It depends. Are you inviting him over BECAUSE he's black? If that were the case, you could be guilty of singling him out because of race, and that would be unacceptable :shock:
Now go on this
-situation- An African American goes and eats KFC as often as a white person does. But theres a sterotype that Black people like Chicken. so the white man makes a racial remark.- what do you think?
Lawl, I dislike sensitive liberals. Always apologizing, always politically correct, always afraid to say it like it truly is.
Kali should have been warned/infracted as well, since he/she is blindly calling people racists. People with that sort of blind mentality annoy me the most, where anything you think or say is "racist."
Mods: please move thread downstairs.
This is why I hardly start threads up here as people cannot seem to post without personal attacks!
A world of academic research proving that the effects of slavery and racial discrimination Vs. People on an internet forum with little knowledge of the socioeconomic effects of 400 years worth of racial discrimination.
Tough call. Tough call indeed.
A world of academic research proving the effects of slavery and racial discrimination Vs. People on an internet forum with little knowledge of the socioeconomic effects of 400 years worth of racial discrimination.
Tough call. Tough call indeed.
A world of academic research proving the effects of slavery and racial discrimination Vs. People on an internet forum with little knowledge of the socioeconomic effects of 400 years worth of racial discrimination.
Tough call. Tough call indeed.
Moderator's Warning: |
Mods: please move thread downstairs.
This is why I hardly start threads up here as people cannot seem to post without personal attacks!
Excuses, excuses.
I wonder why brown skinned people in the rest of the Western world were able to recover and move on.
Excuses, excuses.
I wonder why brown skinned people in the rest of the Western world were able to recover and move on.
As far as the question goes. Yes, I am fully aware of not only repression but the after effects of slavery.
In comparing migrations to the U.S. one has to keep in mind that they were not all the same even though they looked like it on the surface. The migration of African slaves into the Americas was unique in that it was the only one where the immigrants were not accommodated within the American mainstream within 100 years. Today you would not be able to tell that there was ever anti-immigrant posters in Manhattan during the 1910s and 20s. You wouldn't even be able to tell that there was ever even any real discrimination against Italians. Less than 50 years after the mass migrations of the early 20th century Italians were able to own businesses, buy houses in affluent neighbors and amass wealth.
Eugenics was not born out of a need to create a better white race, it was born out of a need for white supremacists to define 'whiteness' itself. As physiological explanations for race lost out to theories of racially defined intelligence, the definition of 'white' began to expand to the Polish, Irish, Italians etc. However even before the definition itself expanded, the migrations of 'non-white' European immigrants were relatively similar to each other. None of them possessed the characteristics of the forced African migration to America.
That is not to say Italians, Polish and the Irish were not discriminated against. It would be foolish to make such a claim. What is being asserted is that the discrimination was entirely different and less extreme. This has been attributed to the fact that most of these groups migrated through the East Coast. In contrast, most Africans in America had been sent to the South. Southern resentment over losing the Civil War was expressed in the many Southern laws barring blacks from owning businesses. It was expressed in the segregation of schools. The South however was not alone in this discrimination as even in the early 20th century blacks had yet to make a real mark in Northern politics or academia.
The point I'm trying to make is that though it may seem to some that 'discrimination of blacks' and 'discrimination of Italians' might sound the same, the historical evidence proves that they are not. It's not that one was discrimination and the other was not. It's that they were different kinds of discrimination. Whereas most European groups had been absorbed by the American mainstream less than 50 years after their arrival, blacks endured a systematic discrimination that lasted well into the second half of the 20th century.
I would compare it to the continual distancing and maltreatment of the Jews in Europe for the last several centuries.
Ok, so how many Italian presidents have we had?
Maybe I should have included Jews as well, Americans didn't enslave Jews are you going to tell me we don't still see discrimation against the Jewish community? And you still didn't answer the question regarding your own "repression". How have you recently been forceably "held back" through legal means and can you attribute it directly to slavery?
Before you answer, please keep in mind that slavery legally ended 145 years ago in this country and even at its height, less than 1% of Americans owned slaves (only 10% of those living in the former Confederate states). I'm trying to stick to the OP here man, you should do the same. :shrug:
Doesn't matter, racism is racism and repression is repression.
Now go on this
-situation- An African American goes and eats KFC as often as a white person does. But theres a sterotype that Black people like Chicken. so the white man makes a racial remark.- what do you think?
Moderator's Warning: |
As far as the question goes. Yes, I am fully aware of not only repression but the after effects of slavery.
In comparing migrations to the U.S. one has to keep in mind that they were not all the same even though they looked like it on the surface. The migration of African slaves into the Americas was unique in that it was the only one where the immigrants were not accommodated within the American mainstream within 100 years. Today you would not be able to tell that there was ever anti-immigrant posters in Manhattan during the 1910s and 20s. You wouldn't even be able to tell that there was ever even any real discrimination against Italians. Less than 50 years after the mass migrations of the early 20th century Italians were able to own businesses, buy houses in affluent neighbors and amass wealth.
Eugenics was not born out of a need to create a better white race, it was born out of a need for white supremacists to define 'whiteness' itself. As physiological explanations for race lost out to theories of racially defined intelligence, the definition of 'white' began to expand to the Polish, Irish, Italians etc. However even before the definition itself expanded, the migrations of 'non-white' European immigrants were relatively similar to each other. None of them possessed the characteristics of the forced African migration to America.
That is not to say Italians, Polish and the Irish were not discriminated against. It would be foolish to make such a claim. What is being asserted is that the discrimination was entirely different and less extreme. This has been attributed to the fact that most of these groups migrated through the East Coast. In contrast, most Africans in America had been sent to the South. Southern resentment over losing the Civil War was expressed in the many Southern laws barring blacks from owning businesses. It was expressed in the segregation of schools. The South however was not alone in this discrimination as even in the early 20th century blacks had yet to make a real mark in Northern politics or academia.
The point I'm trying to make is that though it may seem to some that 'discrimination of blacks' and 'discrimination of Italians' might sound the same, the historical evidence proves that they are not. It's not that one was discrimination and the other was not. It's that they were different kinds of discrimination. Whereas most European groups had been absorbed by the American mainstream less than 50 years after their arrival, blacks endured a systematic discrimination that lasted well into the second half of the 20th century.
As far as the question goes. Yes, I am fully aware of not only repression but the after effects of slavery.
Eugenics was not born out of a need to create a better white race, it was born out of a need for white supremacists to define 'whiteness' itself. As physiological explanations for race lost out to theories of racially defined intelligence, the definition of 'white' began to expand to the Polish, Irish, Italians etc. However even before the definition itself expanded, the migrations of 'non-white' European immigrants were relatively similar to each other. None of them possessed the characteristics of the forced African migration to America.
.... which brown people in the rest of the Western world? Are you talking about black Brazilians? They account for most of Brazil's poverty.
Are those the 'brown people' you're talking about? Which 'brown' people in the Western world are you talking about?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?