Page 40 of 56 FirstFirst ...
30
38
39
40
41
42
50
... LastLast
  1. #781
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    18,385
    Quote Originally Posted by alturic View Post
    So what you are saying is that black people are almost inherently poor? It must be the oppression, right?
    Black people have a large sector of their society that is poor, yes. It doesn't owe to any deficiency inherent in the race itself, merely geopolitical circumstance.

    I suggest you take a look at Guns, Germs, and Steel to understand why Africa and much of the Americas are and were backwards-ass compared to Eurasian civilizations.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  2. #782
    Mechagnome NeonX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    681
    Quote Originally Posted by BreathTaker View Post
    And we lol at those who call them afro-americans, for lol, they're propbably not even from america and good guys, why are they offended?
    I think you've answered your own question, it's because people are lumping them in with all the negative stereotypes of black American's even though they are not from that culture.

  3. #783
    Quote Originally Posted by oxymoronic View Post
    Societies like who? And where are they now? I rest my case.
    You need to make one in order to have one.

  4. #784
    Quote Originally Posted by Booshman View Post
    And that's still "enslaving them"....
    I think you're missing the point here.

  5. #785
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    18,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Booshman View Post
    And that's still "enslaving them"....
    If you purchase someone as a slave, the enslavement has already been done. Furthermore, while people like to demonize Europeans for slavery; it was only European intervention that put down the slave trade in the first place.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  6. #786
    being disrespectful of someone regardless of the reason is a big deal

  7. #787
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    If you purchase someone as a slave, the enslavement has already been done. Furthermore, while people like to demonize Europeans for slavery; it was only European intervention that put down the slave trade in the first place.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enslavement

    "The state of being a slave."

    While Europeans did step in, it's a little known fact (usually to keep the self serving "Noble Whitey" trope alive) that there were already kingdoms which were in the process of abolishing it on their own. Some for moral reasons and others because it ceased to be lucrative.
    Last edited by Booshman; 2013-01-29 at 02:56 PM.

  8. #788
    Quote Originally Posted by Booshman View Post
    Actually the Zulu weren't that heavily invested in trading slaves to Europeans, when compared to Nigerian and Ghanaian groups. The two main groups who shipped the majority of the descendants of Black American and Afro-Brazilians. Your accusation that I'm "sugar-coating it" and "romanticizing things" is incorrect as I've already acknowledged that there was indeed trading going on.
    I'm saying you're sugarcoating it because you imply that 'well, the african slave trade wasn't all that bad...' They had good systems in place, and it was done honourably!
    Well; it wasn't. All those slaves that went to the Americas were sold by native groups. Sure; having defeated warriors as slaves for a few years was normal all across the world. Selling and buying, however, wasn't.
    You seem to imply that the Europeans enslaved them. Not true. They BOUGHT them. Those people were already enslaved. And this practice of slavery wasn't by far as honourable as you made it out to be.
    I could say 'Well; the vikings were really honourable because of their customs!' I'd be completely ignoring the fact that my ancestors made clothes out of Christian clergy. And books. And cups.

    Edit: For clarity. To enslave someone: To make them a slave.
    To be enslaved: To be a slave.
    You can be enslaved in the service of someone who didn't enslave you. Thank heavens the whole slave business is illegal in most parts, now, but slavery is still a hell of a large problem world wide.
    Last edited by Stir; 2013-01-29 at 02:56 PM.

  9. #789
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    18,385
    Quote Originally Posted by Booshman View Post
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enslavement

    "The state of being a slave."
    Look at definition 2. Plus, the verb 'to enslave' refers to the act of making a slave.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  10. #790
    High Overlord
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    191
    Only to those people that care.

  11. #791
    Quote Originally Posted by Booshman View Post
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enslavement

    "The state of being a slave."

    While Europeans did step in, it's a little known fact (usually to keep the self serving "Noble Whitey" trope alive) that there were already kingdoms which were in the process of abolishing it on their own. Some for moral reasons and others because it ceased to be lucrative.
    Yes, which they were before they were sold to the Europeans.

  12. #792
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    I'm saying you're sugarcoating it because you imply that 'well, the african slave trade wasn't all that bad...' They had good systems in place, and it was done honourably!
    Well; it wasn't. All those slaves that went to the Americas were sold by native groups. Sure; having defeated warriors as slaves for a few years was normal all across the world. Selling and buying, however, wasn't.
    You seem to imply that the Europeans enslaved them. Not true. They BOUGHT them. Those people were already enslaved. And this practice of slavery wasn't by far as honourable as you made it out to be.
    I could say 'Well; the vikings were really honourable because of their customs!' I'd be completely ignoring the fact that my ancestors made clothes out of Christian clergy. And books. And cups.

    Edit: For clarity. To enslave someone: To make them a slave.
    To be enslaved: To be a slave.
    You can be enslaved in the service of someone who didn't enslave you. Thank heavens the whole slave business is illegal in most parts, now, but slavery is still a hell of a large problem world wide.
    I'm still not sugarcoating it, because what I'm specifically doing is showing the contrast between African and Chattel slavery. It still sucked all around, in a general sense. The African version just sucked considerably less. This is inarguable, and is the specific point that I'm making.

    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Yes, which they were before they were sold to the Europeans.
    And still were after they were bought by them.
    Last edited by Booshman; 2013-01-29 at 03:04 PM.

  13. #793
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Yes, which they were before they were sold to the Europeans.
    Or middle easterns, for that matter. Or anyone else who was in the market, really.

    Slavery is not about race, by the way. Like I said before, it is still a huge problem. At the moment, the main regions for slaves to originate from are the Balkans and China.
    Quote Originally Posted by Booshman View Post
    I'm still not sugarcoating it, because what I'm specifically doing is showing the contrast between African and Chattel slavery. It still sucked all around, in a general sense. The African version just considerably less. This is inarguable.
    The fact that they didn't care about those slaves once sold begs the difference. The fact that the whole 'cork in rectum' practice was invented in those same regions (to make your slave look better, less malnourished) begs to differ. The fact that slave trains lost countless of people to dehydration and over-exhaustion before they even got to the market begs the differ. You're romanticising your (possible) ancestors (or, possibly, the people who sold your ancestors into slavery) because they're your (perceived) ancestors. I can sympathize; I'd love to romanticize mine; see them in a bit of a prettier light. Fact remains that, despite some beautiful customs and skills, our ancestors did abysmal things at some point. And they did so in horrendous ways.
    Last edited by Stir; 2013-01-29 at 03:05 PM.

  14. #794
    Quote Originally Posted by Booshman View Post
    I'm still not sugarcoating it, because what I'm specifically doing is showing the contrast between African and Chattel slavery. It still sucked all around, in a general sense. The African version just sucked considerably less. This is inarguable, and is the specific point that I'm making.



    And still were after they were bought by them.
    Which I'm not debating.

  15. #795
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    Black people have a large sector of their society that is poor, yes. It doesn't owe to any deficiency inherent in the race itself, merely geopolitical circumstance.
    Thing is the poverty is a symptom of institutionalization, The fact that not many positives come from the US welfare system is the new yoke of slavery. Perpetuated and expanded under the guise of progress, but as long as they keep voting one way... why not leave them there.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  16. #796
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    Or middle easterns, for that matter. Or anyone else who was in the market, really.

    Slavery is not about race, by the way. Like I said before, it is still a huge problem. At the moment, the main regions for slaves to originate from are the Balkans and China.

    The fact that they didn't care about those slaves once sold begs the difference. The fact that the whole 'cork in rectum' practice was invented in those same regions (to make your slave look better, less malnourished) begs to differ. The fact that slave trains lost countless of people to dehydration and over-exhaustion before they even got to the market begs the differ. You're romanticising your (possible) ancestors (or, possibly, the people who sold your ancestors into slavery) because they're your (perceived) ancestors. I can sympathize; I'd love to romanticize mine; see them in a bit of a prettier light. Fact remains that, despite some beautiful customs and skills, our ancestors did abysmal things at some point. And they did so in horrendous ways.
    You're right we are focusing too much on the African slave trade.
    Yes some practices were atrocious, unjustifiable.
    Slave trading is still in practice today by the way, sex slave trade. But that's for another topic I guess.

  17. #797
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    You're right we are focusing too much on the African slave trade.
    Yes some practices were atrocious, unjustifiable.
    Slave trading is still in practice today by the way, sex slave trade. But that's for another topic I guess.
    Just wanted to say that sex slavery at the moment is the most visible... But not the largest section of modern-day slavery. You can find quite a lot of examples in construction work, actually.

  18. #798
    The Insane Wildtree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Iowa - Franconia
    Posts
    17,048
    Quote Originally Posted by maddeliciousone View Post
    Since you're from Germany, I'm sure you've noticed the big discussion about removing some allegedly 'offensive' words from old children's books. The greatest shitstorm was started by the removal of the word 'Neger' (Negro). So, while some ppl complain about this being overly politically correct, I actually approve this action.
    That debate came up in the USA too. And I do not know what to think of it, honestly.
    I definitely don't agree when overly sensitive people try to alter literature. Like in the case of Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer. On one hand we put in question whether video games influence and desensitize the youth towards violence. On the other hand this ought to suddenly be valid with for the longest time seen as rather harmless, and high quality literature? It frightens me when a society starts to suddenly contests the content of books, and wants to ban them. The next step could be the burning of books. And that is never a good sign.

    Now I know, it's a word that has been used for a long time for blacks/coloreds in the German language (same as Mohr/Moor before that). Just think of the Sarotti-Mohr. Still, the meaning of this word has since been contaminated. While it was just a term to call out a certain group of people, the main usage now is to offend. Maybe not by you personally, but by enough people to be considered racist and wrong. So there's a pretty good reason for removing such words from old books imho. Same goes for the Negerkuss/Negrokiss.
    No, I cannot agree again. I do understand your sentiments. Fully understand them. But I don't approve of the method. You aren't removing the root of the problem. Because neither the books, the candy or the name are the problem. The people misusing it are the problem. By removing a word from the "library", from the usage, you won't remove the word from it's existence. Those jerks will still make use of it. In fact, in case of book and candy the obvious is present. Both are great examples to teach the next generations that the word is NOT negative. What are we doing next? Banning or altering Shakespeare's Othello? Rossini's Opera? I refuse to become paranoid. I refuse to fall into a perversion which could spiral easily out of control.

    I'm colored and I live in Germany. While I myself am (mostly) not offended by this word, I still understand the concerns. I don't think it's paranoid, I think it's considerate. And what's wrong with that?
    Nothing is wrong with being considerate. That's something everyone should be. If there's a lack of consideration it's our task and duty to teach the next generations, rather than banning, removing words, and alter literature. That to me is plain wrong.

    Being a proud German and called a Nazi equals being a believing muslim and being called a terrorist/islamist/extremist. I agree, it's plain stupid. But maybe it's wrong to be proud of being born in any way the wrong concept whatsoever? Why should I be proud of being German? Why should I be proud of being American? Why should I be proud of being Black/White/Colored? It's not really my achievement, I'm just born that way. Nothing to be proud of. I'm HAPPY that I grew up in a good and stable economy with all of its conveniences, but not proud of it. What I'm proud of is that I grew up to be a decent human being with a good job and that I have people around me who actually care about me. I think you get the point.
    Yes, I got your point And for a wide range I agree with that point.
    Yet, there's a reason to be proud though.
    Where it's true, we had zero influence where we've been born. That's literally like the luck of the draw. We have full control what we make of it. The way we live our lives is for the biggest part in our total personal control. We can decide whether we approve of our countries legacies. Pride of what the people, the community we are part of actively, make of the country. These are valid reasons to be proud of.
    For example I was proud of my country to refuse to go to war on Iraq. I cheered. I'm proud when my team gets into the World Cup Finals. And the list goes on.
    We Germans have a very big problem with national pride, and patriotism. That's acknowledged for decades. It's getting better again. We are still "wounded" by the last War. That was nothing to be proud of. And we are too concerned that the expression of national pride or patriotism gets easily misread as falling back into the "old" habit that got us into the mess with a dictatorship. I struggled with that too. But I outgrew it. I have nothing to do with those times. I wasn't born. I was born shortly after. And for a large part I helped and had my share as one part of the society to bring the country back up into prosperity, and to be recognized as a rather peaceful nation that's hesitant to support military actions. That's something to be proud of. And I am.

    Not trying to piss on your rug here, I get why ppl say they're proud of their nationality, but I guess in a lot of cases that's the root of all evil.
    No you didn't. You expressed yourself very well, and I liked your views, even if I didn't agree with everything. The last part again, I agree with.
    National Pride can very well lead to evil. We've been there. But it doesn't have to lead there.

  19. #799
    Quote Originally Posted by oxymoronic View Post
    I've done the forums things before on other sites and usually somewhere along the lines somebody will try to label me a racist. Over the years I've grown to accept it (dont really think I am though). I've never hurt somebody over race, hell I still hold a door open for somebody other than my race, I treat them absolutely the same irl but I am a lot more wary of some races compared to others. I guess what it stems down to is being a realist that acknowledges some races are prone to violence, drugs, and general mayhem. Don't really know what I'm trying to get out of this but I'm tired of others thinking racist people are bad. There is many degrees of racism, please don't lump all of us together and dismiss an individual so easily because he/she doesn't think like you.
    Race has nothing to do with being prone to violence, drugs, etc... Nothing at all. Poor upbringing, and general idiocy do. If I see a black guy in a suit, walking and talking like a normal person, I'm not even remotely going to consider him differently than a white guy in a suit walking and talking like a normal person. If I see a jackass in sagging pants, trying to act like a thug / ganster, I'm going to avoid his piece of shit ass regardless of black / white / mexican etc...

    Thinking of a person based on their race is terrible. Thinking of them as to how they present themselves isn't racist.

    Irony = a "racist" asking to not be lumped together with other racists. Please tell me this is a troll post.

  20. #800
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    Or middle easterns, for that matter. Or anyone else who was in the market, really.

    Slavery is not about race, by the way. Like I said before, it is still a huge problem. At the moment, the main regions for slaves to originate from are the Balkans and China.

    The fact that they didn't care about those slaves once sold begs the difference. The fact that the whole 'cork in rectum' practice was invented in those same regions (to make your slave look better, less malnourished) begs to differ. The fact that slave trains lost countless of people to dehydration and over-exhaustion before they even got to the market begs the differ. You're romanticising your (possible) ancestors (or, possibly, the people who sold your ancestors into slavery) because they're your (perceived) ancestors. I can sympathize; I'd love to romanticize mine; see them in a bit of a prettier light. Fact remains that, despite some beautiful customs and skills, our ancestors did abysmal things at some point. And they did so in horrendous ways.
    First of all, with all due respect you can scratch that "Dr. Phil-esque Pseudo Sympathetic Ear" tone.

    "They" (whoever you're referring to as it was totally different groups) didn't care, because they were slaves who were probably war criminals (whether they actually were or not is a different matter.) "Region" is just a wide reaching term, because a single region can house a few dozen different groups who engaged in different practices. This line of logic of yours is based on the assumption that Europeans didn't periodically lie to the Africans about their intentions, if the subject even came up at all. Factoring in that they weren't honest right off the bat in what they traded FOR the slaves, by giving goods that were low quality by European standards (cheap wine, dated rifles, mirrors, etc...etc....), I doubt they were upfront with what their real intentions were. Especially when you read about of the reaction of some chieftains/Oba/Alaafin/etc..., when they got wind of what their former captives were subjected to.

    It doesn't matter how many times you accuse me of it. Putting things in the proper light that conflicts with what you wish, isn't me "romanticizing" anything. It's being more accurate than what some "historically biased, feel good, blame shifting" scholars like to say. Who only accept one point of view (theirs) as "what really happened".
    Last edited by Booshman; 2013-01-29 at 03:37 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •