obama? hmm.

I saw that. I thought she was idiotic; "black" is a descriptor of race, not cultural ties and heritage. Someone with Obama's past is no less black than someone whose ancestors faced slavery.

manise
April 24th, 2007, 08:26 PM
Nothing Was Done Wrong Period. It Was Legal Commerce.Nazi Germany used Jewish slave labor for "legal commerce" too. Is legality the standard we use to judge slavery now?

I agree with others that an apology and reparations for American slavery are unnecessary. The primary victims of slavery are dead. But Gold Phoenix raised an interesting point earlier. What about people still alive today who suffered under segregation laws? Should our government apologize to them for allowing that injustice to continue? We've apologized and compensated Japanese WWII internees after all.

Speaking of Japan, many Asian nations demand an apology for Japanese treatment of the "comfort women" during WWII, especially the Koreans, Chinese, and Taiwanese. Does Japan get off the hook for apologizing to living victims of that war crime?

I say let the situation and the need dictate the policy on government apologies. If the nation sees value in redressing a fairly recent injustice, such as improving foreign and domestic relations with a target group, then I see no harm in a formal apology or some symbolic reparation. The Japanese internees received a paltry twenty thousand US dollars per family, but the gesture went a long way in healing wounds within that community and strengthening our ties with Japan itself.

But if we say no apologies and reparations period, then consistency demands that we defend Japan and Germany when they resist similar calls from their historical victims.

noman
April 24th, 2007, 09:17 PM
mog
If it was the done thing for the aboriginal tribes to fight each other for land,
Neither the american indian and especially the australian aborigine fought for land as a reason, both were nomadic and fought for other reasons. The australian aborigine had no real concept of war, there idea of it was for the two tribes to stand at the end of a field and throw spears at each other until someone got hit, even a wound would do, and then it was all over and everyone left.
The Maori did claim territory as there own and still do. Though now they choose to continue the fight through politics instead of war. There claim for land rights is as valid as the pakeha's and the fact that they fought the english to a stand still and got a treaty from it further validates their claim.

Australia especially needs to apologies and give compensation to the aborigine. They stole the land they stole their children they commited genocide on the tasmanian aborigine and up to 1960's the goverment refused to even acknowledge that there were indigeonous people in australia.
They still practice apartheid in australia. The australian goverment and the people of australia are worse in their treatment of aborigines than the south africans were to there own coloured people.
Guilty. you should be damn well ashamed.


squatch347
There is also the squatter principle. If the owner of the land is doing nothing with it and you can prove that you will, you can own that land.

Escuse the vehemence (its a bit of a sore point with me) but bull sh*t to your squatter principle thats just white trash capatilist crap.
The fact that some societies prefer to live a life without exploiting all the natural resources to death does not mean there right to roam the land must be taken by some idiot whose only consideration is how much money they can make.


F&N
but it is the place of those who do the wrong,
Unfortunatly there all dead but the legacy lives on.
The american goverment is the same as any corporate identity and it lives on regardless of age and any particular person within it.
The goverment that profited and encouraged slavery as way of building the resources of the country is the same goverment that should now apologies to the descendents of those slaves.
I don't believe that an apology should be seen as anything more than a way of acknowledging that a wrong was done. But i think that the goverment is afraid that to acknowledge is also to accept responsibility and leave them liable to being sued.

FruitandNut
April 24th, 2007, 10:18 PM
noman - North African pirates regularly took Europeans (including English) for their slave markets, through to the 17th and early 18th centuries, Arabia still often turns a blind eye to their many centuries old slave trade. There is a lot of other slavery, or near slavery going on around the world. If we are going to be rational about compensation, just where should we begin and end? And why?

It can also be argued that for many of African origin who are now living in the Western 'world'/'First world', their lot is an improvement on what they would be facing in many parts of Africa. Before the Europeans 'interfered' with their way of life, their lives were hard and often curtailed with disease, constant inter-tribal warfare, and the losers that survived faced bonded slavery.

No government should be legally held responsible for that which happened decades or hundreds of years before. Humanity should learn from the past, but not constantly live with its emotion and focus, constantly fixated in history. We progress by looking forwards, not backwards. Let bygones be bygones.

Barbary pirate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates)

mog
April 24th, 2007, 11:54 PM
Neither the american indian and especially the australian aborigine fought for land as a reason, both were nomadic and fought for other reasons. The australian aborigine had no real concept of war, there idea of it was for the two tribes to stand at the end of a field and throw spears at each other until someone got hit, even a wound would do, and then it was all over and everyone left.
They were only nomadic on a seasonal basis; they returned to the same spots year after year. There was very much a concept of tribal territory, which is the basis of the entire land-rights movement. Also, the initial attacks on isolated parties from the First Fleet prove that the aboriginals knew how to fight with intent to kill. It was a very effective deterrent against escape, in fact.

This wasn't self-defence either, Governor Phillip had a policy of establishing friendly relations with the natives, to the point that about a dozen whites were killed in such attacks before they decided to retaliate, according to Watkin Tench's diaries.


They still practice apartheid in australia. The australian goverment and the people of australia are worse in their treatment of aborigines than the south africans were to there own coloured people.
Guilty. you should be damn well ashamed.
I'm not, and I don't expect the descendants of the Normans, the Saxons, the Romans, or any other race that has wronged the Celtic peoples over the millennia to be ashamed either. Apartheid is not being practiced in Australia, and indeed I bet aboriginal people receive more Government support than equivalently destitute whites.

noman
April 25th, 2007, 12:23 AM
F&N
Let bygones be bygones.
I would not argue the case of african americans claiming compensation for wrongs done to their ancestors. Far to complicated to determine any kind of agreement between people on the subject.
However seeing as this is a debate forum i dont mind taking a contrary position.
Firstly bringing up others who practice slavery cannot be used to justify what happened in the past in america and i base that on 2 wrongs dont make it right.
Regardless of the well being of todays african americans, they still are aware that an injustice was done to their ancestors and couild rightly argue that the need for closure on those wrongs is important to there own sense of well being and who are you or anyone to argue that this feeling is wrong.
,

I stick with my statement that a goverment is like a corporate identity.
And like a corporate its actions cannot be said to be void if the people running the corperate are no longer there. the american goverment profited from slavery as well as the american people through cheap labour which helped to build the economic basis of the country.

I think the real reason for not apolagising is that to apologise could be seen as accepting responsibility and that could lead to some one trying to make a claim for compensation . I do not think that is right, but it is a possibility.

The problem with not holding goverments responsible for there actions is that
then any action commited by a goverment and held from public view over a time period becomes legal which could mean that they could get away with anything.
I am not saying that torture is being done in the prison camps holding terrorists but if it is and they keep it secret for decades or hundreds of years does that then justify what they are doing today.


mog
There was very much a concept of tribal territory,
Not in the sense of ownership, the pathways they used were traditional but were open to any one that used it. Certain tribes stayed in proximity to certain areas while others were known to travel large distances. But they did not claim any area as exclusive to there own tribe or owned in any sense.
The land right movement is their adaption to white culture not a part of their own.
When aborigonals first came to australia they had to fight 7 foot tall carniverous kangaroos to survive. They knew how to fight but there own code of conduct among themselves made it unneccessary to fight to the death That came with the white man who did not consider them to be human and sent out hunting parties to shoot them like game hunting.

The convicts of australia were told the natives would kill them but it was mostly propaganda and they were used to hunt escapees on the mainland. However in tasmania they were driven away and killed at every oppurtunity which wasnt that much because the natives could hide in the bush better than the white man could hunt.
The infamous black line netted one child and a sick elderly man.
Govenor philip's official position was to create friendly terms but at the same time he ignored the fact that settlers were poisoning waterholes and shooting natives for sport.


Apartheid is not being practiced in Australia, and indeed I bet aboriginal people receive more Government support than equivalently destitute whites.

Go to alice springs and a white man can walk down the street at night with a bottle of beer oin his hand but a native will be arrested for the same thing. Thats just one example, but whats the worst thing about the aparthied there is no one will admit it but no one will give a native the time of day either.
It doesnt matter how much money they are given thats just image that the goverment likes to project to make things look like its allright. Its the attitude of the whites towards the natives that is where the true racism is

Slipnish
April 25th, 2007, 05:31 AM
In the case of slavery, it would be difficult, because of the mxied heritage thats allready been mentioned. Aswell they were freed and given citizenxhip and although the racial inequality still exists, they have the ability to do something about it for themselves.
But (off topic, my apology) in the case of the indigenous people of the country its different. Theres was a theft of land and stealing is stealing, they are owed comprnsation.

Nope. You lose the war, you lose the war. That's how it works and has worked for thousands of years. We only help rebuild so we can put in military bases to remind other people why we are there in the first place...

I don't agree that indiginous means you have the right to keep a land. Only that you were there first. Besides, the Native Americans really had no property rights tied to the land...

noman
April 25th, 2007, 09:02 AM
slipnish
Nope. You lose the war, you lose the war.
Well in the case of the maori's, they didn't lose the war. It was a draw and a treaty was signed.
In the case of australia no war was declared, the settlers just assomed that because no man made structures were there then the land was free for the taking and in tasmania it was outright genocide.
For your own, well they lost the battle but why should they consider the war to be over. Theres more than one way to win a war.
Also I am not sure of this I remember reading some where once that the american goverment has broken every treaty they signed with the natives.
If thats true then they have grounds for grievence

Squatch347
April 25th, 2007, 11:51 AM
Does James Byrd count? James Byrd, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Byrd_Jr).

Granted his life was ended early by racist hicks, and they are in jail now. What would you recommend the Government do about it?

Noman- The question is it because they have chosen not to use those resources or because their technology hasn't progressed enough to exploit them. The pacific coast native Americans wiped out the indigenous seals on the coast. There are dozens of examples of those so called 'harmonious' tribes interacting negatively with their environments. I had an anthropology professor that did an interesting lecture on your point. He argued that by saying there are cultures that are somehow 'more in touch with nature' and chose not to exploit the resources you are in a round about way being very racist. You seem to have a very naive view of how things work.

AliceLiddell
April 25th, 2007, 05:37 PM
Granted his life was ended early by racist hicks, and they are in jail now. What would you recommend the Government do about it?


Thanks, I was hoping you didn't really mean that there are no white racists (or acts of white racism in the last 50 years). But if you didn't believe that, why did you ask someone to provide an example?

If you are willing to admit that white people will kill for racists reasons, will you admit that white people might also not hire people for racists reasons, not promote people for racists reasons, not admit people to college for racists reasons, or deny housing to people for racists reasons?

A problem with proving acts of racism is that they require you show what one's motivations are. That is very difficult to do. But just because it is difficult to prove the motivations are racist does not mean they are not. I likewise realize that just because it is difficult to prove the motivations are racist it does not mean that they are.

What should the government do? It's not an easy question to answer. I don't think an apology makes sense for some of the reasons many people have pointed out here.

I personally think the focus should be on fighting poverty, and that would go a long way to repairing race relations.

Squatch347
April 25th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Oh God no, of course there are idiots out there, what I am trying to say is there is nothing keeping Blacks as a group down like Happy Lady said. I would admit to all those things, however that is an incredibly small sector of the population. It hardly is prevalent enough to keep 17 percent of the population in poverty. I agree that working on poverty is noble and correct thing to do, but how we do it is what matters to me. Creating jobs is the way to go, not welfare programs. Also I believe there are problems within the Black Community, Bill Cosby did an excellent job pointing them out. Education is often looked down upon, rational thought, education, and economic success are seen as selling out, and assimilating is the same as apostasy, these things are not conducive to economic and social mobility.

AliceLiddell
April 25th, 2007, 06:31 PM
What I am trying to say is there is nothing keeping Blacks as a group down like Happy Lady said. I would admit to all those things, however that is an incredibly small sector of the population.

I agree it is a small sector of the population who discriminate (at least consciously). I also believe it's not the federal government doing the discriminating (here's where I would like an example in the last 25 years in case I'm ignorant).


Also I believe there are problems within the Black Community, Bill Cosby did an excellent job pointing them out. Education is often looked down upon, rational thought, education, and economic success are seen as selling out, and assimilating is the same as apostasy, these things are not conducive to economic and social mobility.

I have to agree there are problems within their community too. That doesn't mean that others outside their community don't take advantage of it. But yes, responsibility should be shared and the problem attacked from the inside and outside.

noman
April 25th, 2007, 09:58 PM
squatch347
You seem to have a very naive view of how things work.

You assume to much from what i did say there squatch. which was that there were no man made structures.The best the aussie natives came up with was a lean-to, basically a few logs leaned up against a tree and covered with leaves.
They also practiced burning as a means of driving animals out into slaughter areas. They planted seeds but left nature to do the farming for them. And they did wipe out completly those carniverous kangaroos, and frankly i dont blame them for that.
I could blogg out pages of stuff but didn't want to introduce unneccessary info to make my point.
The trouble with the natives is there outlook on life is so opposed to western culture that there is little common ground between the two.
They had no concept of ownership with the land or private property.
When the settlers introduced sheep into the country the natives saw it as a food source and did not understand why they shouldnt hunt it or why they were no longer allowed to walk through places that once had no fences.
Because they did not value the things the settlers valued, money property ownership it lead to the settlers shooting them as a way of solving the problem.
Burke and wills. two famous english explorers died in the outback from starvation, right next to an abundant food source that they did not recognise because they believed that the natives were less than human and had nothing of value to offer.
The aboriginal of australia is one of the most primitive societies with far less technology than most and there culture was and still is very laid back and passive which made it easy for the white settler to abuse them and steal there life style from them.

Turtleflipper
April 26th, 2007, 03:53 AM
For your own, well they lost the battle but why should they consider the war to be over. Theres more than one way to win a war.


Yes, and that time is over.

It's unfortunate our ancestors conquered these people, but what's done is done. Continuing treaties with the ethno-group of a people that used to be a nation is a dangerous concept.

noman
April 26th, 2007, 09:06 AM
turtleflipper
Continuing treaties with the ethno-group of a people that used to be a nation is a dangerous concept.
Spoken like a true winner. you won, you get to set the rules.
But then again isn't the american ethos along the lines of, if its worth fighting for....

Turtleflipper
April 26th, 2007, 09:20 AM
Spoken like a true winner. you won, you get to set the rules.
But then again isn't the american ethos along the lines of, if its worth fighting for....


1. Not American, and don't subscribe to any part of their ethos!

2. This is a democratic nation-state. It is neither European or Native. It is simply what it is. We cannot afford special priviliges that go outside of the bounds of the framework of the enlightenment, to grand special rights to Natives without destroying the very foundation of what we've build.

Yes, we did win. And if they want to interpret it as such, yes, we also continue to dominate them into the 21st century. But they did LOOSE. History is cruel, and many terrible injustices have been prepretrated.
We cannot begin to redress the greivences. And indeed, we should not try. Both because it is insulting to say monetary demands can compensate for such destruction, and also, because to give them any sort of different treatment based on ancestory is the antithesis to everything we stand for.

And at the end of the day, ours is most universally benefical
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

.
The aboriginal of australia is one of the most primitive societies with far less technology than most and there culture was and still is very laid back and passive which made it easy for the white settler to abuse them and steal there life style from them.

In Central America the Mayians and Aztecs had achieved stable agriculture, and in many respects where becoming more and more like the callous Europeans at the time of contact (they had esoteric religious practices, not nature-reverent "deer are holy" kinda things).
The extreme Northern tribes who had not yet achieved stable agriculture and the Huron who just did as Europeans arrive, are the sterotypical "in-tune with nature" image we imagine.

And you know what? I think that's it. That's why they lived such simple, basic lives. Because they were extremely primitive. They're nothing special, no more then our own hunter-gather ancestors.

Gaius
April 26th, 2007, 09:50 AM
You have just reaffirmed my belief, Gaius, that you are, in fact, a troll. Keep the past in the past, it has no affect on us. Its like saying "If I don't study for this next big test, it will have no affect on my future."

Im not buying what youre selling, most of the people on this thread like squatch and wannaextreme agree with me. Unless you have something to contribute to the debate other than analogies which are horribly flawed, go cry somewhere else or find the nearest black person and give them all your money and leave me and people like wannaextreme and squatch to ourselves
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Oh God no, of course there are idiots out there, what I am trying to say is there is nothing keeping Blacks as a group down like Happy Lady said. I would admit to all those things, however that is an incredibly small sector of the population. It hardly is prevalent enough to keep 17 percent of the population in poverty. I agree that working on poverty is noble and correct thing to do, but how we do it is what matters to me. Creating jobs is the way to go, not welfare programs. Also I believe there are problems within the Black Community, Bill Cosby did an excellent job pointing them out. Education is often looked down upon, rational thought, education, and economic success are seen as selling out, and assimilating is the same as apostasy, these things are not conducive to economic and social mobility.

i agree, we need people like bill cosby and alan keys, you know, republican blacks, to speak some sense into these people.
What they are doing right now, is only giving them poverty, disease, rape, murder and its only getting worse with every year.
If these people started voting republican, we could start signing them up en masse into the military and the national guard, to instill in them what it means to be an american like squatch.

noman
April 26th, 2007, 10:04 AM
Turtleflipper
We cannot begin to redress the greivences.

I think its the highlighted word there that makes my point. We won, we get to write history and we get to set the rules.
I havent really followed the grievence trail of your own natives and dont know what there position is on it. They may be happy with there lot, though I doubt it, but its their fight and if they wish to continue then good on them. Never say die.
In my country it does continue but the fight isnt for compensation its for identity, The maori are proud to be maori they dont want to be english they have their own language and there own customs and see no reason to give it up. The land is theres and they fought wars to keep it, a treaty was signed and now they expect the settlers to honour it.
Those that oppose it say we are all one people in one country but underlying that is the assumption that all should speak english and behave as english men. Why should the maori give up what is theirs just to accomadate others when the english refuse to do so.
here there are two different people sharing the land, its a matter of harmonising the cultures not homogenising them.

PS I think gaius:smitten: is in love with squatch:smitten: could this be the new odn romance

Turtleflipper
April 26th, 2007, 10:23 AM
The land is theres and they fought wars to keep it,



Simply having land dosen't make a government. The Aztecs arguably had a comparable level of sophistication and they DID have concepts of land/ownership. So clearly, it's a case of early native culture being hijacked my partial assimilation, rather then something "beautiful' about the individual culture itself
Further, native living is untenable in the modern world. We will need every single acre to survive. So should many starve because we are unwilling to put the good of the many above the few?




a treaty was signed and now they expect the settlers to honour it.




If a treaty was signed, it was signed. But I know for a fact most Indian reserves out West in North America are build on land Native Americans LEGITMATELLY sold to banks then later got back based on the original treaties. And I simply will not stand for that.

Manhatten island was sold for some beads. Which sucks for the Natives, but getting a bad deal is no grounds to say you were stolen from




Those that oppose it say we are all one people in one country but underlying that is the assumption that all should speak english and



Speak english I can't say, but if english is the academic majority, it should be encouraged by parents so they're kids can survive. However, either anti-english or pro-english laws I will not support. I firmly believe languages survive or die on merits, and intervention is never good




behave as english men.




If you mean practice emphatic reasoning, have impartial modes of justice, etc., etc., that's simply how it must be.
The greatest freedom for the greatest people will always require some degree of oppression.




Why should the maori give up what is theirs just to accomadate others when the english refuse to do so.



The unfortunate thing about life mr. norman, is that it's a cruel son'o'b*tch
The english are technologically, socially and scientifically superior to mopst new-world ideginous people (except possibly the Aztecs/Mayans of central America, who were many years ahead in astronomy).
Social organization on a national (rather then tribial) scale, mathmatics, optics, science, reading, money, chemistry these all came with English.

The english don't refuse to learn Maori I don't think, it's simply that they don't have to. The Maori have virtually nothing of valuable to teach the English (well, they know a great deal about nature, but even that must be intrepretated by English systems of inquiry to be useful on a national level)




here there are two different people sharing the land, its a matter of harmonising the cultures not homogenising them.



Personally, I think any kind of barriers block the natural evolution of culture. Let Maori and english culture clash, let's see who wins.
It's that simple. The stronger will survive, and that's just an unfortunate aspect of life.

But objectively, one went to the moon, and the other invented a boom-arang. You cannot pretend it's fair to say they're both of equal weight

Gaius
April 26th, 2007, 10:41 AM
i agree with turtle. White ie western civilization is superior to every other civilization on the planet, in fact most of the planet is not and cannot even be called civilized.

If it werent for the demographic doom whites are facing we would still be in control of all the planet like we have been for the past 500 some years. with every year our superiority fades as there are less and less of the superior culture/race as turtle says remain

God Bless America
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

The proof (that blacks are not in any way obstructed by racism) is in the blacks who have moved passed that and become a success in modern society.

i agree, if Micheal Jordan and Puff Daddy can become rich and famous why cant they all? since micheal jordan can do it, they can all do it, but they are lazy and want to just keep getting those welfare checks, so they choose to just cash those checks instead of becoming an NBA players or a music sensation and become millionaires.
Like squatch said, the proof is in the pudding.

Turtleflipper
April 26th, 2007, 10:43 AM
White ie western civilization is superior to every other civilization on the planet,



No, in terms of effeciency of resources, most native people beat us hands-down. In terms of social-success, Asiatic nations beat us easily as well.
We are simply more advanced technologically then most members of the new world. Nothing more or less.




If it werent for the demographic doom whites are facing we would still be in control of all the planet like we have been for the past 500 some years.



Yes, and for like 1000 years before that, China could've WTFPWNed all of Europe if it wanted to.
We're just very war-like, and therefore our weapons systems advanced remarkably quickly




with every year our superiority fades as there are less and less of the superior culture/race as turtle says remain



With every year, other cultures are being expoused to the benefits of the scientific revolution.
I don't see how this is a bad thing.

Gaius
April 26th, 2007, 10:48 AM
your squatter principle thats just white trash capatilist crap. .

Did you just call squatchs ideas white trash crap? why do you hate our troops? i bet you dont even own a support our troops bumper sticker do you?

Squatch347
April 26th, 2007, 02:05 PM
I'm curious whats up with the recent tendency to judge the past by present standards? I fail to see what is beneficial or indeed fair about this.

noman
April 27th, 2007, 12:50 AM
Turtleflipper
Further, native living is untenable in the modern world.

The english are technologically, socially and scientifically superior

one went to the moon, and the other invented a boom-arang.
You brought up a couple of points there, and the above phrases of yours all alude to a difference in technology and also a difference in time.
What happened in the past should stay in the past, I agree with you there. However the situation gets complicated when the natives of today, educated and modern and prepared return to battle ground with a whole lot of modern weapons such as the law and goverment.
Again I cant really discuss your own native situation it is something ive only passed briefly over, and I am not sure that you are at all interested about my own countries dealing with land right issues. But I am sure its a completly different situation to yours.
The maori are a crafty bunch and incredibly good at being capatilists and playing the goverment at its own game. Here there is no moaning and wailing about land being stolen, but a grab for the brass ring of power, seats in goverment.
If you cant beat them, then change the laws.


I firmly believe languages survive or die on merits, and intervention is never good
I agree and the english have no right to refuse the natives the right to speak there own language. This does not mean however that the maori refuse to learn english.
Through out the early 1900 up until the 1960s the goverment told schools to activly put a stop to maori children talking their language at school or in public. This was an act of genocide of culture (culturecide?) that almost worked, but during the 60s and 70s up until now the maori started to fight back and started schools of their own where the language could be relearned.

would you agree that language is an important part of culture, what would american culture be like if you all spoke french or german.

the maori now use there language in goverment and in court and a interpreter is provided. However again crafty maori dont insist on it but use it as a poltical tool to push a point now and then. That way they dont piss ordinary people off by acting all proud and at the same time are getting their language more and more accepted.
Where once the nightly news started with a very british sounding good evening it now starts with a maori kiaora.
Bit by bit inch by inch the maori erode the english language with far more success than all the english army and there modern muskets succeeded in killing the maori.


Let Maori and english culture clash, let's see who wins.

The real problem here is that cultures are not fixed in stone. You make the same mistake that usually made in these discussions. The idea that when we talk about native people culture you think of a culture that was 200 years ago.
But culture is not like that, it adapts it changes according to the circumstances. with each new generation adding something new and dropping something old. This is the sign of an avtive living culture.
Just as you keep traditional values that you learnt from you forefathers so do the maori. But as your own culture changes with the intro of new technology so does theirs and neither lose the essence that make it distinctly your own culture.
The fight for land rights, political rights and the survival of a culture is a modern day affair and none of those past differences you brought up are relevent in todays battle. This is a clash of cultures and I find it most amusing that the english are once again losing.
And I want to make the point that the maori are not being assimilated, its more a case of taking the best the english offer and changing it to suite their way of doing things, which are different in attitude from the english.


gaius
If it werent for the demographic doom whites are facing we would still be in control of all the planet like we have been for the past 500 some years. with every year our superiority fades as there are less and less of the superior culture/race as turtle says remain
Could you elaborate on this doom it sounds great and i am hopefull it will happen in my lifetime.

God Bless America
cause no one else will?



Did you just call squatchs ideas white trash crap? why do you hate our troops? i bet you dont even own a support our troops bumper sticker do you?
And not only that but every time i read one of his posts i imagine in my mind a long haired negro hippy woman smoking a joint and pretending to be a soldier.
And i do support your troops when i lived in western australia i always sold dope to your sailors at a discount price cant get more patriotic than that can i?


long haired hippy
I'm curious whats up with the recent tendency to judge the past by present standards
But this is not what i am trying to do. It is true this debate started with a comparison of past and future but the resolution lies entirely in the future.
The events of the past here in new zealand was unique in the history of colonisation and the maori who were once nearly completly exterminated have fought back with the very weapons that the settlers used to try and kill them. They are a unique race of warriors and in this country dominance of white people is not as assured as in your own country. I know that in many countries including your own where the native people are looking hard at what the maori are achieving in there own special way and wondering how they can adapt it to their own situation.

FruitandNut
April 27th, 2007, 01:07 AM
noman - The Maori were never (officially, anyway) enslaved.

In 1859, the Europeans in New Zealand reached numerical parity with Māori, at about 60,000 each. However neither population was stable. The Māori population was declining so fast that some people saw their extinction as a distinct possibility. Meanwhile immigrant ships were arriving from Britain on an almost weekly basis. As early as 1841, one Māori asked if the whole British tribe was moving to New Zealand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering that New Zealand is about as big as England, Scotland and Wales, 60,000 Maoris is hardly a population able to reasonably shout for exclusive rights to much more than localised areas.

Most population decline was down to such as disease and alcoholism/violence. (I have a cousin in Tauranga who married a Maori; the guy's drinking and violence put her in great danger, and the booze eventually killed him.)

New Zealand land wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_land_wars)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are ALL in historic terms related to slaves AND slavers. Perhaps we should all get together and 'apologise' to eachother AND ourselves! Would that satisfy the PC lobby? Perhaps we could also play 'pass the parcel' with compensation?

noman
April 27th, 2007, 02:09 AM
F&N
shout for exclusive rights
It isnt a point of exclusiveness, and never has been. its about ownership which is entirely different. the maori are not asking for exclusive right to land.
And in truth i have concentrated on more positive aspects of maori but they have there dark side to. they killed off all the mori ori a race that was here before them they exterminated the moa and were starved of good food resources until the white man came.
It can not be said the maori had a mystical one with nature b***t type thing going but then we cannot also say that the english acted as perfect gentlemen either, so to point out faults in one or the other is pointless.
And in the end has nothing to do with which culture should dominate.
Both have good points and bad points they're humans just like everyone.
At the moment the goverment has degreed that the beaches and rivers are under goverment ownership. The maori disagree and say it should be under maori ownership.
This does not mean that only maori will be allowed to use the beaches it will still remain open to all people. What it does mean is that the goverment cannot sell off beach front property to foreign investment unless they first consult with the maori.
The maori are saying that they as a people have a right to be consulted when dealing with the land that once belonged to them.
If as a people and a culture they can reach a sufficent majority to effect the policy of goverment then the goverment has no choice but to accept this. If the goverment makes a promise then the people have a right to expect them to keep it.


Most population decline was down to such as disease and alcoholism/violence.
No sorry these were the visible effects caused by the decline not the reason for there decline.
That was from being overwhelmed by a foreign and oppressive culture that activly worked at breaking apart the maori culture.
I am sorry for your cousin but alchoholism is not exclusive to maori many white people suffer from it to.
The maori also practiced slavery and cannablism aswell but as i have said cultures change they are fluid and reflect the times we live in. I dont believe maori want to bring these particular cultural practices back, but they are a part of there past. They have no more need to feel shame for that than the english should feel for how soccer started which was by kicking the heads of decapitated criminals around.
It is nothing more than hubiris on you part to assume that just because you knocked the natives down once then they should stay down, if they choose to get up again then the fight isn't over and your claim to the land and the right to say no to compensation depends entirely on your ability to maintain power which is never garanteed.

Turtleflipper
April 27th, 2007, 10:45 AM
Again I cant really discuss your own native situation it is something ive only passed briefly over, and I am not sure that you are at all interested about my own countries dealing with land right issues. But I am sure its a completly different situation to yours.


If your Native's aren't playing up the angle of being absolute victims, then it is impossibility different.



The maori are a crafty bunch and incredibly good at being capatilists and playing the goverment at its own game. Here there is no moaning and wailing about land being stolen, but a grab for the brass ring of power, seats in goverment.


If they can get a voting majority, good on 'em!




Where once the nightly news started with a very british sounding good evening it now starts with a maori kiaora.



If it's mandotary I strongly disagree.
I don't like minorities or majorities directly trying to achieve cultural domination.




there modern muskets


Poor Australian army :embarassed:



This is a clash of cultures and I find it most amusing that the english are once again losing.


Again, if dosen't seem similiar, but if it's at all like North America, it's because English culture is being handcuffied and Native culture is unabhasedly taught as superior (even to english kids in english schools)



And I want to make the point that the maori are not being assimilated, its more a case of taking the best the english offer and changing it to suite their way of doing things, which are different in attitude from the english.


Man, if they can survive, go to work!



Could you elaborate on this doom it sounds great and i am hopefull it will happen in my lifetime.


Your strangely pleased?

noman
April 27th, 2007, 12:16 PM
turtleflipper
If your Native's aren't playing up the angle of being absolute victims, then it is impossibility different
The trouble here is that the indigeonous people of any country must adapt to the mores of the dominant culture not the other way around where as the dominant culture can pick and choose which customs of the natives they like.
But as you said thats life and they should get over it and get on with it.
For the most part natives have a terrible record of adapting and usually hold the lowest position in society and fill the jails and have problems with drugs and alchohol and family violence.
These are all symptoms of cultural malaise caused by the loss of spiritual and social values and the ongoing conflict between different belief systems.
It is not playing an angle it is a very real problem.
the maori are unique they even have there own gene

"New Zealand researcher Dr Rod Lea and his colleagues have told an Australian genetics conference that Maori men have a "striking over-representation" of monoamine oxidase - dubbed the warrior gene - which they say is strongly associated with aggressive behaviour."

They are a warrior race. But they are also very good traders and statistacly more maori are likely to go into small private business than white people do.
They have come from near extermination to having there own political paty the maori party which hold seats in the opposition bench of goverment.
They still play the angle of victim but with a purpose and they dont just wail about it they are doing something about it.



If it's mandotary I strongly disagree.
I don't like minorities or majorities directly trying to achieve cultural domination.

Not mandotory but culturally accepted. sociologically language is an important factor in the way a society behaves and percieves itself, destroy the language of a culture and you in effect destroy the culture.
English will allways be the dominant language here because that is the language of trade and commerce that dominates the world, but new zealand english is slightly different in that it is becoming a mixture of both maori and english language.


Poor Australian army
no poor english army the aussies throw boomarangs:grin:


but if it's at all like North America, it's because English culture is being handcuffied and Native culture is unabhasedly taught as superior (even to english kids in english schools)

is that what is happening in your schools? not so here.
When i went to school they did not teach the history of the country i lived in but instead i was forced to learn about the history of england which bored me to tears because i am not english and dont really care about there history
I would rather have learnt about new zealand or australian history because that is relevant to me.
and it is not taught as if the maori were culturally or spiritually superior its taught as it was good and bad on both sides.


Your strangely pleased?
What is it the americans say, the only good white man is a dead white man, or have i got that the wrong way around?:grin:

pikatore
April 27th, 2007, 12:25 PM
Did you just call squatchs ideas white trash crap? why do you hate our troops? i bet you dont even own a support our troops bumper sticker do you?

I don't support the U.S troops. I think that Bush has gotten the U.S into a pile of crap, and whatever happens happens. Does that make me evil?

By the way, you whole 'whites are more superior' rant is quite pathetic. Maybe you should start a thread explaining why 'whites' are the more superior race on the planet. Please. Humor me.

Gaius
April 27th, 2007, 12:42 PM
I don't support the U.S troops. I think that Bush has gotten the U.S into a pile of crap, and whatever happens happens. Does that make me evil?

By the way, you whole 'whites are more superior' rant is quite pathetic. Maybe you should start a thread explaining why 'whites' are the more superior race on the planet. Please. Humor me.

That does indeed make you evil, its like saying i dont support angels, or god and then asking "does that make me evil?" seriously you need to ask?
Its not being white that makes us superior, but our civilization.
Humor me to the opposite, please

pikatore
April 27th, 2007, 12:49 PM
That does indeed make you evil, its like saying i dont support angels, or god and then asking "does that make me evil?" seriously you need to ask?

I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in angels or god. And if you are trying to equate the U.S military mind to 'justice' and 'good', and see the US as some shining utopia in a world full of idiots, then you have issues.


Its not being white that makes us superior, but our civilization.
Humor me to the opposite, please

The chinese ecomonic machine leaves western civilisation for DEAD. If china did go full steam into the open market, it would chew the rest of the world up and spit it out. You have a very childish perception of what makes something superior to somethine else.

Just because the West has developed more effective ways to kill it's enemies, that doesn't make it superior. It is rife with crime and corruption. It is no better than the rest of the world. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. Your elitist views, which border ALMOST on racism, that will make you very few friends. Consider your reputation on this forum a microcosm, a little taste, of how people in the world of the world would see you.

Gaius
April 27th, 2007, 12:54 PM
Could you elaborate on this doom it sounds great and i am hopefull it will happen in my lifetime.
.

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t5-f.pdf

by 2045 whites will be just over half of the population
by 2050, we will be the minority and America that we all know and love will be gone, but by then it will be over anyway i believe
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

I'm an atheist, so I don't believe in angels or god. And if you are trying to equate the U.S military mind to 'justice' and 'good', and see the US as some shining utopia in a world full of idiots, then you have issues.



The chinese ecomonic machine leaves western civilisation for DEAD. If china did go full steam into the open market, it would chew the rest of the world up and spit it out. You have a very childish perception of what makes something superior to somethine else.

Just because the West has developed more effective ways to kill it's enemies, that doesn't make it superior. It is rife with crime and corruption. It is no better than the rest of the world. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. Your elitist views, which border ALMOST on racism, that will make you very few friends. Consider your reputation on this forum a microcosm, a little taste, of how people in the world of the world would see you.


Sure buddy, china is going to spit us out, lol
many people on these forums i actually agree with, apok, squatch, wanna, kevin browning, among others. well thats almost half the active members

pikatore
April 27th, 2007, 01:12 PM
http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t5-f.pdf

by 2045 whites will be just over half of the population
by 2050, we will be the minority and America that we all know and love will be gone, but by then it will be over anyway i believe
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

... right.




Sure buddy, china is going to spit us out, lol

You have absolutely no idea, do you?


many people on these forums i actually agree with, apok, squatch, wanna, kevin browning, among others. well thats almost half the active members

Last time I checked, you seem to be that annoying short guy with a high voice that chimes in to agree with someones argument, then inserts some of your own rubbish in, to the embarrasement of the person involved.

noman
April 27th, 2007, 01:22 PM
gaius
but by then it will be over anyway i believe
I am not exactly sure what your point is here gaius. Am I meant to cry into my beer here over the fact that white people are becoming scarce.
Thats evolution for you it plays no favorites and if you dont believe in evolution then perhaps its gods way of telling you that your time is up. Either way i am suppose to care because....?

Squatch347
April 27th, 2007, 01:34 PM
Unfotunately Pika I have to agree with Gaius on this one, clearly though whites are neither superior not lower than any other race, however it is clear that western civilization is superior in the most important aspects, it is inclusive, growth oriented, and works on bettering itself. This is not to say that all other cultures are terrible or useless, but thats the benefit of western civilization, it absorbs and compliments other cultures that it meets.

pikatore
April 27th, 2007, 03:04 PM
Unfotunately Pika I have to agree with Gaius on this one, clearly though whites are neither superior not lower than any other race, however it is clear that western civilization is superior in the most important aspects, it is inclusive, growth oriented, and works on bettering itself. This is not to say that all other cultures are terrible or useless, but thats the benefit of western civilization, it absorbs and compliments other cultures that it meets.

Western civilisation is also the most destructive on the planet. It seems that whilst at first glance it may seem superior, it's rotten on the inside.

Squatch347
April 27th, 2007, 07:26 PM
Please describe how it is destructive and 'rotten on the inside'. It brings medicine, education, roads, clean water, often a more peaceful existence, freedom, lack of starvation, yeah you know that just sounds terrible.

Gaius
April 28th, 2007, 11:42 PM
Please describe how it is destructive and 'rotten on the inside'. It brings medicine, education, roads, clean water, often a more peaceful existence, freedom, lack of starvation, yeah you know that just sounds terrible.

he probably means people that are disproportionately on welfare, like blacks and hispanics especially illegal immigrants that are sucking this great nation dry of everything from wealth to resources

pikatore
April 29th, 2007, 04:17 AM
he probably means people that are disproportionately on welfare, like blacks and hispanics especially illegal immigrants that are sucking this great nation dry of everything from wealth to resources

God dammit gaius! That's not what i meant! :tickedoff:

Squatch347
April 29th, 2007, 04:46 PM
Pika, don't worry, please know that I never thought thats what you meant. Although since he usually does that to me, turnabout is fair play ;-)

pikatore
April 29th, 2007, 05:11 PM
lol.

Turtleflipper
April 30th, 2007, 12:13 AM
he probably means people that are disproportionately on welfare, like blacks and hispanics especially illegal immigrants that are sucking this great nation dry of everything from wealth to resources

Your right on every count, though the last one is relatively subjective. God-damn it :embarassed:
<center><br><br><font color="red">_________________________________ <sub> Post Merged </sub>_________________________________</font><br><br></center>

Please describe how it is destructive and 'rotten on the inside'. It brings medicine, education, roads, clean water, often a more peaceful existence, freedom, lack of starvation, yeah you know that just sounds terrible.

Arguably most of those things are brought by Eastern culture. Really with the modern trend toward eco-conservation I'd say one of the two great evils of the Western world is being alleviated.
But ya, tech (medicene, computers, electro-powered clown-cars) and freedom, those we got

FruitandNut
April 30th, 2007, 12:49 AM
pikatore - Western 'civilisation' at it's best, is better than any other civilisation that humanity has known. The problem is that it is like brushing a quality paint over a flawed surface (humanity) sooner or later (usually sooner) what it is seeking to address will break through and blemish. What is needed is for the nature of the surface (humanity) to be improved first.

If you think Western civilisation is cack, pray tell me anything that is better, and facilitates progression of knowledge, the concept of freedom, and the concepts of improvement to health and wealth? The reason why I use the word 'concept' is that the rotten and misguided will always compromise the ideal.

Squatch347
April 30th, 2007, 02:16 PM
Actually turtle, though I in no means want to lessen China's impact on the world, and I fully give them credit for beginning many of these things. They were widespread and brought to their height in western civilization.

Slipnish
April 30th, 2007, 06:52 PM
Please describe how it is destructive and 'rotten on the inside'. It brings medicine, education, roads, clean water, often a more peaceful existence, freedom, lack of starvation, yeah you know that just sounds terrible.

It also pollutes the most, has a crappy educational system comparitively speaking to other western and enlightened nations, and places the value of a dollar over many things it should not. (Medical care comes imminently to mind.)

The worst thing in the world is democracy. The only problem is, all the other systems are worse...:grin: (To paraphrase.)

EDIT: And lest I forget, I think our current administration is one of the worst for corruption and listening to what the public actually wants. For a "representative democracy" the people we've, well, some people cause I didn't vote for ANY of those bastards, elected, surely don't represent anyone but their own interests.........

Squatch347
April 30th, 2007, 07:07 PM
It pollutes the most because it produces the most. And within the next three years it won't even pollute the most, but will still produce the vast majority of goods on this planet. Again I am arguing that western civilization has a better education system, not sure what you read. It places the value of individual choice (represented through the dollar vote) over many other things. Medical care is another issue. Especially since western civilization monopolizes it.
I love that quote. Works well with capitalism. The worst thing in the world is western civilization except that all the others are worst.
Wow slipnish seems like you took a logical argument and made it about President Bush. How very liberal of you ;-)

Dimtim
May 4th, 2007, 05:13 PM
the only reason the government dont want to appologise is because it mekes them look weak

Squatch347
May 4th, 2007, 05:15 PM
Or because all the slaves have been dead for a hundred years.

CliveStaples
May 5th, 2007, 04:07 AM
It also pollutes the most, has a crappy educational system comparitively speaking to other western and enlightened nations, and places the value of a dollar over many things it should not. (Medical care comes imminently to mind.)

Um, if you're talking about America...why do the best and brightest from other nations enroll in our universities? Whence Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Stanford, Yale, and Duke?

As to the italics: Which reminds you of the third world more, a government that murders people and allows (and even causes) famine in order to recieve payoff; or, a society that values the private generation of wealth.

I'd rather live in the ghettoest part of the U.S. then in the best part of the third world.


But in reponse to the thread topic, the government shouldn't apologize for slavery, because none of the people who constitute our government had any part in it. It isn't their place.

pikatore
May 5th, 2007, 04:26 AM
I'd rather live in the ghettoest part of the U.S. then in the best part of the third world.

I sure as hell wouldn't.

Gaius
May 5th, 2007, 04:36 AM
I'd rather live in the ghettoest part of the U.S. then in the best part of the third world.


.

You must really like government cheese

Squatch347
May 5th, 2007, 11:10 AM
I have to agree with clive. Even relatively poor areas in the US are better living conditions wise to 99 percent of the third world. There is also the option of bettering yourself in the US, raising your social position, a quality of this country not found many other places (outside of our cold neighbors to the north and limey neighbors across the pond ;-) ).

pikatore
May 5th, 2007, 05:47 PM
I have to agree with clive. Even relatively poor areas in the US are better living conditions wise to 99 percent of the third world.

Wow, I like those statistics.

It's not so much quality of living that make me choose. You can live in a well watered neighbourhood with 24-hour electricity and cable and still be miserable.

I lived in Lebanon for a year, enduring crappy dial-up, rubbish mobile reception, 15 mins of hot water's worth a day, and blackouts several times a day that could last up to an hour. But I participated in a very electric and friendly community, and had a ball.


There is also the option of bettering yourself in the US, raising your social position

I don't quite get what you mean here.

Squatch347
May 5th, 2007, 05:56 PM
Very true Pika, good point. I tend to think your happiness is quite independent of your living conditions. I'll be happy either place. Would just rather be happy with electricity.
Well in quite a few countries you can better your social position. Example my grandad immigrated here dirt poor and sent his sons to college, my dad had a doctorates degree and died with a net worth well over a million dollars. My roommates father grew up on the wrong side of the tracks they say and started working in construction. Worked his way up to forman and ended up starting a small construction company with a man named Harlon crowe. Long story short, Wood enterprises is now the largest construction company in the US. Intellectually and spiritually though I don't think we hold any monopoly there.

squiffy
May 7th, 2007, 12:06 PM
nobody should have to apologise for something they didnt have anything to do with. that is silly. slavery must of been horible i have to admit but i would never apologise for it because i didnt influence those events.

Gaius
May 9th, 2007, 02:10 AM
nobody should have to apologise for something they didnt have anything to do with. that is silly. slavery must of been horible i have to admit but i would never apologise for it because i didnt influence those events.

here here mate. liverpool !

Splatfly
May 9th, 2007, 08:42 AM
As the Church instigated the slave trade I think they as an organisation should be disbanded, forced to apologise and compensate all those that are direct descendants of the slaves.

But the people of the countries who profited and used the slave trade should not apologise a) because we were blinded and fooled into it by the church and b) the slave trade would not have happened if the Africans didn't round up and sell the slaves to the traders.

Squatch347
May 9th, 2007, 02:59 PM
As the Church instigated the slave trade I think they as an organisation should be disbanded, forced to apologise and compensate all those that are direct descendants of the slaves.

But the people of the countries who profited and used the slave trade should not apologise a) because we were blinded and fooled into it by the church and b) the slave trade would not have happened if the Africans didn't round up and sell the slaves to the traders.

Are you serious? How did the church 'instigate' the slave trade? It predates the Church by hundreds of years. While not to north america, but all around Africa. Most slaves were captured and sold by Muslims, should Islam be disbanded? And please show me that the evidence where the church actually initiated the slave trade.

FruitandNut
May 10th, 2007, 01:55 AM
Splat - Industrial slavery was instigated by the profits of commerce, not the prophets of religion.

European consumer demand, and commercial searching for cheap and large scale production led to taking advantage of, and developing, that which was already going on between African tribes and between Africans and the Arab world.

'A large number of people began the journey into slavery as prisoners of war. The Baganda in East Africa, for example, often went to war with their neighbours and took Bunyoro and Basoga people as slaves.

With the rise of a large commercial slave trade, driven by European needs, enslaving your enemy became less a consequence of war and more and more a reason to go to war. This was particularly so in West Africa where, for example, the conflict between the kingdoms of Oyo and Dahomey resulted in prisoners of war being taken as slaves on both sides and then sold on to the coast.'

The Story of Africa| BBC World Service (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/9chapter6.shtml)