Muppet of a Man
Member
More acceptence of interracial relationships...when we are all melted together, things will finally materially change.
they can complain about racism that happens today, thats an obvious given, but to me it seems like you are letting people complain about others that had nothing to do with a lot of the racism in the past. that just sounds highly unreasonable(sorry if thats not what you meant)
Many, many cities are doing just that. Just doesn't normally work the way most want it to.I think fixing the infrastructure of the inner city and the educational opportunities of the inner city would go a long way to help fixing the problem. Houses, apartment complexes, etc are so run down that its a wonder that any one can live there let alone entire families and just having better schools with proper tools to educate minorities would do a world of difference.
More acceptence of interracial relationships...when we are all melted together, things will finally materially change.
Even as a black man I'm a bit iffy on affirmative action. I feel like it's a rather old solution which doesn't feel all that genuine. If people already have issue with affirmative action, imagine reparations. Then you have the taxing of the rich which will affect whites and blacks alike so I don't see how that would accomplish anything. Plus people love money. Taking more of it can further drive classes apart and create issues.Which ones are you talking about here?
One of the big expectations in the next 50 years is that Africa will increase population by 3 Billion people.
We could probably help out with that.
For helping people inside the US I feel like time will sort that out, its another waiting for baby boomers to die situation, just might take a few more generations.
That's basically how I feel. I have absolutely *nothing* to do with any past(or current) bigotry from other white people. I don't like being lumped in with them just because of the color of my skin. It seems to me it perpetuates this 'skin color defines you' mentality that is at the heart of racism and prejudice of all kinds(in terms of people pre-judging somebody based on some singular attribute of theirs, be it sex, race, nationality, whatever).
I don't feel that 'white people' should be held responsible for healing racism against blacks. Racism is not exclusive to white people and blacks are not the only people ever victimized by prejudice. This is a society problem. We ALL need to learn to be tolerant and we need to learn about prejudice and how to stamp it out. Nothing will be fixed overnight, but I do feel that as generations pass, things will improve. Dramatically. It sucks to say, but sometimes it takes a generation to die off so we can truly move on and eradicate 'localized' sources of prejudice.
Many, many cities are doing just that. Just doesn't normally work the way most want it to.
I'm a believer in forced integration of communities. (Maybe something like quotas for races, kind of like they do for money in some places,I think?)
I think that would address things like police occupation of communities (I don't think you could do that without significant blowback if you do that to the majority)
I think that also somewhat addresses the race disparity in education.
I think this was touched on in the op, but its not about anyone feeling "guilty" about being white or placing blame on any one group of people necessarily. The reality is it was Europeans who started the slave trading of Africans and it was whites who enacted the Jim Crow laws, the drug war policies, and for profit prisons.
I don't really have any guilt, I don't really know the history of slavery in Sweden either so I can't be really sure about that.
It's pretty sad when clueless Europeans boast how "racism" isn't as common compared to USA, it's completely wrong. Just look at rising of extremist right-wing parties, it's pretty scary.
Romani(?) people gets fucked over in most European countries.
People today can choose to live in a diverse or homogenous place, and plenty are choosing diverse. You try and force that kind of thing and you're gonna get significant blowback alright...
While not to this extreme, more and more I've started to think doing something about housing might be a great start. Why? Because over time it might help solve the empathy issue, the lack of which is one of the main roots of the whole problem.
Basically, if more white people and minorities live and work next to each other, they might begin to understand each other better. A common defense of white people is that they have one black friend. What if more white people simply had more black friends, or actually interacted with groups of black people on a regular basis? And generally, with greater understanding of a group of people comes greater empathy for them.
A while ago someone in OT remarked that they perceived empathy and understanding of LGBT people in America was moving along more quickly than race relations. A big reason that came up was because any person in any position of power can have a gay friend or relative, but white people in positions of power are much less likely to live and work near black people.
I personally have no idea what you would do about housing. And unfortunately part of the housing issue stems from lack of empathy. That's kind of a chicken-and-egg problem.. But if you could do it I think it might really help with one of the root causes of racism.
And yet it was also whites that largely ended slavery in the US via the Civil War, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives..
Using the Chinese is fairly bad, they aren't 'affected' by it, they are now racist as well. The Han Chinese pretty much run China and do a pretty good job of keeping the rest of the country 'down'.
And yet it was also whites that largely ended slavery in the US via the Civil War, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives.
My great-grandfather did two tours for the union in the Civil War.
And no country did more than Britain to stamp out slavery. They had their naval fleet stop and board slave ships, freeing the slaves.
In contrast, look at the number of countries that didn't ban slavery until the 20th century. None of them are Western countries - either African, Middle Eastern, or Asian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1900.E2.80.93present
It really won't.
Even as a black man I'm a bit iffy on affirmative action. I feel like it's a rather old solution which doesn't feel all that genuine. If people already have issue with affirmative action, imagine reparations. Then you have the taxing of the rich which will affect whites and blacks alike so I don't see how that would accomplish anything. Plus people love money. Taking more of it can further drive classes apart and create issues.
Media incentives are along the same lines as affirmative action to me where there's something not so genuine about it.
I understand that a couple of decades ago we had to force the issue but now there is so much empathy and understanding out there. I feel like forcing the issue again could do more harm than good in some cases.
As a white man... I have no guilt what so ever. Why should I feel guilty for something I had no control over? You can't change history , you can only learn from it. In time ... Our society will learn to accept each other as people and not by our skin color.
I know this sounds mean ... But it's the truth.
And how does any of that dispute anything I wrote? Also, I've said a couple of times now in this thread that whites have to be a part of the solution to this in some way just like they were with ending of slavery and jim crow laws( the last part I never actually said, but was implied in statements I made).
Edit: Should also add the civil war wasn't about slavery necessarily. It was partly about slavery, but mostly about ending the south's rebellion against the north. The south tried to seceded from the union and the north declared war on them. It didn't really become about slavery until 1863 with the emancipation proclamation, which was more of a move to get the Europeans (most noticeably UK and France) to help the north. Seeing how almost nothing was done to guarantee the freedom of blacks until 100 years later proves this.
No it was basically about Slavery. Most of the issues that led to the Civil War were about Slavery. Also, the Jim Crow laws and such were most likely going to be destroyed by Lincoln if he was still alive. Lincoln could've avoided a lot of the issues that snowballed during that time period.
Also, this is an issue I feel that rich people should handle, not just white people. We have plenty of money that isn't getting to our poor, with education being the primary way to keep people down in their social bubble. There are so many poor schools out there, especially in Inner Cities, that need funding.
And how does any of that dispute anything I wrote? Also, I've said a couple of times now in this thread that whites have to be a part of the solution to this in some way just like they were with ending of slavery and jim crow laws( the last part I never actually said, but was implied in statements I made).
Edit: Should also add the civil war wasn't about slavery necessarily. It was partly about slavery, but mostly about ending the south's rebellion against the north. The south tried to seceded from the union and the north declared war on them. It didn't really become about slavery until 1863 with the emancipation proclamation, which was more of a move to get the Europeans (most noticeably UK and France) to help the north. Seeing how almost nothing was done to guarantee the freedom of blacks until 100 years later proves this.
The South rebelled because they were afraid of slavery ending. The North didn't war with the South to end slavery, but to end the rebellion. The Emacipation Proclomation only ended slavery in the rebelling states AND was made years after the war started. Ending slavery was just not a wargoal until way after the war started.
This is rhetoric typically spouted by Confederate apologists. The south tried to secede because of slavery. And the south fired the first shot. They arrogantly believed the north wouldn't go to war over slaves. They were wrong.
Proctor: All right, here's your last question. What was the cause of the Civil War?
Apu: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between the abolitionists and the anti-abolitionists, there were economic factors, both domestic and inter--
Proctor: Wait, wait... just say slavery.
Apu: Slavery it is, sir.
I don't think anyone should have guilt for something someone else did. White people did plenty wrong in America over the years and not just to blacks. Think of what was done to native Americans many years ago or to Asians during the last world war.As a white man... I have no guilt what so ever. Why should I feel guilty for something I had no control over? You can't change history , you can only learn from it. In time ... Our society will learn to accept each other as people and not by our skin color.
I know this sounds mean ... But it's the truth.
It was still a war goal for many northerners at the time. The main reason to fight for the north was to push the south back in, but the slavery issue practically caused the war, and was the reason why the south was fighting to be independent. There's a reason the Emancipation Proclamation was made, Lincoln was against slavery, and wanted to end it. The war allowed that to happen without much southern meddling.
I don't think anyone should have guilt for something someone else did. White people did plenty wrong in America over the years and not just to blacks. Think of what was done to native Americans many years ago or to Asians during the last world war.
Well I was just referencing gentrification and how former residents can't afford to live in the area after it is fixed up.That's fair enough, but I guess I see it from my own experience. In my local area, they get approved to beatify the city, but instead of fixing the delapaded houses or shitty roads, they build a new walmart or some apartment complexes out in the suburbs. It gets kind of infuriating honestly, its like that part of the city doesn't even exists to these people.
If your grandfather benefitted financially from owning slaves, and passed that benefit on to you, why don't you owe that to the people that provided that benefit against their will? No one's saying your grandfather's actions are your fault, they're saying that you -- and me -- benefitted financially from our grandfather's crimes, and that it is reasonable for us to attempt to repay that theft, rather than pretend it didn't happen and that it didn't effect us. And what's really being asked is our government, which is still the same continuous entity that made it possible to do this, acknowledge and repay what was stolen from generations of black families. Just as they've repaid Japanese families, just as Germans repaid Israelis, Poles, etc.
Edit: Should also add the civil war wasn't about slavery necessarily. It was partly about slavery, but mostly about ending the south's rebellion against the north. The south tried to seceded from the union and the north declared war on them. It didn't really become about slavery until 1863 with the emancipation proclamation, which was more of a move to get the Europeans (most noticeably UK and France) to help the north. Seeing how almost nothing was done to guarantee the freedom of blacks until 100 years later proves this.
Even if your ancestors fought to end slavery, you still benefited from the existence of slavery...If your ancestors were active in the British empire's costly sustained effort (in terms of both treasure and lives) to end slaving across the world should you feel free to ignore the issue altogether? I'm being facetious, of course. I'm sure you see why.
Not to sound condescending or anything but anyone who believes this has a very limited/warped understanding of United States history. The animosity leading up to the Civil War was very heavily based around slavery and the economic ramifications of either keeping it or getting rid of it. The South was benefiting a lot from the institution of slavery and the idea of doing away with it forced many to choose a side. Those states didn't want to give up their cash-cow (free labor), if you will.
The reason was to punish the rebelling states and gain international support.
You're right, the war helped accelerate the end of slavery. But that is merely a side effect. It's not like people wanted the war to happen to end slavery. They most likely would have preferred it to take longer, but more peacefully, which was dashed by the rebellion.
Do you have any evidence that the Northerners wanted to go to war with the South before talks of a Southern Rebellion?
And I'm not sure how you can say it was a wargoal for many Northerners at the time, given that for two years, there wasn't any promise of ending slavery. I don't think they really freed captured slaves either, during the time before it became explicit wargoal. Odd thing not to do if you were really fighting to end slavery.
But anyway, even if they did fight for slavery, it doesn't really matter. I'm not sure why you brought it up. Like, to give them credit for ending slavery to be brought up against the fact that people in that ethnic group were the main perpetrators. Nothing that can be said will take that away.
Are you talking about internment? Reparations in 1988 and an apology. Of course, that's like 40 years after the fact, but it's more than nothing... And I doubt few people believe we did right to the Native Americans....
The reason you can't do things based solely on economic status is because race is actually a factor in treatment. It's not solely economic status.
There were many northerners who wanted to end slavery at any cost, just like how most Americans want pot to be legalized. Many did see the atrocities of slavery in the North, and a small amount in the south.
The Civil War was also caused by the South. The North didn't want to secede, the South did. The North went to war to keep the Union alive. And the South Seceded to keep Slavery alive and healthy.
Empathy would be a good start.
EDIT: Actually, nevermind. This is all stupid and besides the point. I'm not even sure why this is even being talked about.
So, given that you brought up the holocaust, and given that Germany did pay reparations to Israel, why shouldn't we pay reparations to the descendants of slaves?
Yeah, a war where hundreds of thousands of people died for an ideal is stupid.
Okay.
Not to sound condescending or anything but anyone who believes this has a very limited/warped understanding of United States history. The animosity leading up to the Civil War was very heavily based around slavery and the economic ramifications of either keeping it or getting rid of it. The South was benefiting a lot from the institution of slavery and the idea of doing away with it forced many to choose a side. Those states didn't want to give up their cash-cow (free labor), if you will.
Well I was just referencing gentrification and how former residents can't afford to live in the area after it is fixed up.
WordThe first step is in acknowledging that it's actually still an issue.
So many people forget that there are millions of people alive today who were adults when federal laws directly limited their rights. This isn't some sad bit of history that happened hundreds of years ago, it's extremely recent.