• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Joe Biden: White America 'has to admit there's still a systemic racism'

Not that it matters to your fantasies, but I don't support "the Lost Cause." I' m correcting you on points of the history that you're getting wrong all the time, conflating groups with separate agendas because it gives you some illusion of superiority.

Yes, some former slaveholders joined the KKK, but some KKK members never owned slaves; they just wanted to keep black people down. Neither that abstract goal nor the criminal means used for that purpose are in any way admirable to me. But I don't have to be a Lost Cause supporter to point out that you're garbling an important historical subject with your scattershot readings.

Except you are doing no such thing. You are spewing long debunked drivel that southerners like because it protects them from having to face the reality about what their ancestors did. You see the same sort of historical revisionism in places like Turkey and Japan.

That doesn’t make it any better ! Nor does it change the really basic historical fact that former Confederates were the backbone of th Klan.
 
I haven't abandoned the Black Panther case in the least. I gave you one example from the film and you replied, in essence, that reverse racism was OK with you. Why would I waste further arguments on your closed mind?

No, you gave a rather silly example of your feelings being hurt because the filmmakers decided to toss the treatment of African Americans back in your face. That had nothing to do with “reverse racism”.

I agree. Why humiliate yourself further spewing moronic fantasies to justify your rage over a movie?
 
Good way to dodge the point. Your funniest yet, I'd say.

I'll poke the beat by asking the same question another way: does anything Donald Trump writes about his motivations bear the same instant level of honesty you find in whatever Union Congressmen you think told you the absolute truth in their writings?

Considering the fact that Donald Trump is a pathological liar.....:eek:ne would have to view other writings of those around him as well rather than his alone.
 
Except you are doing no such thing. You are spewing long debunked drivel that southerners like because it protects them from having to face the reality about what their ancestors did. You see the same sort of historical revisionism in places like Turkey and Japan.

That doesn’t make it any better ! Nor does it change the really basic historical fact that former Confederates were the backbone of th Klan.

Even if former Confederates were the sole members of the Klan for the next fifty years following the Civil War, they did all die off, as you ought to remember.

Therefore, it doesn't take a lot of brains to realize that any Klan members who joined AFTER that cannot be accused of "slavery," because slavery was no longer legal.

Why it isn't enough for you to say that the KKK is, across the board, guilty of racial suppression is beyond me. But no, you've got to say that everyone in the KKK was guilty of slavery, despite the fact that no KKK member born in the 20th century could practice slavery.

But, like most Lefties, you substitute overwrought buzz-words for even the most basic logic.
 
No, you gave a rather silly example of your feelings being hurt because the filmmakers decided to toss the treatment of African Americans back in your face. That had nothing to do with “reverse racism”.

I agree. Why humiliate yourself further spewing moronic fantasies to justify your rage over a movie?

Who is specifically guilty of using the term "boy" to African Americans? If Joe Whiteguy has never said it, is he automatically guilty for what his ancestors did? Can any modern black person call Joe a "white boy" because that black person thinks it's OK to insult Joe on the theory that his ancestor must have used the insult?

Similarly, while it's verboten today for any sympathetic white movie-character to call any black character "boy" regardless of the context, BLACK PANTHER shows the New Black Privilege by showing that sympathetic black movie-characters to hurl the insult at people who have not displayed any racism-- which is the case with both of the adult white guys who are called "boy" in the film.

You're amusing in that you think the film made me mad. It's just stupid, and I'm pointing out one of its minor stupidities.
 
Considering the fact that Donald Trump is a pathological liar.....:eek:ne would have to view other writings of those around him as well rather than his alone.

That's not an answer. You claimed that all the people you admire, people who have been dead almost for a century, were completely truthful in what they wrote.

Tomorrow, when I have the reference in hand, I plan to post one of the political speeches of a particular Union politician who boasted that his motive for keeping free states free was to make sure that they were open to white labor. Not because he was repulsed by slavery; he just didn't want his base, white laborers, to fear having possible revenue cut off by the institution of slavery.

And that too must be utterly true, because hey, it appeared in print.

Gee, you're so easy.
 
Actually, forget the reference i mentioned in my last post. Here's one in which a contemporaneous politician-- as quoted in Jeffrey Rogers Hummel's EMANCIPATING SLAVES, ENSLAVING FREE MEN-- commented on why he and his fellow travelers were "lenient" with White Southerners:

"Wherever [Negroes] have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism... Of all the dangers which our nation has yet encountered, none are equal to those which must result from the success of the effort to Africanize half of our country"-- President Andrew Johnson, Hummel, p. 299.

Aside from proving my earlier point, this quotation speaks to the OP regarding America's racist heritage. It should be noted that although there were people who believed, contra Johnson, that Negroes could be redeemed as productive citizens, Johnson's beliefs would have been unsurprising in his day because no one back then knew anything about African culture but extravagant travelers' tales.

The lesson should be, however, not that Johnson's example "proves" systemic racism, but that at a certain point in history, white people didn't know anything about black people. Ignorance is not quite the same as a conspiratorial attempt to downgrade a given race, as one sees in the racial theories of de Gobineau or the rhetoric of the Ku Klux Klan.

More, while I would unhesitatingly say that President Johnson's statements were morally wrong even for his time, I don't necessarily think that everything that gets called "racist" today is such-- as we've seen most recently in the Ralph Northam matter.
 
Back
Top Bottom