Subject:
|
Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Nov 2002 03:10:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1605 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > How did blacks get into the "less money" hole? Are you honestly trying to
> > sweep slavery, racism, Jim Crow laws, blocking of access to education,
> > discrimination in the workplace under the rug? If you pretend that this
> > didn't happen, then you can pretend that the current situation isn't the
> > outcome of racism?
>
> *Are* all blacks in the "less money" hole? • Why not? Why are millions well
> off, dispite all of the things you mentioned?
You choose to dodge my question, so I'll ignore yours for the moment. Are
you claiming that blacks haven't been put into a difficult position in the
first place due to factors mentioned above? You may ask any
counter-questions you have, and I will answer them to the best of my
ability, but kindly actually make a response first (yes or no, and feel free
to append your reasons for them, but address the question directly).
> Look at the people who are leading the reparations movement. Give me a break!
Neither here nor there. Look at the idiot leading the republican party. So
what?
> Not every wealthy white person owes their financial success to their ancestors
> getting rich off of their slaves. And what about us unwealthy white people?
What does that have to do with anything? You're bringing up reparations so
as to dodge answering the question about whether blacks have been placed in
a position of few resources and poorer prospects because of racism (past
and/or present).
>
>
> > > My point is that there can be other explanations as to why such disparities
> > > exist that are apart from any "inherent racism". The proof is that there
> > > are many blacks and other races doing very well in this country, and there
> > > are many whites that aren't. Looking to race to somehow explain these
> > > disparities serves no purpose (though might be statistically interesting to
> you, not me).
>
> > So history has no value?
>
> What "history" are you talking about?
C'mon John, don't be dense. I hate it when Scott plays that stupid game,
and you have to repeat everything in an attempt to pin him down to answer
the question when he full well knows what you are saying. What history did
I mention in the last message? (clue: look up at the very top: it's still
there for you)
> Why not examine the history of welfare,
> and how we have poured billions of $$$ into it and haven't made a dent into the
> problem of poverty. What will it take to reexamine the problem and come up
> with different possible solutions, because government programs ain't working.
> The dirty little secret is that people will take what they are given, and if
> they can eek out a life on welfare and not have to work, they will. It's human
> nature. What, I can get *more* $$$ if I have more kids? The welfare system in
> the US has created more problems than it has solved, but it has insured one
> thing: almost blind loyalty to a party that keeps promising them more welfare,
> while in reality hasn't done jack in terms of helping them get out of poverty.
> The numbers don't lie.
I responded previously regarding the welfare system - it's not germane to
the discussion, and it is the way it is because the republican party wants
to keep it's primary dependents (white women) just that: dependent. There
is no mechanism to get people off welfare, and that is the domain of the
Republicans. I have expessed my contempt for the system. I don't mind
welfare for the truly helpless, but I'd like to see a mechanism for people
to help themselves get off welfare for the vast majority.
I get the impression you don't understand that the primary benefactors of
welfare are white women....
>
> > > I'm just so tired of hearing people lumped together by race (the black
> > > community, the Hispanic community) These terms mean *nothing*; they are
> > > bereft of meaning and describe nothing of substance.
>
> > Different cultural values and background, often including religious and
> > linguistic differences. All those are "substance". What you really don't
> > want is to have to deal with anyone different from you - you wish they were
> > all the same. Certainly it would be easier, but pretending those
> > differences aren't there is telling yourself a convenient lie.
>
> Well, you might be correct if *all* blacks shared the same cultural values,
> background, etc. But they don't. There *is* no "black community"; it is a
> canard.
Never been to Compton, I trust. Basically, you are clueless as to what you
are talking about and you don't have the whit to admit it. Is there a
single and only "black community" (or "white comminity" or "hispanic
community" or whatever)? No. So what? We are still talking about vast
amounts of people. If you wish to subdivide it further, be my guest, but
the differences will still be there, just more specific.
*You* are the one who is guilty of trying to make them all the same by
> categorizing them in one group, when in fact, they are all of vastly different
> backgrounds, economic conditions, everything. The fact that they all happen to
> have the same skin color is irrelevant, which was and is my original assertion.
Actually "blacks" do not all have the same skin color. Far from it. I
don't even care for the term "black" in any case, but it's the accepted term
so that is what I use (Sub-Saharan Africans is a bit tedious, and somebody
would undoubtedly argue that anyway).
Anyway, the point is that the vast majority of blacks do have a common
heritage, which is what the point is.
>
> > > They serve no purpose except
> > > political gain and exploitation.
>
> > That's not exclusively true as noted above, though it does happen. Since
> > you admit that that does happen, why do you have a problem admitting that
> > blacks have been abused and exploited for gain in the past?
>
> In the past? I'm talking about *today*.
Clearly. The past upsets you and you absolutely dodge it every time it is
brought up. As to the present, are you honestly saying that no racism
exists today?
> Something like 90% of blacks voted
> for Al Gore? That is bizarre.
> Nobody holds percentages like that over any
> other group. Why is that?
I agree: it's bizarre that the Republicans are so totally clueless. Why?
The republicans are in denial (I would like to forward you as the classic
example).
> I might add that blacks are being abused and
> exploited *by other blacks*, such as charatans like Jesse Jackson and Al
> Sharpton. Not many whites can claim the damage these 2 have done.
Bush (either), Cheney, Nixon, Falwell, Robertson, Lester Maddox, George
Wallace, Jesse Helms, Judge Reinquist, etc. And these guys have held real
power and have been able to do real damage. Politicians are usually
scumbags - saying the other guy's politicians are the only scumbags is
either disingeneous or blissfully unaware.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...]
|
| (...) Not at all. Blacks *did* have serious civil rights issues. Most of the country has been able to get beyond simple racism. Today many blacks face many social and economic problems (as does everyone else!)-- but to continually blame racism is (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Buses & Beggers [Re: Vote against/for...]
|
| (...) *Are* all blacks in the "less money" hole? Why not? Why are millions well off, dispite all of the things you mentioned? I am not trying to sweep all of those things under the rug; I am calling for people who use such arguments as excuses to (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
161 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
