It won't make it false because your definition is what you believe either. It is simply a categorization, and one backed by science mind you. I've provided the book and author.
The definition of a word is backed by science? Now I've heard everything. Tell me, what experiments were run to test the definition. What controls were put on the experiment? What was done to eliminate bias?
No, providing a book and an author doesn't prove anything. Science was used to prove eugenics was true, too - and that was far more scientific than anything supporting a definition. We are talking semantics, not mathematics. Your author may well have documented some ideas to support his definition, and those incidents/statistics/etc. might all be true in themselves. That does not entitle him to redefine the word.
Not radically exaggerated at all. The British did not invest in America because they liked to vacation here. They did not defend these colonies because of the charm or "representative government." That's simply bullshit.
You didn't say the British colonized this country for slavery (which would also have been nonsense). You said this nation was built on slavery. I repeat that is nonsense, and whatever the original colonial powers did here is irrevelant except as historical background. The United States was built on the concept that representative government was superior to monarchy.
They did so because there was economic benefit to them. It was primarily tobacco in the 17th century. Anyone who has worked in tobacco fields and has familiarity with the crop understands that it is very labor intensive. At first it was possible to use indentured servants and a smattering of slaves. Those slaves were often given broad rights (under British and colonial law - NOT American).
Later, when tobacco plantations grew in size and the first major slave revolt took place in the Tidewater area of Virginia, slavery was fought by the House of Burgesses (you're shining beacon of representative government) the laws surrounding slavery were made far more strict. Slavery began to grow. As the country spread west it was discovered the another labor-intensive crop was able to provide for the economy of the textile mills in the North and in England - cotton became king. African slavery became even more integral to the economics of the United States. Dehumanizing blacks became more and more crucial both to economics and to society to justify itself.
Thanks for the history lesson. Now why don't you try looking at the history of the NATION, rather than the history of SLAVERY, which is only one small part thereof. This is, again, an example of bias. You view the United States as a racist nation, rather than as a nation which had - as virtually all nations have had - a history that includes racial strife.
Both are accurate. The first slaves arrived in 1619, sue me for rounding. The five years comes from the period where the Civil Rights Movement was able to effectively enact legislation to remove Jim Crow. The environment of white = normal and white = right still exists, so 400 years is spot on.
Baloney. Neither are acccurate. You overinflate the reality of the long history of racism in America to suit your view of this nation. You grossly exaggerate the progress of equality in this country by confining it to the few "effective" years of legislation. What absolute nonsense. So society is exactly where it was in 1964, huh? So Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 had no effect on schools? Hey wait, that's TEN years between a MAJOR civil rights victory and another MAJOR civil rights victory. That is DOUBLE your estimate without even considering the effect of the forty and fifty years we have lived since those decisions. And what about all of the court decisions that were still being made in the 1970's concerning school desegregation some 20 years after Brown? There is FOUR TIMES your estimate. So I would classify your estimates, even as estimates of effective government action to overturn racism, as the third kind of lie.
Proof? Evidence? [of racial problems since the beginning of time]
Shall I really get into scientific evidence of how certain groups of early homo species destroyed others? Or can we just get into looking at how early civilizations banded together to prey on other races? Shall I discuss rivalries between different groups, tribes, clans, religions, and all of the other kinds of distinctions? ANYTHING that sets one group apart from another, and that includes race, is a cause for strife. It wouldn't matter. I have seen the silly arguments that ancient civilizations didn't compete because of RACE but because of political rivalries, resources, etc. All of that is exactly true of American racism. But again, because it doesn't fit YOUR definition, you can excuse it as "different." I'm not an anthropologist, and the research (which would be quoted in vain anyway) is too time consuming to be worth it.
I'd certainly like to see it. I don't mean idle speculation, but real evidence. Let's see it. Discrimination based not on religion (that has been common, but is also learned), not on other differences, but purely on "race."
I rest my case.
I'm not complaining, I'm stating a fact.
The sky is blue. That is also a fact. And it is exactly as relevant to life in the United States in 2008 as your fact is.
You are still stuck on the minutiae. You and Plane both. This goes to the center of society as a whole. This is learned behavior, second nature of centuries of what is simply accepted to be fact. You're still talking about the fringe idiots like David Duke and the KKK. I'm talking about everyday society, not the extreme racist fringe.
Everyday society is not racist. You are making a false claim. Blacks are as racist as whites. Black culture is as racist as white culture, in fact far more so today. Black racism is just as real as white racism and is just as wrong.
Angry white male horse shit. Excuse my language, but that's a load of garbage and you know it.
I'm not worried about your language, I'm worried about what it conveys. What I stated is fact, not Angry White Male horseshit. THAT COMMENT is racist.
I'm a white man too, lest you forget, and I'm not the target of hatred and discrimination. I can see a system that is built for whites to succeed.
That's Angry White Guilty Liberal White Male Bullshit.
So this is why Detroit and Memphis are poor? Because of this "pervasive excuse mentality in African-American culture?" Or was it because black individuals just make a lot of bad choices or failures?
All of the above. More often than not the latter due to the former.
You talk about the Klan a lot. Are you forgetting that the Southern Baptist Church taught that Blacks were lesser than whites into the 1970's? Are you forgetting the White Citizen's Councils, which became the CCC to which Haley Barbour and Trent Lott addressed? There are quite a few people today that defend the Confederacy and claim that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War. Don't pretend that this racism was just a part of the KKK fringe. It permeates society.
Yes. Black churches TODAY teach that white men are evil. There are even white liberals who insist that only white people can be racist. There are people who defend Reverends Wright and Pfleger and other racists. Don't pretend that black racism is just part of the lunatic fringe. It permeates society. There is NOTHING you can point to today in white culture or in American culture in general that does not have a counterpart in American Black culture - or in any culture in history. Racism isn't a special discrimination, it is just another way of separating people by difference. It is not a worse evil than sexism or religious oppression or political domination. And it is no more a part of our culture than it has been for any other culture EXCEPT that ours is one of the few in history that deliberately tried to put people of many different backgrounds together and make one people out of them, so we get to see the real results, and that includes slavery, Jim Crow, religious oppression and sexism. This is one of the few societies who took those accepted differences of perspective, examined them, found them wanting and rejected them. THAT is also a part of our history which you choose to minimize, but it is what makes us unique as a nation.
Did I say that it is purely white? But how many blacks are taught this? And bullshit that white people don't have the power today. Go to a state legislature, Capitol Hill, the Fortune 400 boards and you honestly tell me that. You know that is a load of crap.
You've told me twice now what I "know." You have been wrong both times. I don't KNOW these things and in fact I know otherwise. How many blacks are taught that white is wrong? Oh, I'd say about twice the number (per capita) of whites that are taught black is wrong. But of course, I am making that number up. Fabrication works pretty well for the left, I thought I'd give it a try. In reality, I have not done a "scientific" study of how many black people are taught to hate whites. I wonder if those who have done your so-called "scientific" studies have done so? It seems that if we are studying "white male deviances" and other such myths, we ought to be studying the whole picture instead of just the self-serving portions.
"White male deviances" is a racist term.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
I am speaking of societal projections and even provided a very good example. Plus, scientific studies have shown this to be true. I never said "all white men," I am speaking in societal terms through the creation of myths.
Myths like "white male deviance" perhaps? Scientific studies have shown that black people are intellectually inferior to whites. They have also show that homosexuality is a mental disorder probably caused by mothers being too close to their sons. Scientific studies have a history of proving whatever the sponsors want them to or whatever the individual biases of the observers support. In fact, such studies are seldom "scientific." They are, instead, statistical. They find trends and present them as facts. My son likes to find mathematical relationships in things that do not actually have relationships. It's easy to do. It is far more easy to do when you define the result in advance. I have, for fun, shown several correlations between Lincoln and Bush in another thread, similar to the Lincoln-Kennedy series of coincidences that have been played up for years. There is no real relationship between those Presidents (other than the obvious historical ones) but the game is fun to play. That's all your "scientific" proof is. It's the same, incidentally, with the "scientific" proof that homosexuality is genetic.
MLK was not a tool of the oppressor of course, but has been turned into something he was not. He was a Christian Socialist. How many people learn that in school? How many people learn that he wanted to redistribute wealth to the poor and that he was a major supporter of unionization? Ever wonder why? Because the powers that be write the history books. MLK is written up as a guy who preached nonviolence and got everything he ever wanted when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Now we can all eat peaches and cream and watch Pollyanna!
I understand what Cornel West calls the "Santa Clausification" of King. But he was, in spite of his personal politics (with which I differ) and his moral deficiencies (which make him no less of a great man - we all have faults) a leader who did dream of an end to racial disharmony. I expect if he were alive today he would be a crochety old hell-raiser screaming like Al Sharpton and demanding slave reparations. But I hope that is not true. As it is, he died young and left a legacy that everyone can benefit from. Adams and Jefferson were political rivals who were often out to cut each other's throats, and best friends as well. We get differing opinions and theories of the union from them both, but we can benefit from both. And Jefferson was a slave holder who probably boinked at least one of them (as I believe you may have pointed out). So what? The work he did was not the completion of the dream of a free, classless, equal society, but it was damn sure a pretty big step in the realization of that dream. Even MLK said his dream was deeply rooted in the American Dream - and he wasn't talking about home ownership. The fact is, King's dream has a lot more to do with moving beyond racial differences than your "white male deviance" and mathematical miscalculations do.
I think that bitching about how white males have lost their place in society when clearly that isn't the case doesn't help either.
I think that if you are characterizing my posts as bitching about how white males have lost their place in society you have more than proven my point.
