Why do some blacks moan and whine about slavery?

[paulpablo]

I agree with some of this because I'm white and when I was very very young I believed that white people seemed evil and all other races were peaceful until the white man came and corrupted them and enslaved them.
it was just after reading more into history I realized that it seemed to me that whoever has the upper hand usually fucks over the person who doesn't have the upper hand, and white people have generally had the upper hand in technology over the years.
But people of all races go to war and enslave each other it's just that white cultures have had the guns, germs and steel on their side.

that may be true but the op is still wrong or not making any sense. Just because it is something that has been going on for centuries doesn't make it right. And racism added fuel to the fire by claiming all black people were to be slave from birth till death like pets and farm animals. After 400 years of this treatment I don't see anyone in there right mind who wouldn't be a little angry at the idea and the people who were involved.

Well the part I agree with is the part where he says there's no point in hating white people because of slavery. There has probably been no race of people who didn't enslave other people, so there has been really no specific race of people who are to blame for slavery and saying white people are to blame is racism in itself.

The part I disagree with is the notion of not giving a shit about slavery in general, because I think people should give a shit about it but not blame certain races for it and instead concentrate on preventing it.

[festive1]

What about the dots along the way? First America had slavery. Then fought a civil war over slavery, making it unconstitutional. There was a brief period of time during Reconstruction where blacks were allowed to vote, and many were elected to various local and federal government positions. Then in rides the backlash, aka Jim Crow laws and the rise of the KKK and other such groups, which endured in many places until the 1960's (and beyond). With the Civil Rights movement we saw the abolition of many Jim Crow era laws and segregation, but not all... They morphed and were absorbed into modern day legal practices.
Example: mandatory minimum sentencing laws of crack cocaine vs. cocaine. I believe the figure is 1 in 5 black men in America today will spend time in prison, and that figure is rising. Compare the statistics of the frequency of jury recommendations of the death penalty for blacks vs. whites, and how many blacks vs. whites are actually executed.
The progression from slavery to Jim Crow to these modern practices is obvious. I think these are something to be pissed off about, not just for African-Americans, but any person who values equality and fairness in our justice system.
However, this is not condoning racism. The system is skewed, but one shouldn't practice prejudice against a person solely on the basis of their ancestor's actions by virtue of the color of their skin. These types of prejudices should not be codified into law, but, unfortunately, they are. There's a whole slew of issues tied into this, income disparity, educational systems and opportunities, housing opportunities, job opportunities, social mobility, etc., it's not just the race issue, though race does play into all of these problems.
IMO, the system needs to be recalibrated to create a level playing field for everyone.
The town I grew up in has a statue in memorial to all the Confederate soldiers who died during the Civil War standing in the town square. The statue itself never bothered me. What did bother me was the lack of discussion about how honoring the white, Southern heritage is at odds with honoring black, Southern heritage. By honoring one aren't we putting the other down? This is an important question, and I don't have the answer to it. As a country of immigrants (forced or voluntary) I think we need to have this discussion, as sanely and calmly as possible.

[frz]

Well the part I agree with is the part where he says there's no point in hating white people because of slavery. There has probably been no race of people who didn't enslave other people, so there has been really no specific race of people who are to blame for slavery and saying white people are to blame is racism in itself.

The part I disagree with is the notion of not giving a shit about slavery in general, because I think people should give a shit about it but not blame certain races for it and instead concentrate on preventing it.

Like I said, its because racism added fuel to fire that all black people were less human than the rest of the world and had to be slaved their entire life from birth till they die by any white person any where. So there is something to be angry about and who to be angry with. Because these white people everywhere took pride in racism, participate in it everywhere they find a black person, not just in the us but all over the Americas, Europe and Africa. No one ever agreed with slavery although it had always happened before with conflicting groups but, racism made it that any black person was automatically a slave to a white person only because they black.

[paulpablo]

By honoring one aren't we putting the other down?

I agree with this logic it's why I think black pride organizations shouldn't exist.

---

Well the part I agree with is the part where he says there's no point in hating white people because of slavery. There has probably been no race of people who didn't enslave other people, so there has been really no specific race of people who are to blame for slavery and saying white people are to blame is racism in itself.

The part I disagree with is the notion of not giving a shit about slavery in general, because I think people should give a shit about it but not blame certain races for it and instead concentrate on preventing it.

Like I said, its because racism added fuel to fire that all black people were less human than the rest of the world and had to be slaved their entire life from birth till they die by any white person any where. So there is something to be angry about and who to be angry with. Because these white people everywhere took pride in racism, participate in it everywhere they find a black person, not just in the us but all over the Americas, Europe and Africa. No one ever agreed with slavery although it had always happened before with conflicting groups but, racism made it that any black person was automatically a slave to a white person only because they black.

I don't understand your point, around the time that slavery was most common the people with the most power would obviously take the most slaves. Slavery didn't just happen because white people were racist, it happened because people fuck each other over and use each other a lot, especially in a time period where equality and human rights weren't as widespread. White people had the better technology at the time.

[frz]

I don't understand your point, around the time that slavery was most common the people with the most power would obviously take the most slaves. Slavery didn't just happen because white people were racist, it happened because people fuck each other over and use each other a lot, especially in a time period where equality and human rights weren't as widespread. White people had the better technology at the time.

When in Rome as the saying goes....

During Roman rule, how many people liked the Romans besides the Romans? Do I need to elaborate more?

[paulpablo]

I don't understand your point, around the time that slavery was most common the people with the most power would obviously take the most slaves. Slavery didn't just happen because white people were racist, it happened because people fuck each other over and use each other a lot, especially in a time period where equality and human rights weren't as widespread. White people had the better technology at the time.

When in Rome as the saying goes....

During Roman rule, how many people liked the Romans besides the Romans? Do I need to elaborate more?

The people who benefited from the technology of aqueducts and roman baths and roads and so on.

[frz]

The people who benefited from the technology of aqueducts and roman baths and roads and so on.

OK Roman, whatever you say.

[Godscreated]

You all want something to be mad about why not join in on the movement to end today's slavery, there are more people in slavery today than anytime in history. One of the sad things about it everyone turns their heads because it doesn't effect them, no different than in the past, we seem to have forgotten our lessons about the horrors of slavery, why, because it's easier to fight about the past. The past has nothing to fight over, it does give us a reason to fight in the present. But we don't, we would rather argue over the past it's so much easier to toss around words, than to actually get out and do something. I do not exclude myself from what I've said.

[frankiej]

Why can't we all just hate everyone equally?

[dazzn]

is it some inviolable "wrong" to point out that racism is wrong no matter the subject, and not when it suits one's agenda?

No, it just seems ironic for a moral nihilist to call anything "wrong" aside from, say, a wrong answer. Is there anything inherently illogical about hypocrisy? (It is possible that I am misunderstanding what you meant by this)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented,[2] whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.

So, if it isn't illogical, and there are no morals, then how can it be "wrong"?

In cases of intolerance, reverse hatred only increases tensions. it's not a mature or reasoned response. Hence, it makes the oppressed party no better than the oppressor.

---

I agree with some of this because I'm white and when I was very very young I believed that white people seemed evil and all other races were peaceful until the white man came and corrupted them and enslaved them.
it was just after reading more into history I realized that it seemed to me that whoever has the upper hand usually fucks over the person who doesn't have the upper hand, and white people have generally had the upper hand in technology over the years.
But people of all races go to war and enslave each other it's just that white cultures have had the guns, germs and steel on their side.

that may be true but the op is still wrong or not making any sense. Just because it is something that has been going on for centuries doesn't make it right. And racism added fuel to the fire by claiming all black people were to be slave from birth till death like pets and farm animals. After 400 years of this treatment I don't see anyone in there right mind who wouldn't be a little angry at the idea and the people who were involved.

Right and wrong don't really exist. Slave traders were/are acting in their own contexts, since I doubt human rights treaties/philosophy existed in the 1400s. Persons in early modern times didn't even endorse social equality, as the concept of the three estates of the realm was the political/social order.