You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
That which makes African-Americans Singularly Different Than Other Minority Group
- Thread starter ByLoSellHi
- Start date
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
"Yet their populations live in more poverty, squalor, and brutality than American blacks could ever imagine?"
Yes, Africa did not have and does not have a materialistic culture...
Neither did the Native Americans...
So your point is?
Does this mean we can stop sending them money?
How do you know they are not materialistic? Have you ever been there?
Quote from Gio 2009:
Right, but it DOES have a culture of violence, poverty, starvation, and oppression. And it DOES very much resemble the black culture in the United States. In fact it very much resembles culture in black communities all throughout the world. So why is that?
I knew what you were from your first post.
You know where the word "Prussian" comes from? It was an old pagan tribe that was wiped out, completely massacred, by the Teutonic Knights who went in to "Christianize" that part of Europe.
They succeeded, by killing everyone who lived there, and replacing them with new settlers.
Within the living memory of a lot of people you can still meet at any time, one set of Europeans, some of them direct descendants of those Teutonic Knights, went in and massacred millions of others because they were different in some way as far as religion or race went. Over the border, on the other side, another bunch were murdering millions more because they didn't like their politics. These two sets then went to war with each other. The bones of the soldiers who died in the battlefields of that war, that killed still millions more, still come up sometimes when someone plows a field or digs a foundation.
And after all that, a mere generation or two later, you have the nerve to cite African brutality when talking about blacks. Amazing.
Just to show it wasn't just whites who could do this kind of thing, the Japanese were doing much the same thing at about the same time. A few years later, the Chinese would repeat it by murdering millions of their own, over politics. In Cambodia, it happened again.
So there you are. Whites and Asians did all that, over and over and over.
You are comparing apples with oranges. The violence you cite is warfare. The violence we here are talking about with regard to black community in the west and in africa is social violence- individuals murdering individuals, drug related killings, robberies, drunken/drug induced conflicts which end in death and a 10-life prison sentence. In addition to squalor, poverty, rampant drug abuse, child neglect, chronic unemployment, STDs at 5-10x the rate of the rest of the population just to start. This violence and these conditions are very, very distinctive from warfare. As apart from warfare, the other cultures you mentioned don't share the other features. I find your take on this to be a bit reductionist.
LOL. See, that's the problem with this kind of discourse. If you dare to step outside of the sacred PC bubble, you are either ignored or attacked. These reactions are typical of people who are experiencing fear. Whereas the other person Optional, has thus far ignored me, you have chosen to attack me (i.e.: your over dramatic "i knew what you were" etc etc) instead of simply having a frank discussion.
LOL. See, that's the problem with this kind of discourse. If you dare to step outside of the sacred PC bubble, you are either ignored or attacked. These reactions are typical of people who are experiencing fear. Whereas the other person Optional, has thus far ignored me, you have chosen to attack me (i.e.: your over dramatic "i knew what you were" etc etc) instead of simply having a frank discussion.
Quote from trefoil:
I knew what you were from your first post.
You know where the word "Prussian" comes from? It was an old pagan tribe that was wiped out, completely massacred, by the Teutonic Knights who went in to "Christianize" that part of Europe.
They succeeded, by killing everyone who lived there, and replacing them with new settlers.
Within the living memory of a lot of people you can still meet at any time, one set of Europeans, some of them direct descendants of those Teutonic Knights, went in and massacred millions of others because they were different in some way as far as religion or race went. Over the border, on the other side, another bunch were murdering millions more because they didn't like their politics. These two sets then went to war with each other. The bones of the soldiers who died in the battlefields of that war, that killed still millions more, still come up sometimes when someone plows a field or digs a foundation.
And after all that, a mere generation or two later, you have the nerve to cite African brutality when talking about blacks. Amazing.
Just to show it wasn't just whites who could do this kind of thing, the Japanese were doing much the same thing at about the same time. A few years later, the Chinese would repeat it by murdering millions of their own, over politics. In Cambodia, it happened again.
So there you are. Whites and Asians did all that, over and over and over.
Quote from Gio 2009:
You are comparing apples with oranges. The violence you cite is warfare. The violence we here are talking about with regard to black community in the west and in africa is social violence- individuals murdering individuals, drug related killings, robberies, drunken/drug induced conflicts which end in death and a 10-life prison sentence. In addition to squalor, poverty, rampant drug abuse, child neglect, chronic unemployment, STDs at 5-10x the rate of the rest of the population. This violence and these conditions are very, very distinctive from warfare. I find your take on this to be a bit reductionist.
LOL. See, that's the problem with this kind of discourse. If you dare to step outside of the sacred PC bubble, you are either ignored or attacked. These reactions are typical of people who are experiencing fear. Whereas the other person Optional, has thus far ignored me, you have chosen to attack me (i.e.: your over dramatic "i knew what you were" etc etc) instead of simply having a frank discussion.
No, what the Nazis did was murder.
What Stalin did was murder.
They then went to war on each other, and the hapless young men of their countries wound up fighting for these two murderers.
What the Japanese did to the Chinese and the others they conquered was murder.
What the Chinese communists did under Mao was murder.
What the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia was murder.
All of that was done by whites and Asians, within the past 60 or so years, and as I said, there are plenty of people around who remember all of these things. They're not that hard to find.
This is called a "strawman" argument. You are arguing against a point which was never made. No one ever denied that these wars happened or that there weren't people alive that remember some of them.
I was drawing a distinction between warfare and social violence/violent criminality and the state of abject social squalor blacks in Africa and across the world overwhelmingly tend to live in. This is utterly irrelevant to whether or not the aforementioned wars took place and whether or not people are alive that remember some of them.
I was drawing a distinction between warfare and social violence/violent criminality and the state of abject social squalor blacks in Africa and across the world overwhelmingly tend to live in. This is utterly irrelevant to whether or not the aforementioned wars took place and whether or not people are alive that remember some of them.
Quote from trefoil:
No, what the Nazis did was murder.
What Stalin did was murder.
They then went to war on each other, and the hapless young men of their countries wound up fighting for these two murderers.
What the Japanese did to the Chinese and the others they conquered was murder.
What the Chinese communists did under Mao was murder.
What the Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia was murder.
All of that was done by whites and Asians, within the past 60 or so years, and as I said, there are plenty of people around who remember all of these things. They're not that hard to find.
No, it's entirely relevant.
You are claiming that blacks are more brutal than whites.
The record does not show this.
I could go on: I have cited before that the Irish draft riots in NYC killed thousands.
Thousands.
More in one riot than the blacks of America have probably killed in every single riot they ever had.
The Irish at that time were marginalized and discriminated against, and probably felt they had nothing to lose.
That riot was unique only in its extent: whites continued to riot for years afterwards, when blacks began to move into the cities and occupy the same houses and try to get the same jobs they were holding. Conservative historian Paul Johnson, in his "History of the American People", said flat out that blacks learned how to riot from white people.
Human beings, when pushed to the wall or made desperate, will lash out or commit plain criminal acts. That is as true of an O'Connell as it is of a black man named Washington.
As for plain crime, look at some old cartoons: the old stereotype of a convict, in the North at least, was a white man with a distinct brogue.
Finally, this bs about the state being distinct: the criminality of the state is a mere extension of street crime - the Nazis had their Brownshirts, remember? And the Nazis arose out of the desperation of war and depression, same as did the communists in Russia. Desperate people do desperate things, and the precursor to it all is always, always poverty.
Anyway, enough. BLSH had a good point, before you came in with your BS. I apologize to all for this diversion. Carry on.
You are claiming that blacks are more brutal than whites.
The record does not show this.
I could go on: I have cited before that the Irish draft riots in NYC killed thousands.
Thousands.
More in one riot than the blacks of America have probably killed in every single riot they ever had.
The Irish at that time were marginalized and discriminated against, and probably felt they had nothing to lose.
That riot was unique only in its extent: whites continued to riot for years afterwards, when blacks began to move into the cities and occupy the same houses and try to get the same jobs they were holding. Conservative historian Paul Johnson, in his "History of the American People", said flat out that blacks learned how to riot from white people.
Human beings, when pushed to the wall or made desperate, will lash out or commit plain criminal acts. That is as true of an O'Connell as it is of a black man named Washington.
As for plain crime, look at some old cartoons: the old stereotype of a convict, in the North at least, was a white man with a distinct brogue.
Finally, this bs about the state being distinct: the criminality of the state is a mere extension of street crime - the Nazis had their Brownshirts, remember? And the Nazis arose out of the desperation of war and depression, same as did the communists in Russia. Desperate people do desperate things, and the precursor to it all is always, always poverty.
Anyway, enough. BLSH had a good point, before you came in with your BS. I apologize to all for this diversion. Carry on.
I don't think anyone would argue against the fact that other groups are more organized than blacks, with regard to violence or anything else for that matter. I also didn't claim that blacks are "more brutal" than whites, you simply manufactured that and imputed it on me.
Since you mention BS, I'll immediately proceed. The comical reference you made to the "Irish draft riots'' that you claimed killed thousands is simply bullshit. The "Irish draft riots" lasted 5 days and killed about 120 people because the Irish didn't want to go fight the civil war. You once again offer straw man arguments. Noone was arguing about what "conservative historian" has said about how blacks or whites do or do not riot. It's irrelevant and you are once again arguing against a point that was never made.
The murder rates in africa and in black america are several multiples of what murder rates are elsewhere, and the blacks in africa were never enslaved. The life expectancies are lower, literacy, STD, infant mortality, and child neglect instances are higher by an unfathomable degree as compared to western countries. Africa, while being the continent most plentiful in natural resources, has a lower standard of living than anywhere else in the world. All of your "irish riots" and "conservative historians" sort of evaporate in the face of this painfully obvious pink gorilla that no one wants to acknowledge, but why?
Since you mention BS, I'll immediately proceed. The comical reference you made to the "Irish draft riots'' that you claimed killed thousands is simply bullshit. The "Irish draft riots" lasted 5 days and killed about 120 people because the Irish didn't want to go fight the civil war. You once again offer straw man arguments. Noone was arguing about what "conservative historian" has said about how blacks or whites do or do not riot. It's irrelevant and you are once again arguing against a point that was never made.
The murder rates in africa and in black america are several multiples of what murder rates are elsewhere, and the blacks in africa were never enslaved. The life expectancies are lower, literacy, STD, infant mortality, and child neglect instances are higher by an unfathomable degree as compared to western countries. Africa, while being the continent most plentiful in natural resources, has a lower standard of living than anywhere else in the world. All of your "irish riots" and "conservative historians" sort of evaporate in the face of this painfully obvious pink gorilla that no one wants to acknowledge, but why?
Quote from trefoil:
No, it's entirely relevant.
You are claiming that blacks are more brutal than whites.
The record does not show this.
I could go on: I have cited before that the Irish draft riots in NYC killed thousands.
Thousands.
More in one riot than the blacks of America have probably killed in every single riot they ever had.
The Irish at that time were marginalized and discriminated against, and probably felt they had nothing to lose.
That riot was unique only in its extent: whites continued to riot for years afterwards, when blacks began to move into the cities and occupy the same houses and try to get the same jobs they were holding. Conservative historian Paul Johnson, in his "History of the American People", said flat out that blacks learned how to riot from white people.
Human beings, when pushed to the wall or made desperate, will lash out or commit plain criminal acts. That is as true of an O'Connell as it is of a black man named Washington.
As for plain crime, look at some old cartoons: the old stereotype of a convict, in the North at least, was a white man with a distinct brogue.
Finally, this bs about the state being distinct: the criminality of the state is a mere extension of street crime - the Nazis had their Brownshirts, remember? And the Nazis arose out of the desperation of war and depression, same as did the communists in Russia. Desperate people do desperate things, and the precursor to it all is always, always poverty.
Anyway, enough. BLSH had a good point, before you came in with your BS. I apologize to all for this diversion. Carry on.
So?
America has a culture of invading countries and imposing its will because America has better weapon's technology. So did Germany, Russia, Rome, etc.
America also has a culture of fat people, psychological disorders, alcoholism, violent gun crime, greed, corruption, racism, etc.
What is your point?
If your point is that you think your racist thinking is rational, then you would be wrong...
America has a culture of invading countries and imposing its will because America has better weapon's technology. So did Germany, Russia, Rome, etc.
America also has a culture of fat people, psychological disorders, alcoholism, violent gun crime, greed, corruption, racism, etc.
What is your point?
If your point is that you think your racist thinking is rational, then you would be wrong...
Quote from Gio 2009:
Right, but it DOES have a culture of violence, poverty, starvation, and oppression. And it DOES very much resemble the black culture in the United States. In fact it very much resembles culture in black communities all throughout the world. So why is that?