Reply With Quote
Whenever they come into contact with you, for starters.
Again, that's hogwash.
You're basically saying the social inequities are figments of their imagination borne of past wrongs.
What are the real, tangible, social inequities of today. Where, in society, will blacks experience these inequities?
Whenever they come into contact with you, for starters.
Nope. I've never discriminated against a black person because of their race. Sorry, care to try again?
Obviously.
I don't think you have a firm grasp on what is racism or discrimination.
Actually, I do. Your initial post in this thread is a prime example.
As I said, you don't know what is racism or discrimination.
I don't see how that is hogwash. The past shapes the present. Your childhood made you the person you are today. The history of your parents had a direct influence on how they raised you.
Saying that the actions of the past have no bearing on the present is hogwash in my opinion.
I was referring to there being current social inequities.
You said the past shapes the present and "created" the social inequities of today.
I'm simply trying to identify what social inequities, of today, you claim were created by the past.
...and I'm not in any way saying it is a figment of their imaginations. The social inequities are a very real thing. The inequities may or may not still be created today (not the topic) but the inequities of the past very much shaped the present.
rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective
Disparaging an entire race over the actions of a few across a couple of decades is a good start.
As I said, you're a blowhard redneck with a broadband connection who represents himself as a "conservative" and who unfortunately has taken up residence in this forum.
Well, current economic conditions are a direct result. Generations who were denied entrance into academic ins utions weren't automatically "qualified" to now compete with white America the second the civil rights act was ins uted. Thus many were forced into lower paying jobs. AS you know it is not impossible for those in lower income ranges to go to college and compete, but it is far more difficult for them to do so and as in white society, less of the lower income go on to college (this is not to say there are those who don't, but not the majority) Now because of this, generation after generation goes through the same struggle, with some persevering to overcome it. The current situation is much better than it was 40 years ago, but it is by no way on the same playing field as say those who have had hundreds of years out of oppression to get to this point.
I asked a simple question which, by the way, didn't even pretend to disparage an entire race. I can't help it if, in your inability to answer it, you can only resort to calling me a racist.
And, to be fair, I changed the nature of the conversation to one about culture and not race, explaining that my initial post was a knee-jerk response to an act of mob violence, perpetrated by blacks, here in Austin.
I still believe the instances of mob violence, perpetrated since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have, vastly, been at the instigation of blacks.
Instead of calling me a racist, prove me wrong.
Once again, demonstrating you know nothing about me.
How about you prove yourself right first?I still believe the instances of mob violence, perpetrated since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have, vastly, been at the instigation of blacks.
Instead of calling me a racist, prove me wrong.
It depends on the kind of media you're referring to. Left-wing media will tend to give Sharpton a pass on his nonsense, while right-wing media will call him a race-baiting bas . Right-wing media will ignore Robertson's less socially acceptable utterances, while left-wing media will call him a theocratic racist.
And as we have established previously, in the U.S. of 2007, in most of the instances where the poor are crowded together in urban areas, providing the conditions ripe for riots to occur, those urban poor are black.
There are also a fair number of Hispanic riots. Again, urban poor. In fact, the most frequent riots are in prisons between black and Hispanic inmates.
There aren't a great many white urban poor in this country. The centers of white poverty are rural areas in the South and in Appalachia.
So the instances of rioting have to do with people being poor and huddled together in cities, not with people being black.
The percentage of college bound blacks has dropped since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Explain that.
You do realize blacks weren't barred from attending college, right? Just certain colleges. And, while that was wrong, it didn't prevent them from getting a good education should they have chosen to.
The United Negro College Fund was founded in 1944. Many black business leaders of today were college-educated prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Please. Business successes -- both black and white -- abound with rags-to-riches stories of how these people overcame their poor, squalid upbringings to be successful.
I would suggest the number of blacks actually wanting to go to college has decreased and that economics has nothing to do with that.
In some ways, the current situation is more racially charged than it was 40 years ago. Many whites -- alot of whom fought for racially equity and civil rights, right alongside of blacks -- are standing with people like Bill Cosby and wondering just when in the blacks are going to stop blaming whitey and start acting responsible.
Well, if there was a right-wing media, we could actually test that theory.
Spot on. This is the direction the thread should be going.
You're telling me there are no poor, urban white populations? In don't know this to be incorrect but, I'm having trouble believing it.
New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago are all pretty big cities. I'm thinking there may be pockets of poor whites within their city limits.
It's called "Talk Radio"
It occurs to me, while mulling over that last question, the vast majority of homeless, in Austin, are whites.
I wouldn't consider the black communities of East Austin to be any more of a Ghetto than the poor white neighborhoods of South Austin are Slums or the poor hispanic neighborhoods of Southeast Austin are Barrios.
I don't buy the poverty motivator either. Many of the thugs involved in mob violence are wearing their bling, sporting their Air Jordans, and riding on their expensive spinners...or whatever they they're into now.
I've driven all over Austin and there are poor white, black, hispanic, and mixed neighborhoods; yet only the black community ever makes noise about social injustice.
How many homeless are there, compared to poor blacks?
75% of urban poor blacks in America live in areas of concentrated poverty.
25% of urban poor whites in America live in areas of concentrated poverty.
Poor whites are dispersed, no matter what nebulous anecdotal arguments to the contrary you wish to make.
No, you've confused mob violence with gang violence. Gang violence is closely associated with the drug trade, and the open display of "bling" and so forth is both a display of power, and a recruiting tool.
Beyond the drug trade, too often the poor waste their limited resources on luxury items. Part of the reason these groups stay poor is the inability within the culture to make responsible financial decisions. There is a mistaken belief that wealth is synonymous with the possession of material things.
You've never heard of LULAC or La Raza? And there are political groups dealing with white poverty; however, they are in rural areas.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
