Conservatives Outraged!

Why haven't black majority nation risen up further?

Because they are constantly being told, by the likes of Sharpton and Jackson, that it is not their fault and it is all due to the system. The fact that too few black males grow up in nuclear families

and have a positive male role model is just ignored.
 
Why haven't black majority nation risen up further?

Good question. Well for one, the "black majority" unfortunately is fragmented and the goal of one group may vary from the goals of the other group. Although the "black majority" share in the universal goal of the pursuit of equality, there is the unfortunate realization that racism and discrimination still exist, not to mention the fragmentation of priorities. You cannot expect an entire community rise up for one common cause if the community is still battling several other issues. To make it more clearer that is like the immigrant Hispanic community fighting for amnesty and immigration reform. This particular community has one common goal: Immigration reform. Every member who is either an immigrant, illegal immigrant, or a descendant of immigrants have that common goal which is universal despite the nation origin of each person.


With African-Americans it is not so simple. One group may want compensation for slavery of their foreparents. Another group wants racial equality. Another group wants more social programs in the inner-city. Another group may want more funding for inner city schools. Another group wants more jobs. Each of these sub-groups within the major group all have varying priorities so alas, you cannot expect the entire black community to rise up with one common goal aside from racism and prejudice. It all varies depending on where you live.
 
Because they are constantly being told, by the likes of Sharpton and Jackson, that it is not their fault and it is all due to the system. The fact that too few black males grow up in nuclear families

and have a positive male role model is just ignored.

I disagree with you and I'm going to tell you why.

For the most part Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson appeal to the Baptist Christian people among the African-American population, not the generations after the civil rights movement nor the upcoming generations. This is the common flaw that I find in a lot of people mostly white, who view these men's actions. This is not to downplay their significance in the civil rights movement, rather, its to give you an understanding that these men speak to a particular group of people. People often think these two men speak for me, the black college students or the black homeless man pan handling in front of the liquor store. These men appeal to a specific population among African-Americans and it just so happen that its mostly the people who have lived during the civil rights era who go to "black churches" and are greatly influenced by the words of these men or the respective preachers who echo the same sentiments as these two men. In addition, I will say that there is still a continuance of racism in society and although it is not to the extent of the racism that my mother experienced and her mother's mother experienced, the playing field is not leveled.

Unfortunately due to the generational experience of racism I will concede that there are some who use this as an excuse to not excel further beyond their condition. I would not necessarily blame it on racism, rather I would say its a type of willful discouragement and in essence, its an excuse. But like I told TheDude the black community is fragmented because everyone has different priorities.
 
Which groups want to stop 25 percent of young black males going to prison.

The first rule of thumb is to get the idea of stopping people from transgressing the law of the land. That is the first thing we all need to understand that we cannot prevent people from breaking the law. Second rule of thumb is that in order to give people an alternative to commit crime we must understand the social conditions that influence people to commit crime. the better we understand the socioeconomic conditions that influence people to commit crime, the better and more knowledgable we become to learn better alternatives to make kids become positive contributors of society. Third is we need to combat social perceptions of impoverished people. We impoverished people become socially demonized all the time they tend to lean towards the "self-fulfilling prophecy" of acting out what society perceives of them anyway. In essence, if you believe a kid from the hood is nothing but a gangbanging thug and if you do not take that kid out of that particular environment and provide them an alternative the kid will become what society perceives what he or she is.

When my mother took me out of L.A after the riots that was the best thing she could've done to save my life because she placed me in an environment that lacked those negative elements (although I encountered a lot of racism) that could've influenced me into a life of crime. Which brings me to another point is that there needs to be individual role models. Not everyone is a role model nor can be one.
 
So not much rising above or call for change from the inside!
Lots of blame and good explanation.

From a universal aspect no. Like I said everyone's priorities vary depending on the community you live in. A lot of African-American students are trying to be active in the community which is a common ideal shared by a lot of black college students. But if you look at the people in the inner city who have never set foot on a college campus, their priorities may be different like finding a second job or staying out of jail. Nevertheless racism in society is never an excuse to not better oneself. Racism is never an excuse to not take a bath, or a shower. Racism is not an excuse to pick up a newspaper to look for a job, nor is racism ane excuse to get on welfare and to not get off of welfare. Racism is not an excuse to commit crime nor can someone blame the police for them wanting to rob someone.

I guess I can say i'm thankful that my mother instilled determination in me to continue and strive beyond the social barricades of racism by overcoming these challenges but I see myself as fortunate, not unique. If I were a black leader I would honestly try to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the ghettos by working with people to find out the necessary materials the people need (not desire or want) to improve their condition. The people in the inner city first and foremost need social funding such as funding for schools and jobs. Yeah minimum wage jobs may not be the best appealing, but if you can give people incentives to want to excel a job or a task people would be more inclined to do so.
 
Moving goal posts much?

Just because I showed pictures which appeared "post-slavery" does not necessitate that those actions did not occur during slavery,

Mischaracterizing much? Just because I said the lynching phenomenon happened primarily during post-bellum, doesn't mean it didn't exist during antebellum.

However, just as common, probably more common, was slaves being tried in actual courts for crimes. A little research will indicate the historical dockets are full of them.

Take the case of Celia in Missouri, 1855. She killed her master and put up a defense that she was the victim of repeated rapes by the master. After an involved trial, she was found guilty, and helped to escape from incarceration by sympathetic whites. She was recaptured and allowed to appeal her case to the Supreme Court.

Never heard of something like that? I'm not really surprised. If everything I knew about history came from what I learned from Hollywood, or what I was fed in high school and college, I would have never heard about anything like that either.

If you have an interest in history, read history on your own. Don't rely upon caricatures created for political ends or entertainment.

That said, from what I've read accounts like those of Celia seem to be most common in the border states and coastal areas, as opposed to the deep South. But I never really sat down to do any type of accounting, nor has any historian that I know of. If you're really interested, there's a project for you...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood,_Tulsa,_Oklahoma


Greenwood, Tulsa, Oklahoma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Greenwood is a neighborhood in Tulsa, Oklahoma. As one of the most successful and wealthiest African American communities in the United States during the early 20th Century, it was popularly known as America's "Black Wall Street" until the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921. The riot was one of the most devastating race riots in history and it destroyed the once thriving Greenwood community.

Within five years after the riot, surviving residents who chose to remain in Tulsa rebuilt much of the district. They accomplished this despite the opposition of many white Tulsa political and business leaders. It resumed being a vital black community until segregation was overturned by the Federal Government during the 1950s and 1960s. Desegregation encouraged blacks to live and shop elsewhere in the city, causing Greenwood to lose much of its original vitality. Since then, city leaders have attempted to encourage other economic development activity nearby.
 
To say there is no comparison is to miss the point. Granted slaves were often beaten and whipped, not to mention their complete lack of freedom. Look at living conditions; access to food, housing, medical attention, etc and you'll begin to see that there really wasn't much of a difference in those areas of life. Northern factory workers had to fend for themselves; which usually meant doing without and living well below the poverty line despite their work and income. Slaves were a massive investment, they cost a lot of money to buy, and simply a pure monetary interest in their slaves kept many slave owners from mistreating them.

Slavery was dead wrong, but to suggest that all slave owners tortured their slaves is also incorrect. So is attempting to say you can't compare the two labour practices. Northern immigrants often had no real way of leaving their miserable conditions since wages were frequently so low that travelling to the free farm land offered in the West was impossible for most of the urban poor at that time so effectively they were slaves.

I also gave you the example of women and children working down the mines in England and children being sent up chimneys, were they better off than slaves? How about all the men press ganged into the Navy what freedoms did they have?

I've visited numerous plantations, farms and mansions down the east coast, taken the tours and listened to the guides and even the most passionate Southerners didn't downplay how bad conditions were for slaves. Tiny cabins where entire families lived in a space smaller than my bedroom; learning how to survive on poor food, wearing cast-off clothing, having families split up when individual members were sold, illiteracy, being treated as less the human, I could go on and on.

Even though they got certain "entitlements" depending on the kindliness of the owner, those entitlements were pretty low on the scale of what people require to live a comfortable life. Slaves didn't live like a poorer version of their owners because they were property. Basically they got the barest necessities to keep them alive and working, not a chicken in every pot. Look up the definition of "soul food" to see what slaves were forced to live on. Nobody said that all slave owners tortured; however, slaves were severely punished when they tried to escape and shamefully our government was 100% on board with it. Note the Fugitive Slave Acts and the bounty hunters whose job was to recapture runaways and return them to the certainty of harsh punishment.

I have to shake my head at comparing slave conditions to those of poor northern laborers. Over time laws were enacted to alleviate the squalidness of urban life and northern laborers were able to organize to get better working conditions, even though the the pace of reform was often two steps forward, one step back. You wrote that "travelling to the free farm land offered in the West was impossible for most of the urban poor" yet millions did it by selling off their few possessions and living frugally until they were able to make a go of it in the new place. But the same didn't hold true for slaves because the fundamental difference was freedom.
 
We used to send children up chimneys and both women and children down mines but they weren't slaves so they were deliriously happy.

http://resources.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/homework/victorians/children/working.htm

You know I read a lot of British fiction and non-fiction, and last year I went through some Victorian-era mysteries by Anne Perry, her William Monk series. She was a careful researcher of the times and she showed the stark differences between the rich and poor. She wrote about the "mudlarks", little kids who hung out on the shores of the Thames and scavenged for whatever they could sell. There's no doubt that daily life was miserable for the poor. Yet when poor people both then and now try to better their circumstances you have the wealthy whining about redistribution, communism, entitlements etc. ad nauseam.
 
We read all Dickens' books retard. Why do you think we are liberals? More to the point, how could you not be if you actually read them?

These people should read Hard Times, it's one of my faves. I recently read Bleak House. Dickens was a genius at social criticism.
 
No, I said it would be a difficult decision based upon the circumstances.

What makes you say I "hate negroes"? (btw: why soften the word now?) You won't find a bigger supporter of the United Negro College Fund than me. :rolleyes:

(Shrugs) Anti-semites are not known for their logic.

I say that you hate negroes because you scoff at the fact that they were owned as property and comparing their plight as sub-human property as not significantly worse than working in a factory in the northern states.

And I wonder why you give to the UNCF, I would think that the myriad of kind and benevolent plantation owners and their progeny all over the south were taking care of that along with other commonplace bootstrap measures such as buying negroes $300K businesses and such. You yourself have all but said that you would prefer to be a black slave than a white factory worker.... because you felt the odds of benevolence on the part of your owners/bosses was better as a slave. In fact... that is the essence of your hatred of negroes: you hate them for the cushy life they led on the plantations whilst real hardworking white Americans struggled in the sweatshops of the north.
 
and I wonder why you think that your protestations of love for negroes should sway me in any way. I have made similar protestations of my deep and abiding love and friendship for and with the Jewish people and you still call ME an anti-semite.

What goes around, comes around. asshole.
 
Back
Top