Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Jews have been victims of persecution in Europe and elsewhere since at least the time of the Romans. But people have never been afraid to walk in Jewish neighborhoods, except possibly out of the fear of being mistaken for a Jew.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, do we want to talk about antisemitism, or do we want to talk about the Holocaust?

Jewish antisemitism is a separate and materially distinct phenomenon; it differs fundamentally from what happened to blacks under slavery. This is not to emphasize racism at the cost of dismissing antisemitism; but it is obvious that the material factors of slavery were far more economically disenfranchising than instances of antisemitism throughout European history.

Furthermore, Atlantic slavery was recent; Jewish persecution, when it took the form of slavery, is ancient.

 

[Dak]

Having to uproot and move from city to city/country to country, particularly throughout the middle ages, is pretty economically disenfranchising. Slavery was recent, but antisemitism has been going on for literally thousands of years.

 

[Einherjar86]

It doesn't matter when you have money with which to move and reestablish your family, trade, homestead, etc. You can't compare blacks in America to Jews in Europe as though it translates cleanly and neatly.

Jews actually enjoyed an economic advantage in the Middle Ages because Church Law forbade Christians from charging interest to other Christians. Jewish men made a killing off of this.

This isn't to say that Jews didn't face persecution and even mob violence; but there's one huge advantage that Jews had, which blacks don't have. Jews could convert to Christianity. Sure, perhaps this isn't what we might call a desirable solution; but it provided security and safety from Christian violence. They shouldn't have to do this, but they are able to.

Unfortunately, blacks can't convert to whiteness.

 

[Dak]

It doesn't matter when you have money with which to move and reestablish your family, trade, homestead, etc. You can't compare blacks in America to Jews in Europe as though it translates cleanly and neatly.

Jews actually enjoyed an economic advantage in the Middle Ages because Church Law forbade Christians from charging interest to other Christians. Jewish men made a killing off of this.

Yeah I meant to mention this. This was all wrapped up together with the antisemitism. Jews were both helped and hurt by never really being enfranchised.

Unfortunately, blacks can't convert to whiteness.

Well, not in terms of skin tone, but the points that are being made are about cultural differences.

 

[Einherjar86]

How do cultural differences circumvent skin tone???

Jews might choose to convert; and in that case, no more harm would come to them. Blacks, on the other hand, even if they bought their freedom, were at a constant risk of being sold back into slavery. This happened all the time. Skin color has a direct impact on the cultural differences that we're talking about.

 

[Dak]

How do cultural differences circumvent skin tone???

Jews might choose to convert; and in that case, no more harm would come to them. Blacks, on the other hand, even if they bought their freedom, were at a constant risk of being sold back into slavery. This happened all the time. Skin color has a direct impact on the cultural differences that we're talking about.

My point, and I'm assuming SS's point, was that Jewish culture, which was established after/throughout repeated enslavements, and tempered under millenia of persecution, is quite different than African culture or post-slavery US black culture. However, what usually gets overlooked is there wasn't so much of a cultural problem (referring to broken families, generational welfarism, crime, etc) until the mid to late 20th century, which also happens to correspond with economic and political gains. Something is obviously amiss, and blanket blaming racism doesn't cover enough.

 

[Einherjar86]

My point, and I'm assuming SS's point, was that Jewish culture, which was established after/throughout repeated enslavements, and tempered under millenia of persecution, is quite different than African culture or post-slavery US black culture. However, what usually gets overlooked is there wasn't so much of a cultural problem (referring to broken families, generational welfarism, crime, etc) until the mid to late 20th century, which also happens to correspond with economic and political gains. Something is obviously amiss, and blanket blaming racism doesn't cover enough.

You mean there were no initiatives to solve a problem until the mid- to late-twentieth century. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a problem; people just didn't have the vocabulary to formulate the problem, nor the means to combat it.

Just because you don't see black civil rights figures until the mid-twentieth century doesn't mean that a problem didn't exist until that point. There was no welfare problem, no; but there was rampant poverty. Initiatives for compensating impoverished blacks were a response to a problem that already existed; and then, all of the sudden, a new problem emerged for right-wingers, that of welfare itself, and that we have all these black people on welfare, and why the hell are all these black people taking our money?

There were no "broken families" because family values hadn't made the concept of the broken family an important sociopolitical issue, and one that - when it suddenly appeared as an undeniable sign of wholesomeness - it became impossible to ignore. In fact, during the first half of the twentieth century, black females were the primary breadwinners because a) they were single mothers, and b) black males were not allowed full access to employment by white business owners. This shaped the modern black gender dynamics that we know today - i.e. misogyny, husbands and fathers leaving the household, etc.

There was always crime in the black community; but it became a "problem" (as you describe it) when blacks began fighting against police officers due to the very purpose of attempting to secure equal rights in this country. Or, for another matter, when the War on Drugs began, and suddenly crime began to infiltrate the peaceful communities of white suburbs; and all of the sudden blacks seemed to be our prime suspects and the perpetuating agents of this terrible scourge.

You choose to begin identifying these problems at somewhat arbitrary points. They only become "problems" at the historical moment you identify because they become legal problems. This doesn't mean they weren't already social/cultural problems.

 

[SentinelSlain]

My main point was that there isn't that much the establishment could do to make black culture value intellectualism and education. They can try and push for those things generally and they can adopt socialist policies, but that's about it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Does "white culture" value intellectualism? I mean, some communities obviously do; but there is an entire region of white America that looks upon intellectualism as akin to devil worship.

 

[SentinelSlain]

Yeah and it's kind of deemed acceptable that they will produce few philosophers or esteemed artists. The problem isn't that there are poor people in America, it's that there is a correlation with ethnicity. I'm not saying that's my view, I'm suggesting that's the angle of the progressives.

I wish I knew the name of the writer I'm about to talk about, but I don't. Anyway, when I was reading for my course, I cam across some important left wing social science book that basically concluded that it did not matter what form, or what value system the West eventually took hold of, so long as it was not one that placed the white culture and white people, along with standard western culture, over any other. I think that that point on it's own sums up what's wrong with social science in general really. Human civilization is at least 5 or 6 thousand years old but these people want everything to be a reactionary response to 200 years of European Imperial domination.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's interesting that you choose to call it "reactionary." These terms are often used in specifically polemic ways; so "revolutionary" means positive, or progressive, while "reactionary" means negative, or regressive (I don't mean to imply that you didn't already know this, I'm just pointing out the occasionally ambiguity of these terms, which I have often used as well).

I tend to see things in the following binary: either everything does need to be a response to the history of European imperialism, or we must accept the fact that large numbers of people in the Third World and even the First world are going to vanish from the face of the planet. I don't entertain the notion that one of these choices is qualitatively better than the other; but I think that we must own up to whichever course we pursue. We shouldn't rationalize the latter in the name of individual responsibility or free markets.

As far as I'm concerned, it's plain and simple that European imperialism and white oppression are the major causes of the status of blacks in this country. It doesn't matter that Jews have been persecuted for much longer than blacks; this shouldn't enter into the conversation because antisemitism really doesn't compare to ethnic racism in the first place. Blacks were prohibited from owning property or entering society as full subjects; and then the Thirteenth Amendment rolls around, and suddenly they're faced with conforming to a culture that a) doesn't want them, and b) hasn't provided them with the resources for success.

There's nothing fair about that; but the world isn't fair. So if the decision is going to be that we can't effectively respond to the historical consequences of slavery and its aftermath, then fine. But there's no rationalizing that decision as some kind of ethical or righteous victory of individualism or economic freedom.

 

[Dak]

That's interesting that you choose to call it "reactionary." These terms are often used in specifically polemic ways; so "revolutionary" means positive, or progressive, while "reactionary" means negative, or regressive (I don't mean to imply that you didn't already know this, I'm just pointing out the occasionally ambiguity of these terms, which I have often used as well).

I'm not sure if SS realized the polemically charged usage of reactionary, but I think he has a good point based on the more literal use of the word.

I tend to see things in the following binary: either everything does need to be a response to the history of European imperialism, or we must accept the fact that large numbers of people in the Third World and even the First world are going to vanish from the face of the planet.

Not that I think that that is a necessary outcome of European imperialism (world populations exploded during that time in fact), but isn't one of the progressive warcrys something about depopulating the overburdened planet? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

As far as I'm concerned, it's plain and simple that European imperialism and white oppression are the major causes of the status of blacks in this country. It doesn't matter that Jews have been persecuted for much longer than blacks; this shouldn't enter into the conversation because antisemitism really doesn't compare to ethnic racism in the first place.

Antisemitism is ethnic racism. No one is hating on the white or black people who happen to go to a synagogue on the weekends.

Blacks were prohibited from owning property or entering society as full subjects; and then the Thirteenth Amendment rolls around, and suddenly they're faced with conforming to a culture that a) doesn't want them, and b) hasn't provided them with the resources for success.

I agree with a and b, and I assume that SS would as well. The point is that both in this country and in others throughout history, various people groups have been treated similarly or worse with respect to lack of rights and/or resources, and at least in the history of Euro-American imperialism, have not had such an overwhelmingly poor response.

There's nothing fair about that; but the world isn't fair. So if the decision is going to be that we can't effectively respond to the historical consequences of slavery and its aftermath, then fine. But there's no rationalizing that decision as some kind of ethical or righteous victory of individualism or economic freedom.

I wouldn't see it as victory in the sense as "my team won". Rather, that certain things work and certain things just don't work, whether you want to ascribe it to human psychology, culture, "economic law", etc.

2nd class citizens like the Irish and Mediterranean immigrants in the 19th century in the US, and 3rd class citizens in other parts of the world like the Jews in the Byzantine and Middle ages, responded to group discrimination by maintaining cohesive family structures and distinct/productively oriented cultures in the face of the adversity, and it turned out reasonably well.

In contrast, while similar processes started up early after the end of slavery, most easily symbolized in the work of Booker T Washington, this process was circumvented and ended by the inculcation of perpetual victimhood and more/most importantly the removal of general agency. You believe you can do what your culture says you can do, and for the black American that that leaves you with either government jobs, government handouts, or millionaire odds in pro Sports/popular music.

I'm well acquainted with the removal of agency via my wifes family culture/history. Although not black, Hispanics/Indians in Texas experience racism also, and they believe that life is a rut of born-work to the bone-die. The whole "you don't need an egdikashun, you need to get a jerb!" stuff, all the you-cant-do attitude if it involves trying to escape that grind, and then if you do escape, you are blackballed by the family and/or they come after you for handouts.
You can't fix that sort of cultural problem with handouts and/or trying to be more "Fair", and that doesn't mean we have to resign ourselves to some worse outcome either.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not that I think that that is a necessary outcome of European imperialism (world populations exploded during that time in fact), but isn't one of the progressive warcrys something about depopulating the overburdened planet? Wouldn't that be a good thing?

Depopulating by letting people die off? No, I don't think so.

Antisemitism is ethnic racism. No one is hating on the white or black people who happen to go to a synagogue on the weekends.

Antisemitism can be ethnically inflected, but not necessarily. Judaism isn't a component of biological makeup.

I agree with a and b, and I assume that SS would as well. The point is that both in this country and in others throughout history, various people groups have been treated similarly or worse with respect to lack of rights and/or resources, and at least in the history of Euro-American imperialism, have not had such an overwhelmingly poor response.

This assumes that the environment provided by the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was the same as all other scenarios throughout history. It was not. The U.S. has never provided an amenable environment for the success of black individuals and families. Furthermore, my point in mentioning how the historical nearness of Atlantic slavery was to emphasize that it is asinine to expect blacks to have recovered from such a recent event. The Jews have had thousands of years to recuperate and establish themselves.

Many of the problems you identify are merely new iterations of already-existing problems (as I already outlined above).

I refuse to believe that the "poor response" has anything to do with biology, intelligence, or the mineral makeup of black people.

I wouldn't see it as victory in the sense as "my team won". Rather, that certain things work and certain things just don't work, whether you want to ascribe it to human psychology, culture, "economic law", etc.

2nd class citizens like the Irish and Mediterranean immigrants in the 19th century in the US, and 3rd class citizens in other parts of the world like the Jews in the Byzantine and Middle ages, responded to group discrimination by maintaining cohesive family structures and distinct/productively oriented cultures in the face of the adversity, and it turned out reasonably well.

None of these even come close to what was done to blacks.

Even after slavery was outlawed, blacks were hauled out of their homes and lynched. Their women (and men) were raped. They were imprisoned because of their skin color, something Irish and other ethnic groups never had to worry about. Furthermore, groups like the Irish participated and perpetuated racism against blacks. You make it sound as though it was all these different minority groups against some obscure White Majority. The Irish are part of the white majority.

Blacks were made nonhuman subjects for over a century in this country, and then were turned loose with nothing. If you want them to bounce back from that in another century, then you're insane.

In contrast, while similar processes started up early after the end of slavery, most easily symbolized in the work of Booker T Washington, this process was circumvented and ended by the inculcation of perpetual victimhood and more/most importantly the removal of general agency. You believe you can do what your culture says you can do, and for the black American that that leaves you with either government jobs, government handouts, or millionaire odds in pro Sports/popular music.

Those things are what white people said they could do. It was never dictated from within the black community that the only jobs suitable for them were in entertainment or the government. They were forced into these kinds of jobs by a white culture that denied them employment elsewhere.

 

[rms]

The U.S. has never provided an amenable environment for the success of black individuals and families. Furthermore, my point in mentioning how the historical nearness of Atlantic slavery was to emphasize that it is asinine to expect blacks to have recovered from such a recent event. The Jews have had thousands of years to recuperate and establish themselves.

Hmm, I mean how do you control hate of individual people? It seems really difficult on a large scale level.

I don't know how to compare the movements of anti semitism in Eastern Europe to Atlantic Slave trade, but the damage to the Jewish population was much more significant in its overall % than the Slave trade. I think Slave trade numbers are roughly near 20 million and I can't imagine what total populations were on Africa.

The parallel to South America and especially Brasil would be interesting to see, as I think Brasil had the highest numbers of imported slaves, but personally, have no idea how their society transformed since abolishing it.

Even after slavery was outlawed, blacks were hauled out of their homes and lynched. Their women (and men) were raped. They were imprisoned because of their skin color, something Irish and other ethnic groups never had to worry about. Furthermore, groups like the Irish participated and perpetuated racism against blacks. You make it sound as though it was all these different minority groups against some obscure White Majority. The Irish are part of the white majority.

To be fair this was only a region in America, not the entire country. Freed slaves were living in whatever diminished conditions following the revolutionary war, but the South obviously lagged behind. Ireland was invaded, countless times, because they practiced a different form of Christianity. Thought of worse just because they practiced that religion, it's pretty similar to thinking Africans as 'savages'.

Blacks were made nonhuman subjects for over a century in this country, and then were turned loose with nothing. If you want them to bounce back from that in another century, then you're insane.

I mean what do you propose, reparations? I think that would only cause more conflict than what is seen in Affirmative action.

 

[Einherjar86]

Hmm, I mean how do you control hate of individual people? It seems really difficult on a large scale level.

It isn't hate as much as it is simply material factors. Business owners didn't hire blacks, but not always because they hated them. Some simply didn't, even couldn't, do it because blacks lacked the necessary skills for performing a certain job. This is still racism, it just isn't racism as we usually think of it. The business owner isn't intentionally or malevolently discriminating against a potential black employee; the historical conditions have simply yielded a scenario in which blacks fail to meet the necessary requirements for participating in society.

I don't know how to compare the movements of anti semitism in Eastern Europe to Atlantic Slave trade, but the damage to the Jewish population was much more significant in its overall % than the Slave trade. I think Slave trade numbers are roughly near 20 million and I can't imagine what total populations were on Africa.

The comparison with Jews, the Irish, et al troubles me for the following reason: if racism isn't the primary reason for the plight of Africans in this country (and around the world), then what is? No one offers any alternatives, and the only response seems to be: "If the Jews can do it, why can't the blacks?" There's an implicit agenda in this statement, i.e.: "Something is wrong with black people."

I simply refuse to accept that there is something biological that sets blacks apart in a socioeconomic sense, so as long as that suggestion persists I'll combat it. I'm not saying that is what you're saying, but it is an implied conclusion.

As far as the comparisons with Jews go, there are significant differences. Jews enjoyed economic privileges and advantages despite being persecuted. They cornered various markets throughout history, particularly money-lending, and this allowed them to achieve positions of power. There isn't much of a debate concerning the fact that, even though they might practice a religion despised by the Church and come from foreign countries, they still managed to prosper and survive and even achieve success. The main difference? They were allowed to practice in society, filling specific economic niches and even making themselves necessary to the successful functioning of various societies throughout history.

Furthermore, the expanse of time that the Jews have suffered (in various forms, not always slavery, imprisonment, or physical persecution) has allowed them numerous opportunities to build back up again, to learn how to protect themselves, and to overcome adversity. Up until the sixteenth century or so, Africans had never laid eyes on Europeans. Up until only a little more than four centuries ago, blacks had never been subjected to the kind of economic exploitation and marginalization that they faced under European imperialism and colonization. The devastation wrought upon African culture was universal and widespread, and was legal up until a little more than 150 years ago, and still continued to be practiced in local fashion after that.

It's absurd, in my opinion, to expect them to recover swiftly from that. The Jews have had, literally, thousands of years. And finally, the Jews have a rich and recorded history to appeal to and draw upon for cultural unification. Africans don't have that. It was taken from them.

The parallel to South America and especially Brasil would be interesting to see, as I think Brasil had the highest numbers of imported slaves, but personally, have no idea how their society transformed since abolishing it.

Well, crime is rampant for starters.

To be fair this was only a region in America, not the entire country. Freed slaves were living in whatever diminished conditions following the revolutionary war, but the South obviously lagged behind. Ireland was invaded, countless times, because they practiced a different form of Christianity. Thought of worse just because they practiced that religion, it's pretty similar to thinking Africans as 'savages'.

It wasn't only the South, actually. Blacks were despised in the North as well. Slaves living in the North were often lured or captured back into slavery. Violence against blacks happened in the North as well, not just the South.

Also, Ireland wasn't invaded because of their religion. They were invaded because they lived on a country, which is land, and England always wanted more land. Religion is only a means of riling up the people: "Those mangy Catholics, lets go and teach them a lesson or two!" It was never primarily about religion. It never is.

And look at the state of Ireland today. I wouldn't point to it as a shining example of how a country can bounce back after being invaded by an imperial power.

I mean what do you propose, reparations? I think that would only cause more conflict than what is seen in Affirmative action.

I don't propose anything. This is what I've been trying to say; I'm only insisting that if we decide we can't do anything, then we need to stop making excuses to make ourselves feel better. Racism and imperialism are huge looming factors on the quality of life for certain peoples in the world today. Trying to suggest that they aren't, and that not doing anything to rectify the situation is some kind of ethically admirable action, amounts to congratulating oneself for hitting a child, in my opinion.

 

[rms]

It isn't hate as much as it is simply material factors. Business owners didn't hire blacks, but not always because they hated them. Some simply didn't, even couldn't, do it because blacks lacked the necessary skills for performing a certain job. This is still racism, it just isn't racism as we usually think of it. The business owner isn't intentionally or malevolently discriminating against a potential black employee; the historical conditions have simply yielded a scenario in which blacks fail to meet the necessary requirements for participating in society.

Well yes I omitted this because I think its moot in present day society. I don't think anything else the government can do to help out, I just think racist people have to just die out. But there will always be a faction who are against anyone but whitey in America.

The comparison with Jews, the Irish, et al troubles me for the following reason: if racism isn't the primary reason for the plight of Africans in this country (and around the world), then what is? No one offers any alternatives, and the only response seems to be: "If the Jews can do it, why can't the blacks?" There's an implicit agenda in this statement, i.e.: "Something is wrong with black people."

These are our biggest historical factors to compare though. Holocaust and the Slave trade. Everyone in government should say "why aren't the blacks succeeding?" But I hope their answers aren't because of their biological faults or something.

As far as the comparisons with Jews go, there are significant differences. Jews enjoyed economic privileges and advantages despite being persecuted. They cornered various markets throughout history, particularly money-lending, and this allowed them to achieve positions of power. There isn't much of a debate concerning the fact that, even though they might practice a religion despised by the Church and come from foreign countries, they still managed to prosper and survive and even achieve success. The main difference? They were allowed to practice in society, filling specific economic niches and even making themselves necessary to the successful functioning of various societies throughout history.

Jews were in positions of wealth during the first and second world wars, no doubt, but I would be interested in seeing how they maintained that wealth during those times. I don't know much about 'ancient' times revolving Jews, so I won't really speak on it.

Furthermore, the expanse of time that the Jews have suffered (in various forms, not always slavery, imprisonment, or physical persecution) has allowed them numerous opportunities to build back up again, to learn how to protect themselves, and to overcome adversity. Up until the sixteenth century or so, Africans had never laid eyes on Europeans. Up until only a little more than four centuries ago, blacks had never been subjected to the kind of economic exploitation and marginalization that they faced under European imperialism and colonization. The devastation wrought upon African culture was universal and widespread, and was legal up until a little more than 150 years ago, and still continued to be practiced in local fashion after that.

I think the building back up argument is flawed when you include the early 20th century though. Rampant immigration to W Europe and America would seem troublesome.[/quote]

If your point on the failures of Africa is that their cultures did not mingle enough to create a sort of empire/economic competition, then why didn't it? Are white people more likely to be greedy or war monger? I don't think that's a good conclusion either.

It's absurd, in my opinion, to expect them to recover swiftly from that. The Jews have had, literally, thousands of years. And finally, the Jews have a rich and recorded history to appeal to and draw upon for cultural unification. Africans don't have that. It was taken from them.

Well the duration is obviously ambiguous, but how long do you expect, another century? That's kind of outrageous.

I don't really get that culture point in reference to the argument here.

Well, crime is rampant for starters.

Well everyone knows that, but do blacks commit more per capita/whatever? Is it more because of widespread poverty and corruption? I don't know enough about Brasil

It wasn't only the South, actually. Blacks were despised in the North as well. Slaves living in the North were often lured or captured back into slavery. Violence against blacks happened in the North as well, not just the South.

Well obviously there were some instances of guys who were just as bad as the South, but the differences are large.

Also, Ireland wasn't invaded because of their religion. They were invaded because they lived on a country, which is land, and England always wanted more land. Religion is only a means of riling up the people: "Those mangy Catholics, lets go and teach them a lesson or two!" It was never primarily about religion. It never is.

Well any Empire wants more resources, but justification for slaves were based on savagery much like conquest of Ireland. I would be surprised to hear that England did not have widespread prejudice of Welsh, Scots and Irish in England today.

And look at the state of Ireland today. I wouldn't point to it as a shining example of how a country can bounce back after being invaded by an imperial power.

Well that was my point, but it's nowhere near the travesty that is black society in America.

Racism and imperialism are huge looming factors on the quality of life for certain peoples in the world today. Trying to suggest that they aren't, and that not doing anything to rectify the situation is some kind of ethically admirable action, amounts to congratulating oneself for hitting a child, in my opinion.

I get the imperialism point but not really on the racism part, at least in government/majority policy.

 

[Dak]

Depopulating by letting people die off? No, I don't think so.

What do you mean by "letting die off"? I'd rather you develop this out in more detail.

Antisemitism can be ethnically inflected, but not necessarily. Judaism isn't a component of biological makeup.

Judaism as a religion isn't specifically, but to be declared a Jew requires matrilineal ancestry. not only is this biological, but it is in stark contrast to the most other cultures and their patrilineal ancestry - and why? Because of all the slavery, rapes, pogroms, etc.

This assumes that the environment provided by the U.S. in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was the same as all other scenarios throughout history. It was not. The U.S. has never provided an amenable environment for the success of black individuals and families. Furthermore, my point in mentioning how the historical nearness of Atlantic slavery was to emphasize that it is asinine to expect blacks to have recovered from such a recent event. The Jews have had thousands of years to recuperate and establish themselves.

There is a difference in time to recover, and moving in the wrong direction utilizing methods and cultural facits doomed to failure. The Jews repeatedly pulled themselves up by the bootstraps as it were, even in their mytho-historical writings.

Maybe this is because of a belief in a sort of divine mandate. Maybe it is because believed and/or real cultural history (Read Nehemiah for an example of both history/divine mandate). What you see is the Nehemiah story repeated over and over throughout history in settings both individual and for whole groups of Jews.

They could whine about all the illtreatment for thousands of years, or they can start rebuilding walls out of the rubble. Rebuilding the walls works a hell of a lot better.

I refuse to believe that the "poor response" has anything to do with biology, intelligence, or the mineral makeup of black people.

I think that it should be obvious that there are various and significant differences between the races in terms of averages in all sorts of ways. Does that mean that any given person is incapable of certain things? No. Is it harder for me than an avg short black person to dunk on a 10ft goal? Yeah. But I don't think those sorts of things count as excuses. Your average person can do what they put their mind to. So then we have to look at culture. And I will readily agree that white people are significantly responsible for the prevailing culture of blacks in the US, and it is racistically motivated, but it isn't your typical Klan stereotype. Rather it is the "dogooders" and the Uncle Toms such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

None of these even come close to what was done to blacks.

Even after slavery was outlawed, blacks were hauled out of their homes and lynched. Their women (and men) were raped. They were imprisoned because of their skin color, something Irish and other ethnic groups never had to worry about. Furthermore, groups like the Irish participated and perpetuated racism against blacks. You make it sound as though it was all these different minority groups against some obscure White Majority. The Irish are part of the white majority.

A more recent phenomena than Black slavery. While the Irish in this country, or the Italians etc., were never treated quite as bad as blacks, the Chinese were so, albeit for a shorter time. Don't hear a peep about that. In fact, Asians are now considered nominal "Whites" when tech companies get hit for a lack of diversity. Why? Because a difference in response, maybe because the dogooders never latched on to them for a mealticket and some soulsalve.

As far as previous minorities participating in other racism goes: All races have racists. From anecdotal notes from Texas: The whites look down on the hispanics who look down blacks who look down on hispanics who look down on whites.

Blacks were made nonhuman subjects for over a century in this country, and then were turned loose with nothing. If you want them to bounce back from that in another century, then you're insane.

What's the difference?

But one of these turned out not like the other.

Those things are what white people said they could do. It was never dictated from within the black community that the only jobs suitable for them were in entertainment or the government. They were forced into these kinds of jobs by a white culture that denied them employment elsewhere.

I don't think you have anything to back these assertions up.

 

[SentinelSlain]

I don't think the reasons for the "poor response" are genetic, I think they're cultural, but I think the important point there is the difference between ethic culture and national culture. I think there's a limited degree to which black culture can be changed by legislation. Decriminalizing drugs is a notable exception though.

 

[Dak]

I think there's a limited degree to which black culture can be changed by legislation. Decriminalizing drugs is a notable exception though.

Now there's something I can agree with 100%. Drug laws have always been a perfect example of where dogooders, open racists, and rentseeking interests have found common ground, and it needs to end.