Forostar said:
I wasn't talking about moral superiority vs moral inferiority, but merely about historical reality. More blacks in society means more exposure of social majorities to the blacks, hence more racism. It's really an easy calculation.
Can you pass the US Citizenship test?
- Thread starter SinisterMinisterX
- Start date
I wasn't talking about moral superiority vs moral inferiority, but merely about historical reality. More blacks in society means more exposure of social majorities to the blacks, hence more racism. It's really an easy calculation.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I'd swear I saw a different post some moments ago, ha!
But I am glad you changed it. I saw it just in time.
Still I find it difficult to accept that racism is simply a matter of mathematics.
Let's compare this with e.g. Russia. Black people are often discriminated, not because they are with many, but because they are different. Xenophobia. Also in e.g. Poland, many people want that everybody in their country acts and behaves like Poles. The same, same, same.
And the KKK was an American organization and I can imagine they also had xenophobic motivations.
But I am glad you changed it. I saw it just in time.
Still I find it difficult to accept that racism is simply a matter of mathematics.
Let's compare this with e.g. Russia. Black people are often discriminated, not because they are with many, but because they are different. Xenophobia. Also in e.g. Poland, many people want that everybody in their country acts and behaves like Poles. The same, same, same.
And the KKK was an American organization and I can imagine they also had xenophobic motivations.
Racism continues everywhere in the world, Foro. The USA wasn't even the last nation to free their slaves.
Yes, of course there was and is xenophobia in the US. Nobody is denying it. And nobody is denying that there was significant racism up to the 1960s. And of course it is important to research why this has been happening and why it is happening. But I personally think that going in and saying "what's your excuse for this?" is a very tendential approach, and it always feels like the one who asks the question is doing it to satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority.
Racism in America has and has had many different reasons. After the Civil War, many people still felt that the blacks were inferior to them, because they still had the mentality that the blacks were slaves. They grew up with it, and they were used to seeing blacks on cotton fields doing the dirty work.
Then, many blacks were poor and uneducated, often unemployed, and thus regarded as scum. It was perceived that an unproportionally large amount of blacks were poor, uneducated and unemployed, so many people believed that being stupid and lazy lay in the genes of black people.
Next, the South was devastated by the Civil War, and most people in the South knew the Civil War was led to free the slaves, so they made the blacks responsible for their misery, as a scapegoat.
There are many more reasons for the extreme hatred of white Americans against black ones. There is never the one reason, but many, in combination. One person may hate blacks for different reasons than another one does. People who have no logical reason to hate black people are often inflicted by the general mood to do so. At the same time, there are numerous examples of people who by all accounts "should" have hated black people, but stood in their defence because they realised how stupid racism is.
The reason? There were hardly any blacks in France and Germany in the 50's and 60's, so society didn't need to pinpoint them. The European "blacks" were the Jews prior to 1945.
Racism in America has and has had many different reasons. After the Civil War, many people still felt that the blacks were inferior to them, because they still had the mentality that the blacks were slaves. They grew up with it, and they were used to seeing blacks on cotton fields doing the dirty work.
Then, many blacks were poor and uneducated, often unemployed, and thus regarded as scum. It was perceived that an unproportionally large amount of blacks were poor, uneducated and unemployed, so many people believed that being stupid and lazy lay in the genes of black people.
Next, the South was devastated by the Civil War, and most people in the South knew the Civil War was led to free the slaves, so they made the blacks responsible for their misery, as a scapegoat.
There are many more reasons for the extreme hatred of white Americans against black ones. There is never the one reason, but many, in combination. One person may hate blacks for different reasons than another one does. People who have no logical reason to hate black people are often inflicted by the general mood to do so. At the same time, there are numerous examples of people who by all accounts "should" have hated black people, but stood in their defence because they realised how stupid racism is.
The reason? There were hardly any blacks in France and Germany in the 50's and 60's, so society didn't need to pinpoint them. The European "blacks" were the Jews prior to 1945.
It depends on where you are in the USA, too. Remember, some areas were quite reasonable and blacks hardly had to fight for any rights.
The KKK wasn't xenophobic, originally - it was against the American blacks. Really, it's a rather complex subject as to what the KKK is and what it was originally, and how it has changed over time.
But even if it took some extra time to get rights, at least there was no mass extinction attempt in which millions of blacks were taken to their deaths. I'm not saying that the history of Judaism is equivalent to the struggle of African-Americans; I'm just saying that Western Europe hasn't always been a nice place for people who happen to be different. Different cultures progress at different rates.
The KKK wasn't xenophobic, originally - it was against the American blacks. Really, it's a rather complex subject as to what the KKK is and what it was originally, and how it has changed over time.
But even if it took some extra time to get rights, at least there was no mass extinction attempt in which millions of blacks were taken to their deaths. I'm not saying that the history of Judaism is equivalent to the struggle of African-Americans; I'm just saying that Western Europe hasn't always been a nice place for people who happen to be different. Different cultures progress at different rates.
LooseCannon said:
Be careful, LC ... I don't think Foro knows exactly what "xenophobic" means.
Yax said:
Yeah, apparently!
Quote from Perun: The European "blacks" were the Jews prior to 1945.
Couldn't agree with you more on that one. Prior to 1945 there were very few people of African origin living in Europe, too few to have a movement against them. The United States may have a very tragic history when it comes to dealing with minorities such as Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, but European treatment of "outsiders" such as Jews and Moslems is nothing to boast about either. In fact I would go so far as to say that Europe is very racist, in a hypocritical way. Places like Sweden have the reputation of being a paradise on earth for immigrants, but there is rampant hatred for them here. When it boils down to it I think the US has tried to come to terms with its racism more than most European countries have (granted, I grew up in Austria, a very racist place).
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Yes, racism is everywhere but:
Racial segregation continued really longer in the States than in e.g. Austria.
(source):
Racial segregation in the United States has meant the physical separation and provision of separate facilities (especially during the Jim Crow era), but it can also refer to other manifestations of racial discrimination such as separation of roles within an institution, such as the United States Armed Forces up to 1948 when black units were typically separated from white units but were led by white officers.
Racial segregation in the United States can be divided into de jure and de facto segregation. De jure segregation, sanctioned or enforced by force of law, was stopped by federal enforcement of a series of Supreme Court decisions after with Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. The process of throwing off legal segregation in the United States lasted through much of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when civil rights demonstrations resulted in public opinion turning against enforced segregation.
-------
Try to believe this:
In the early 1970s(!!), in some states, black people still were in seperated prisons!
Racial segregation continued really longer in the States than in e.g. Austria.
(source):
Racial segregation in the United States has meant the physical separation and provision of separate facilities (especially during the Jim Crow era), but it can also refer to other manifestations of racial discrimination such as separation of roles within an institution, such as the United States Armed Forces up to 1948 when black units were typically separated from white units but were led by white officers.
Racial segregation in the United States can be divided into de jure and de facto segregation. De jure segregation, sanctioned or enforced by force of law, was stopped by federal enforcement of a series of Supreme Court decisions after with Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. The process of throwing off legal segregation in the United States lasted through much of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when civil rights demonstrations resulted in public opinion turning against enforced segregation.
-------
Try to believe this:
In the early 1970s(!!), in some states, black people still were in seperated prisons!
Yes, Foro. Segregation continued because there were people left to segregate. In Europe, a push to keep brownish people seperate from the rest of us didn't start until rather recently. Mr Wilders seems to be around the head of that charge.
Yes, but support is growing, that is for sure. The surprising result of Mr. Wilders's party in the recent elections should shows that. I think it is a sign that nowhere is immune to these sorts of racist happenings. Just that in Europe, there was noone left to segregate after World War II, really.
Warhurst
Invader
Wilders is scaring the hell out of me. I like to think of the Dutch being open minded. But more and more people are following the idiotic (at least in my opinion) ideas of this Wilders. He is dividing the country in a us and them way of thinking.
I can only dream that he will one day wake up and say sorry. But I think I will keep dreaming.
As for the test, 14 correct answers. Few I knew, many I guessed.
I can only dream that he will one day wake up and say sorry. But I think I will keep dreaming.
As for the test, 14 correct answers. Few I knew, many I guessed.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
LooseCannon said:
I've read and written about the KKK extensively and it had very innocent beginings. 6 ex-confederate soldiers were so bored in their town of Pulaxi (sp?) Tennesse, that they decided to start a social club. The goal was to entertain the town with stupid pranks and crashing parties. The membership grew rapidly and many took advantage of the "ghost" outfit to annoy the black population and later to flat out hunt them down. The founders of the Klan had little to no control on the evolution of the Klan into an "invisible army" that eventually reached 4 million members in 1920.
The original Klan of reconstruction in the 1860's was crushed by President Grant after he sent troops into south Carolina where the largest concentration of crimes were being committed. The "rebirth" so to speak was in the early 1900s when the greatest movie ever (no joke... also the most racist movie ever...) "The Birth of a Nation," based on the novel, "The Clansman," was released. The story portrayed the newly freed slaves as lazy, inept monkeys that did nothing, but lust after white women and portrayed the KKK as rightous and virtuous and the ultimate proctector of white women and... "whiteness".
For those who are interested, "The Fiery Cross" (1988) is an amazing read on the KKK. and "The Birth of a Nation" is a great movie from a cinematographic point of view. It was the progenitor of the longview and close-up shots, not to mention the first 'blockbuster'. and for early 1900's standards a freaking epic.
Onhell said:
And when D. W. Griffith saw what he had done, he made an even bigger film called Intolerance that featured, among other things, an incredibly spectacular visualisation of the (Biblical) fall of Babylon.
BTW, nice to see your Revolutionary outfit!
Yes, but it helps to understand the history of how such groups became so despised, Foro. You should know this - if we understand where groups like the KKK came from, we can keep our eyes open.