As a follow up to yesterday's silly question, "Do I, as a white man, have guilt and thus obligations to the descendants of American slaves, despite the fact that I have never committed an act of enslavement?" If I don't, does the nation?
If you weren't a slave yourself, you don't deserve shit.
Any obligation that might have existed was to the former slaves, not to the descendants of former slaves.
How do I balance this out? I have white ancestors on both sides of the issue, a staunch Northeastern abolitionist and a southern Missouri Civil War 'bush wackier'. Where would any level of guilt end?
It balanced out when they died. You are your own man/woman. You are only guilty for your own actions. You have no guilt no matter how evil your ancestors are. All of our ancestors at some point have done atrocities against someone.
The nation does, yes. The nation also owes the Native Americans.
I think a good starting point would be to recall the medals of honor issued for the battle of wounded knee. That was a completely unnecessary slaughter by the army against unarmed indians. Nothing honorable about it.
And Sand Creek. Black Kettle had been promised protection, the camp was mostly women and children (the men were out hunting) and the soldiers attacked at dawn.
There has been nothing "honorable" about how this country has treated any group of people they considered "lesser".
Get over it. Do what you need to do better yourself.
I think that debt was paid by those who fought and died in the Civil War as well as those who were wounded and maimed. 625,000 dead is the ultimate price to pay.
I think we are past that. I mean, we even have a black President.
Ask one question at a time! Results dont reflect all 3 possible options (yes) (no, yes) (no, no).
Not guilt, but as humans we all have an obligation to promote equality and better outcomes for all.
Nobody is responsible for what has been done in the past. But yes we are all responsible for the inequalities still happening in this nation TODAY as an outcome of those actions. Not just any certain race though, all of us.
Exactly! People seem to forget that racism is fueled by our past with slavery and also still exists
I know! Racism didn't just come out of nowhere. It came from that oppression and violation of rights that occurred in the past. Just because they don't happen anymore, doesn't mean there's no effects on the generations after. That's idiotic honestly.
It really is. Historically speaking, those explicitly horrific violations didn't occur that long ago (slavery and explicitly racist policies like segregation and Jim Crow laws). I don't see how it's logical to think racism and hate just turned off
One day after slavery was abolished. It's ridiculous to me!
Do you? Who noes! Should you, absolutely not!
... knows ... thanks autocorrect
At least it's still pronounced the same
I wish the democrats could be a little more rational on this issue.
52% I'd democrats said yes?!!!!!! What kind of Marxist garbage is that?!
My "yes" was a protest answer. The question is clearly biased for leaving out all the inequality and racism that occurs now. We ARE responsible for fixing that.
Well, that's true. I didn't think about that. I guess I'll be changing my answer.
Wait, no! I shouldn't have to make up for the racism in the past!
If you want to actually answer the question, the answer will have to be "no". I just said "yes" since I don't agree with the question.
How long do I have to pay for the sins of my forefathers?
Forever. How long do those victimized have to pay?
So because of something people did 200 years ago I have to pay forever? Makes sense.
I don't think people are responsible for what their ancestors did, but we ARE all responsible for the inequality that continues to this day.
Example: black men and white men use illegal drugs at the same rate. Black men are about SEVEN TIMES more likely to be incarcerated for drug offenses. That takes an income earner out of the home, takes a dad away from his kids, and severely...
...limits career and earning potential once he's released. This kind of racial inequality can be crippling to entire communities. I'm no cop or judge, but I am responsible for speaking up about things like this.
Dream ... who is it that's out there killing all of the black men in our country? Opps ... I guess the answer doesn't fit the narrative.
Over 94% of black men are killed by black men! that's up another 10% in 2010. What happened MrO?
I agree with you on the drug issue. Would you support complete legalization.
Should be a "?"
Liberty, I don't have a good answer regarding drug laws. I don't condone drug use, but clearly, prohibiting it doesn't solve any problems. Marijuana should probably be legal. The thing I really take issue with is racial profiling and our horrible...
...justice system. I think our focus needs to be on rehabilitation. Right now, if someone is incarcerated, many times it just is a way for them to get trapped in the system of more crime.
Think: yes, homicide exists. Congrats for pointing that out. Do you want a cookie?
I don't condone it either, but I have no right to prohibit others from it.
Profiling is just a cosmetic issue. Take away the root cause, and there's nothing to profile.
Fair enough, although I'd argue that racial profiling has historical been (and continues to be) more of the root problem. Black people--more specifically, black men--are several times more likely to be arrested, incarcerated, and serve more...
...severe sentences across the board for all crimes. This occurs at a grossly disproportionate rate compared to actual crimes committed.
Equal numbers of white males killed in America are killed by white males. Where's your outrage about white on white crime? Didn't think about that, huh?
That's more like it. Republicans and Libertarians now running neck and neck 0% to 0%. Yes: The race tightens. Lol.
Anybody see the light and change their minds yet?
No, especially not from the video of that wack job, you tried to pass as legitimate.
You seriously still Stand by the white guilt/conservative are racist position? Am I misunderstanding you?
Interesting to me that all the supporting arguments I hear are hyperbole or attacks on the speaker or attacks of the sources or just plain insults and ostracizing if someone doesn't agree with the world view expressed. More like good ole boys at the
all agreeing in how liberals are destroying the world. No debate whatsoever. Impoverished whining at best folks. I'm usually setting in the corner just listening. I know what you say lol.
Not sure what you mean Komm - clarify? Not messing with you here need clarification.
I am just asking you if I have misunderstood your position or not. I have the impression that you are saying in general all conservatives are racist and that I owe blacks something because I'm white.
Lol. 0% Republicans vote Yes; 11% Independents vote Yes; and 9%
Libertarians vote Yes.
No need to explain why I think we all know the answer. I am surprised that fully 9% of Libertarians voted Yes. Guess I've got them all wrong perhaps.
That was just me screwing with the poll results. :-)
Looks accurate Sir.
Wow. So far 66% of democrats so far vote yes. Please explain why?
Liberalism is a mental disorder. That's all you need to know.
I don't understand what they think you owe anyone so I would like to hear what their suggestions are
Yea I'm interested to know why people are expected to feel guilty because of their skin color and nothing more. "White" people were also enslaved and treated no better. Most here, don't descend from white slave owners either.
So then does it follow that conservatism is a mental disorder as well?
Rosebud, your white slave argument is odd. Are you saying the Dred Scott ruling applied to Europeans as well?
Abo, are you saying you can't bring up that it wasn't just blacks disadvantaged? Only black slavery is worth getting in a tizzy about? Wow that's racist.
Name a country where whites were spaces because they were white then we can go from there.
If you can name a country that enslaved whites because they were white then you'll educate me today
So why someone was enslaved makes it better or worse? They were enslaved for being different. I want aware it was more worthy if that difference is race over any other reason.
Abolitionist Name every Country involved in the world wide slave trade, at the time.
Whites especially Christians were enslaved by the Barbary pirates in the 1700s-1800s who were from Northern Africa of Arab and black decent and of Muslim religion.
The first American firing near was against the Barbary pirates, ordered by Jefferson. Built the navy and sent the marines.
I can name one; my people. We are the Slavs; White Southern European. in fact, the word slave comes from Slav.
Rosebud ... that was very mean of you, to crush the poor leftist ideas with the facts! Why would you be so harsh?
*foreign war. Not firing were.
No. But I hope America understands racism wasn't over slavery when slavery was. To act like Jim Crow, humiliation, lynchings, etc didn't affect opportunity offered to blacks well after slavery is ignorant of American history.
And to act like emancipation, civil rights, quotas and affirmative action didn't affect opportunity offered to blacks well after slavery is equally ignorant of American history.
Yeah because civil rights act were working great in the south right? And emancipation? You being serious with that?
Well seeing as that my state has the ONLY black senator, I'd say it worked out pretty well. How many black senators does YOUR state have buddy?
Without civil rights act, blacks weren't going to be treated equal in a lot parts of the country, especially the south. What are you implying? That racism never existed or that 400 years of racial oppression was just going to end on its own one day?
I'm saying you act like it's still 1621 and we've made ZERO progress and haven't had government programs in place for 50 years to "fix" the problem. It's absurd.
And actually your history on civil right is incorrect. Blacks started making real progress in the 1940s and when government stepped in the rate of progress actually *slowed*.
It didn't slow in Kentucky until civil rights. Muhammad Ali won a gold medal for America in the 50s, had his gold medal on, walked in a diner and was "we don't serve niggers here." That didn't change until the civil rights act.
So Abolitionist, do you not call blacks niggers because some piece of paper says you're not supposed to? No, societies gradually change and behaviors improve. Credit your fellow citizens, not some damn bureaucrat who "makes you" be good.
Not unless you're a 200 year old ex-slave owner. Even then, you'd owe nothing to their descendants.
My family paid in blood for any guilt of slavery that could be assigned to it. First in the Missouri wars and then as part of the 92nd Ill volunteer infantry. I consider any debt paid in full.
What does your name mean, again?
Thekk is a name meaning welcome one. It is applied to oden. I adopted it when I lost the vision in my left eye, I also relentlessly seek knowledge am partial to wolves and ravens and enjoy mead.
No... that's idiotic.
Nonsense folks. All nonsense - check out the following.
LOL Tim Wise, the KING of white guilt.
Coolest guy on the planet. Ever listen to what he has to say it just label him. Lol.
Oh I have and he's a national joke, a complete fool.
Your option Scotty.
I listened. The poor guy needs help. He's mentally unstable.
Why do you two say such negative things about him? You dispute the factual accuracy of his citations? If so, can you provide counter-cites? Also, I didn't hear any "guilt" in his talk. If anything, he seemed to be pointing fingers, not internalizing.
Yea cowboy - I'm sure you want him silenced. Lol. He's crazy alright - going against all that hate is dangerous.
I welcome the mentally unstable leftists to talk. Guys, like him, show just how unstable you Leftists really are.
Cowboy is exactly right, that fool is infamous for all that white guilt and white privilege nonsense.
Thanks! Never heard of this ass clown before, and hopefully never will again. There's enough mentally disturbed people out there already.
Cowboy and Scotty - these are exactly the responses I expected but I doubt that you listened. Hopefully someone else will
- I'm thinking its rare you hear anyone refute your views.
So... Again, any facts to offer or just insults for someone who says things you disagree with?
I listened to the nut job. I'm now dumber for having heard it, so thanks for that.
Offer any facts? Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. With a 250 character limit I'd be here all day refuting his drivel.
Here's my question after watching most of that. Does he also blame the government for propagating white race, or just the rich? The gov LOVES segmenting people by color, not origin or nationality.
Scotty, just pick one then. Or a link to someone who supposedly refutes his statements. You called him "infamous," which implies that you are familiar both with him and with others who share your views about him. I'd hope SOMEONE has done some basic
research before completely writing him off.
Rosebud, he hardly lets government off the hook for its racial wrongs, but I'm not sure what that has todo with his points?
Wondering if he applies his views universally, or is just against segments he finds undesirable. Which would entirely discredit his arguments, even if they're otherwise valid.
Rosebud, please don't waste your time trying to understand a delusion man like Tim Wise. I've had the displeasure of following him off and on for years now and the man is genuinely insane. In-sane.
It wouldn't discredit his arguments; it would mean he himself was failing to apply them fairly. If I argue that the earth is round but also that oxygen is unnecessary for human life, the latter doesn't invalidate the former. It just means I'm not a
great spokesperson for the cause of science. Regardless, as I said, I've never seen ideological inconsistency from him.
Bethany, you seriously want to defend a man who's entire "career" is built on running around the country telling people racism is worse than during slavery and white privilege runs everything? That's just pathetic.
Scotty, what I want is facts. If he is actually lying as you claim, I want to know that. If my opinions are premised on bad facts, I want to know that. I have no interest in making arguments that are not factually supported.
You probably don't know this about me, but I used to be extremely politically conservative. Over time, that changed as facts were brought to my attention, including facts about the lingering effects of racial discrimination. Facts change my mind.
Bethany, those are two unrelated things. If you argued the Earth was round but Mars isn't, that'd be more comparable.
Read his books - very thoughtful stuff. People here think he's insane because he questions the entire construct of their world view. Nobody ever does that so the assumption is that we all agree - if we don't? Insanity is the only option.
Haha, okay rosebud, then pretend I said that ;) it was off the cuff. Point was that the hypocrisy of a speaker doesn't invalidate the message itself, just the speaker.
Funny you should mention that, my life experience is just the opposite. Believe it or not, Scotty was once a hardcore brain dead liberal. Borderline socialist. But then I grew out of my idealism and learned facts, not emotion, the basis of liberalism
No Brings, the entire construct of Tim's world view is far left quackery. He honestly believes racism today is worse than slavery, that we "stole" the southwest from Mexico and should give it back, and white privilege runs society. A total loon.
I've listened for a while now - so why are all your arguments based on insults and denials and no facts?
Bring, I'll be entirely honest. No, I don't read his books. My reading time is very coveted, in addition to the fact that I don't have money to waste on books (anything really). If it's not free to me and not enjoyable, I don't read it.
Scotty, I wasn't saying conservatives don't base their opinions on facts. I was saying that MY conservative beliefs were based on incorrect facts, and once I learned better facts, I changed my opinions. Some of those facts are things Tim talks about.
Can you share with me, then, some of the facts that led you to change YOUR mind? While your liberalism may have been brain dead and based on emotion, mine is not. I sincerely want any solid facts you can offer about this topic.
The description of my "brain dead emotional" liberalism was more of a swipe than an accurate description. Believe me, like now, I read voraciously and I based my opinion on the facts as I saw them.
Please note I am a libertarian, NOT a conservative. But the critical hit for me was when I started looking at the *results* of various policies, not the good intentions or the lofty philosophy they were based on.
I looked at things like Section 8 housing. Instead of the lofty goal of "helping the poor", I saw tenant buildings that within a single generation were so poorly maintained they just blew them up. But lo and behold, they built them right back.
Fair enough, Scotty, and thanks for the example. I agree that where facts show a policy is not accomplishing its intended purpose, it should be reevaluated and modified or abandoned. Housing is I admit not my area of expertise. I am a little bit more
educated about the statistics on employment and education, though - something I started looking into because I was afraid, as a young college student, that my high GPA and LSAT score would not get me into the school of my choice due to my race. One
of the first facts I learned was that white women like me, not non-whites of either gender, were actually the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action policies. This surprised me and made me do even more research. It all kind of went from there.
Thanks rosebud for your civil and reasoned reply. I'd just say as a voracious reader myself everyone's reading time is equally precious and as for wasting money on books - most places in the US have excellent libraries and can order what's not there.
Interesting, well in your research did you come across the fact that Prop 209 in your state has been a resounding success? C students from bad schools no longer get into Stanford only to flunk out.
Students are more evenly matched with universities that equal their abilities. Graduation rates are up, drop out rates are down, clearly affirmative action was hurting students in your state. Lofty goal, but bad results.
The local library's small here, and by wasting I mean I pick food and rent over new books. I love to read, but with a toddler, newborn, and a home to run I don't have much in the way of spare time.
I'm not QUITE clear on your question; prop 209 only applies to state government institutions, not to private schools like Stanford, which still has a robust affirmative action policy. If graduation rates are up since 1996, my initial suspicion would
be that this is probably due to increasingly qualified applicant pools (my understanding is applicant pools have been pretty consistently improving over the last 20 years). I would have to look into the specifics to figure out which variables to
consider, of course. Short answer is: I haven't looked into the effects of prop 209 specifically, so I don't know :)
My apologies, I only meant to use Stanford as an example of an upper-tier school. The graduation rates for public upper-tier schools in California have been going up since Prop 209.
And I appreciate the honesty, but when you take the time to fully research the subject you'll see that whenever affirmative action is ended, graduation rates go up and drop outs go down. This is backed up by my common sense example.
I'll take a look. It isn't impossible that higher rates of admission of non-white students may yield a correlation with lower graduation rates for any number of reasons; that said, graduation rates, while important, are not the only statistic that
matters in these types of discussions. It's something to be considered alongside other effects in evaluating affirmative action policies. But I agree that it is an important thing to be considered.
Btw Scotty I really appreciate your having this conversation with me. I think it is important to hear out people's basis for their beliefs. I think there is a lot more common ground out there than we often acknowledge. I'm always happy to find it.
Like Like Like
I need to get GTA V so we can go rob a liquor store together!
“History is not going to be kind to liberals. With their mindless programs, they've managed to do to Black Americans what slavery, Reconstruction, and rank racism found impossible: destroy their family and work ethic.”
Walter E Williams
The liberals currently owe the black people they are keeping poor and forcing them to go to underperforming public schools and telling them the only way to get ahead is to wait for the government to give it too them.
Lol at anyone that said yes.
No. Only people in the nation who do are the ones who actually owned slaves...but there are none left!
I hate when someone says we need to make up for slaver! My family didn't even come to. American until 60 years after the civil war
But a common theme in many debates is that the white man kept other down and still do so, so that's why groups like the NAACP are needed to even the score. Along with laws like affirmative action that gives preference to minorities over whites.
Affirmative action has nothing to do with guilt or anyone "owing" anything to anyone else.
Actually the idea behind affirmative action is helping a race or group of people that have been discriminated against
Right. It's about correcting the institutional and systemic affects of discrimination. Not about guilt and not about anyone "owing" anything, like I said.
Yes it does Beth. Its used by racists, that want to screw white, straight males, out of a job.
If individual white people take it as a personal indictment, that's unfortunate, but it isn't the point or underlying nature of affirmative action.
Google affirmative action and look at the definition
Cowboy, you're suggesting that the predominantly white male owners and managers of companies with affirmative action policies adopt those policies because they want to screw over other white males?
I'm familiar with the definition, MJ. How about you tell me which one you think I need to look at?
Is it different from the one you just posted?
@Beth Yes, CEOs HAVE to comply to the racist, Affirmative Action laws, or get fined, for not having enough minorities employed. How are you not aware of this?
So you wanna talk Affirmative Action - ok listen up:
Why do liberals think blacks cannot compete and have to have the standards lowered for them?
@brings Is that guy a joke, or just mentally unstable?
Cowboy, private companies do not have to utilize affirmative action. They have to comply with applicable anti-discrimination laws. But there aren't any laws REQUIRING private business to employ affirmative action policies.
That's because AA is unconstitutional
MJ, huh? Affirmative action isn't unconstitutional. Government affirmative action programs have been tested by the court - certain specific things like quotas are unconstitutional, but affirmative action itself isn't. Aa isn't law bc of a lack of
political will, not constitutionality. White people can be surprisingly defensive (quite the opposite of guilt, really) when the legitimacy of our privilege is questioned. Understandable in a way, but something we need to grow up past.
When looking for a job any use of race even for benign purposes it inherently suspect
Also it is illegal for college applicants to receive a boost in their applications (especially if they use a point system) due to race
I once overheard a conversation with my companies owner regarding why a certain employee hasn't been fired yet and his exact quote it "because he helps us meet a quota". Eventually he was fired and replaced with another person of the same ethnicity.
Komm, then either that person misunderstood company policy or the policy was likely a violation of anti-discrimination laws. MJ, you are correct that laws classifying people by race are subject to strict scrutiny under the 14th amendment. As to the
"Point" system you reference, I presume you're talking about Grutter v Bollinger? Again, that case found a particular form of affirmative action to violate constitutional protections - not ALL forms.
Brings, seriously, if you're relying on a certifiable nut job like Tim Wise you should check yourself into a psych ward... now.
You read the wrong case. There are two against Michigan state. Look at the undergraduate case
Bethany, look into the case a few years back where Pepsi was sued, lost, and heftily fined because their background check hiring policy "unfairly discriminated" against blacks because more black applicants had a felony background. And tell me there's no unspoken diversity quota.
I've read both, MJ, but you are correct that I mixed up the case names. Grutter was the one that found non-quota, non-points based affirmative action constitutionally permissible, like I said.
Rosebud, big companies like Pepsi are involved in a LOT of lawsuits. Can you at least point me to state vs federal ct, which circuit, etc.?
So Beth doesn't know about quotas? I'm so shocked... So tired of stupid people.
Cowboy, quotas are illegal. No name-calling. I have been nothing but polite to you. If you're unable to have a conversation about race without getting emotional and insulting, please refrain from taking part.
It's pretty easy to find. Just Google Pepsi background check lawsuit. It's quite prominent for the implications it gave to employers.
Rosebud, I found something on the EEOC's website about a settlement with Pepsi based on the EEOC's finding that Pepsi's background checks were discriminatorily used. Is that the lawsuit you're referring to? It's from a couple years ago.
Yes, it is. If you read the decision, they were deemed discriminatory because more blacks were affected than any other race. Why? Because more black applicants didn't qualify for the job based on Pepsi's hiring standard. In the name of "fairness", Pepsi had to lower their hiring standards to be fair
to black applicants.
Rosebud, the EEOC found that Pepsi's background check policy was not reasonably related to job qualifications (for instance, just being arrested but not convicted). The lack of relevance combined with disparate impact rendered the policy
according to the EEOC, so they settled the charge with Pepsi (settled, not litigated, to be clear; Pepsi agreed to make changes to its policy and pay a fine rather than litigate the charges).
rendered the policy discriminatory* according to the EEOC. Haha forgot an important word there ;)
Nope, and I don't either.