(December 7, 2021 at 7:11 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I can clear all of this up for you, as an american. Yes, yes you would constantly screw with your buddy. That out of the way, talking about and being aware of our past doesn't make any of us hate our country. We're very happy to wave the flag even when - and sometimes especially when- we're up to no good.
If you cant name a problem, you're probably not going to be able to fix it. If your reaction to people pointing out the problem is to suggest that they're insurgents weakening the fabric of the country, you're part of the problem.
It depends on how they say it and to whom. Children and college students are more impressionable than older adults for example. Any objective facts can be presented in a manner that pushes an agenda.
CRT for example is just not an objective or even fair take on history or current events. It's more ideology than facts. For instance, it makes the false assumption that any disparity in outcome is proof of discrimination. Individual choices or other circumstances don't seem to be factored in. Intersectionality is purely ideological to me, I don't believe you can lump all these different groups (blacks, trans, women, atheists) together and somehow assume their issues are similar.
CRT is extremely myopic in its analysis of let's say encounters between cops and black suspects. Take for example the George Floyd case. It's clear that the cop Derek Chauvin used excessive force and that cops in the US seem to be poorly trained to handle a suspect going through some kind of drug crisis. But there's no proof that he was motivated by hatred of black people. Advocates of CRT don't consider that maybe Chauvin has an inherently violent personality or that he simply lost patience with a difficult suspect. That wouldn't be a good excuse, but it would show he wasn't racist.
To state or imply that Floyd was killed for being black (and by that extension if you're black, you might be next if you don't do something about it) is grossly irresponsible, not backed up by evidence any more than any religion is, and has sparked riots that actually got other black people killed. Floyd himself is not entirely blameless in the matter, he'd been in trouble with the law before, he got himself heavily intoxicated in public to the point where I'm not even sure his grip on reality was still there (you can see him in the video acting like a crazy person), he failed to follow lawful police instructions. Put yourself in his shoes (you can be black for the sake of argument) and realize that if you simply did what the cops told you, Derek Chauvin wouldn't even be present. Oh that's right, he was not the officer first responding to the scene, he only came after the previous officers failed to control him.
That's not to excuse Derek's poor judgment but I do say it to argue that it's extremely unlikely a regular black person would have been killed in this circumstance.
This is what many in the woke media do all the time, take a story, put a spin on it to weave a narrative of widespread racism that just isn't supported by the evidence and in fact is actually quite implausible when there are more likely explanations.
I also wanted to point out that you can have legit racist cops treating black suspects fairly. It all depends what they value more. Maybe some cops value their duty more than their racism. Thoughts don't always translate into behavior. This is why it's silly to try to equate all police brutality with racism.
Quote:You'd be wrong there, the country was well developed when europeans arrived. The forests and meadows were not natural..not even the amazon is raw wilderness. Little known but fun fact, the american agricultural machine - wonder of the modern world- is built on the native agro-forestry model that was in place when europeans arrived. A huge number of the early ships across the pond carried no farming tools whatsoever - and alot of the time it wouldn't matter if they had as their tools couldn't work these soils. Some parts were on the cusp of something like our own classical history, with the emergence of city states and nations. Persistent and active trade networks that stretched from canada to florida to california to south america. There were native american cities that matched contemporaneous london in population. There's an idea that it was a vast unpopulated wilderness because we wanted it to be, and depopulated it to match our own needs...and much of it remains that way today, amusingly enough. You don't see us allowing the creation of a new country out in the midwest, just because it's a bunch of seemingly empty fields and no big red line drawn on the ground, eh?
Well, the question I'd have is if there are any truly empty lands left in the world apart from maybe Antarctica or some remote island nobody cares about?
Pretty much everything of value has been claimed in some form or another. Even those empty lands in the US actually have some rangers overseeing them, there is satellite coverage, powerlines, police responds if it's ever necessary, like if you get lost there. It doesn't seem to be quite as empty anymore.
Either way, it's impractical to revert to what existed pre-US. The closest thing to justice would be having a libertarian-like system with low taxes so no faction feels like they're forced to follow rules they never agreed with unless the non-aggression principle is violated.
Quote:-but not easily built. The problem we have today has little to do with past slavery except as prelude for contemporary exploitation and disenfranchisement. You;re worried about hyypothetical millionaires but the actual problem in mere reality is closer to the ground. The wealth gap is pronounced. It's not that..maybe, a man could be a millionaire today if he wasn;t a slave yesterday. It;s that he doesn;t have a pot to piss in today because he was a slave, then a second class citizen, until living memory (and, perhaps, still is). It's that if he had so much as a shack that shack would be worth something today, distributed as the case may be among all of his descendants...just like everyone else. He didn't, so they don't.
Wealth isn't easily lost, btw, that's a recent blip...and it's amazing how apopolectic the white and delightsome have suddenly become over this issue that has been the state of affairs for non-whites in the country since it's inception. Maybe we should lean in on that, on account of how it's fucking deleterious to the state of a nations people.
Slave owners probably had a lot of money back in the day, but no, such wealth wouldn't survive to 2021 without effort, especially given the number of heirs, it would be very fragmented and people had way more children back then. An estate like that needs to be maintained else it crumbles to dust. Leave any property uninhabited for a few years with no maintenance, you're not going to be able to live in it. Land needs to be worked to have any utility, crops don't grow by themselves. Money needs to be re-invested into a profitable asset (like a good business) else it loses its value through inflation. This is how wealthy families are no longer wealthy after several generations. And very few white people actually had slaveholding relatives anyway. Lots came to the US with nothing to their name, do they still have this white privilege thing?
A slave could have earned some money and passed it down to his son or daughter so they wouldn't have to start from scratch. Or built a "shack" for them but keep in mind that shacks don't last a lifetime. If you can't maintain those properties they become worthless sooner or later.
Or (as is the case with many people of all races) he could have spent it all during his lifetime, leaving nothing for his descendants.
Or he may have had so many descendants it all got fragmented to the point it didn't matter.
Never rely on your parents for wealth or income. Build it yourself. And even if you get a lot, assume it's going to be lost very soon unless you invest it well.
Quote:Discrimination. The white man is being reverse racism-d
Rights abrogation. The white mans rights and protections are being eroded, his wealth transferred to non whites.
Stigmatization and the denial of pride. The country is being slandered.
Loss of self esteem. The white man is being villainized.
Racial Elimination. The white man is being breed out.
This sounds a lot like moving the goalpost.
White supremacy just means someone believes whites are better than everyone else, nothing more.
Believing that there is discrimination against whites is not white supremacy and the CRT proponents have a demonstrable bias against white people. You cannot genuinely say you're for equality and tolerance but then turn around and say things like:
- "racism against whites doesn't exist because whites are privileged" (as if this was relevant)
- "Whiteness is bad" (how would we react if people were saying Blackness or Jewishness is bad? you would think the article was written by a Nazi if you replaced "white" with "Jew")
- "the c-word isn't as bad as the n-word" (why?)
- "check your privilege, white people"
I'm actually sympathetic to a world where people just ignore race altogether and focus on common values and individual merit which is why CRT looks like such a bad joke to me. In fact, it's self-refuting. If you want people of different races to get along they have to follow the same standard, you can't have overt racism being tolerated just because it comes from a group that is oppressed or perceived as oppressed.
I could say the same thing about the other 4 points, those points could be valid or invalid, but they don't necessarily involve white supremacy. Some white supremacists bring them up, but so do plenty of people who aren't.
