[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43809301]No they weren't actually. Irish were cheaper as slaves and it got to the point where the Royal African Company stepped in and forbid breeding of Irish with Africans.
Irish were 5 pounds versus 50-90 pounds for Africans. It was a thing where at the time being Catholic was the fucking worse thing imaginable and they were seen as lesser than Africans because of it.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/ashorthistory/archive/intro99.shtml[/URL]
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_for_the_Settlement_of_Ireland_1652[/URL]
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
You do realize that the Irish in America were seen as pretty much scum up till literally the 1960's.
JFK being elected pretty much caused that to dwindle down.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
I'D ARGUE THAT IT'S STILL ACTIVE BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE GINGER.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
Tumblr argues that whites should take black penises as social justice and it's a large part of their community.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
I don't like the whole forcing them into poverty thing you got there. Black people in mass poverty was more of a result of their mass migration towards cities in the 1860's and 1960's.
If you look at the start of the boom of the middle class, it was entirely the result of people migrating to upstart towns rather than cities at full capacity.[/QUOTE]
Black people generally were not allowed into those upstart towns. Look up Levittown, its the prime example of this.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43809699]so it's the fault of black people that they're poor because they were just stupid and went to cities even though the money was in suburbs?
wow. never stop to think about wider causes for that? like the fact it's way cheaper to live in shitty inner-city projects and the fact that all the crappy, unskilled work is there? it's a vicious circle:
your parents have a shitty job
you go to a shitty school
you get a shitty job
you end up living somewhere shitty
your kids go to a shitty school
etc
claiming black people are mostly poor just because they were dumb and went into the cities is so stupidly blind[/QUOTE]
and this was largely a result of white flight as well. if black people moved into nice neighborhoods then all the racists would immediately leave, which meant that you had both less business owners and a lot less white people, forming a ghetto even if everyone there had a good education
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43804934]i know you're trying to be funny, but there is proof that employers are less likely to call back or follow up on job applications where the NAME sounds black (or at least non-white)[/QUOTE]
Statistically, someone with a stupid name will be more likely to be illiterate.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43809699]so it's the fault of black people that they're poor because they were just stupid and went to cities even though the money was in suburbs?
wow. never stop to think about wider causes for that? like the fact it's way cheaper to live in shitty inner-city projects and the fact that all the crappy, unskilled work is there? it's a vicious circle:
your parents have a shitty job
you go to a shitty school
you get a shitty job
you end up living somewhere shitty
your kids go to a shitty school
etc
claiming black people are mostly poor just because they were dumb and went into the cities is so stupidly blind[/QUOTE]
I never said that. I said that migrating to areas that were at capacity caused poverty. I never said that it's only black people, I said that theyre most likely to go into poverty as a result of going into a city of 1 million, now if there's 1.1 million there might not be jobs for those 100,000 but they're stuck.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cone;43810542]and this was largely a result of white flight as well. if black people moved into nice neighborhoods then all the racists would immediately leave, which meant that you had both less business owners and a lot less white people, forming a ghetto even if everyone there had a good education[/QUOTE]
White flight as a concept exists to point blame towards people who could get out. White flight didn't happen because of black people, white flight happened because of industries starting to ship overseas or the industries starting to die. Notice that generally white flight happened around, say. Early 70's, late 60's. This wouldn't be because of the civil rights movement, they were fine in the north and the west, only really being discriminated against openly in the south.
What also happened during the late 60's, early 70's?
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Nixon_Mao_1972-02-29.png[/img]
[url]http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06423.pdf[/url]
Starting in the 1960's, Off shoring and moving production in general caused the migrations, the whites and others who moved were already rooted and not just recent arrivals so they had the ability to move.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
Also, hint hint. The economy everywhere was bad in the 70's and didnt recover till the 90s.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
Basically my arguement against white flight is that it's easy to blame people when things get bad rather than look at the circumstance. With the shift from american manufacturing to overseas happening at the same time, along with recession and the crash of the oil market, people were getting the fuck and going to where they could.
These things didn't happen overnight, they happened over 15 years or longer.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
Seriously though. Blame white flight all you want, what happened at the same time involving blacks that were already in those areas was that they left to go back to the south while others were moving north and out to California. They were already there and saw things going bad, so they went back. If both the white people and black people are packing up and moving from the same area at the same time, I don't see how you can just shout WHITE FLIGHT.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Great_Migration[/url]
Just because people are moving doesn't mean that things are racially motivated. Read up on America in the 60's and 70's, real interesting stuff.
But lets look at London now, they're sort of having the same deal with lots of people moving out while others are moving in. Is it a result of racism? Not really. It's a result of prices being driven up because a fuck ton of people are moving into a city at the same time and the market reacts.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43810817]Statistically, someone with a stupid name will be more likely to be illiterate.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
I never said that. I said that migrating to areas that were at capacity caused poverty. I never said that it's only black people, I said that theyre most likely to go into poverty as a result of going into a city of 1 million, now if there's 1.1 million there might not be jobs for those 100,000 but they're stuck.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
White flight as a concept exists to point blame towards people who could get out. White flight didn't happen because of black people, white flight happened because of industries starting to ship overseas or the industries starting to die. Notice that generally white flight happened around, say. Early 70's, late 60's. This wouldn't be because of the civil rights movement, they were fine in the north and the west, only really being discriminated against openly in the south.
What also happened during the late 60's, early 70's?
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Nixon_Mao_1972-02-29.png[/img]
[url]http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06423.pdf[/url]
Starting in the 1960's, Off shoring and moving production in general caused the migrations, the whites and others who moved were already rooted and not just recent arrivals so they had the ability to move.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
Also, hint hint. The economy everywhere was bad in the 70's and didnt recover till the 90s.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
Basically my arguement against white flight is that it's easy to blame people when things get bad rather than look at the circumstance. With the shift from american manufacturing to overseas happening at the same time, along with recession and the crash of the oil market, people were getting the fuck and going to where they could.
These things didn't happen overnight, they happened over 15 years or longer.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
Seriously though. Blame white flight all you want, what happened at the same time involving blacks that were already in those areas was that they left to go back to the south while others were moving north and out to California. They were already there and saw things going bad, so they went back. If both the white people and black people are packing up and moving from the same area at the same time, I don't see how you can just shout WHITE FLIGHT.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Great_Migration[/url][/QUOTE]
I think its dishonest to say white flight wasn't because of black people.
Most of the suburban areas that popped up at the time specifically excluded black people from buying houses there, even outside of the south.
"when i say slavery you say sorry!"
"slavery!"
fuck you. my ancestors were Irish immigrants Scottish immigrants and German immigrants, we weren't even here at the time.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
still funny as hell since its SNL
Fuck you fictional character I didn't do anything :'(
Seriously guys I didn't come to this thread to hear your fucking family histories, the reason you shouldn't be sorry is that you weren't alive when slavery was happening. Conversely, the reason we have black history month isn't to guilt white people, if you feel guilty about it it's your own insecurity, we have it because the education system has and always will have a bias towards telling the white side of history. I've had legitimate arguments with a racist in real life that "black people have never had any significant scientific contribution" and that's WITH black history month. As much as people love to politicize and fight over black history month, ask yourself this: when was the last time anyone actually used black history month to actually try to teach you black history? It's a terribly underutilized thing but it doesn't stop people from crying "white oppression :'("
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43810817]Statistically, someone with a stupid name will be more likely to be illiterate.[/QUOTE]
So many things wrong with this...
First, source? Statistics are facts so you should have no problem proving it
Second, he said black names, you said stupid names. Where do you think your perception of these names as stupid came from? Because they're outside your cultural norm. So for one you're expressing subconscious contempt, but you're also using circular logic to confirm your own bias: "these names are used by black people, they don't assimilate and are therefore stupid, black people have these stupid names and are therefore also stupid"
And finally, the implication that using statistics to make all of your decisions despite their obvious racial and cultural is morally acceptable is dated as fuck and is essentially just a way to be racist without having to outright admit it and to perpetuate the status quo since most of these statistics used to keep people from getting a job are influenced by the fact that nobody will give them a job.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43811834]Fuck you fictional character I didn't do anything :'(
Seriously guys I didn't come to this thread to hear your fucking family histories, the reason you shouldn't be sorry is that you weren't alive when slavery was happening. Conversely, the reason we have black history month isn't to guilt white people, if you feel guilty about it it's your own insecurity, we have it because the education system has and always will have a bias towards telling the white side of history. I've had legitimate arguments with a racist in real life that "black people have never had any significant scientific contribution" and that's WITH black history month. As much as people love to politicize and fight over black history month, ask yourself this: when was the last time anyone actually used black history month to actually try to teach you black history? It's a terribly underutilized thing but it doesn't stop people from crying "white oppression :'("[/QUOTE]
The US education system likes to hype up a lot of things that didn't actually have an impact.
No one really gave a shit about the civil rights movement until the march on Washington and there's a thousand percentile inflation of the amount of people Harriet Tubman saved.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
If someone sees a name that they think is strange, they'll most likely just give it a glance before tossing it. I know this because I run a business and handle hiring.
I'm sorry if this may seem jaded, but after several dozen interviews with people who have 'Creative' names, they sour my perception despite me going to highschool with several of them. I don't care about their names, if I did I wouldn't give them a chance with an interview. Some I give a chance, some I don't. It's not about race in the context of hiring. It's about ability. If someone has less ability or less experience than another, I don't see why I would hire them instead of a person with a full resume and good references.
I never said anything about assimilation, in fact taking on the creative names is a recent trend and they were already 'assimilated' by the 1750's when the international (Not Internal) slave trade was banned in America.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43812046]they were already 'assimilated' by the 1750's when the international (Not Internal) slave trade was banned in America.[/QUOTE]
hahahaha
Do you actually believe this shit or do you just not know what "assimilate" means
Last I checked they couldn't name themselves unless they were free.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43812220]Last I checked they couldn't name themselves unless they were free.[/QUOTE]
Assimilated - adj. - Not being a slave
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;43812249]Assimilated - adj. - Not being a slave[/QUOTE]
Huh. This is odd. My definition here says that Assimilation means gradually accepting and identifying with a hosts culture and/or language.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
Also I love it when I get the opportunity to post this video whenever slavery is brought up.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CpJpGF8lS8[/media]
Seen here is an 'Urban' youth with dilemmas regarding his identity.
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
I'll point out a great thing that's done unintentional harm and was even criticized by civil rights leaders not even a decade after implementation. Forced Desegregation of schools/bussing in.
I'm sure that a person who is bussed an hour or two each way will perform pretty shitty in school simply because they're tired, which leads to a shitty education. Not their choice regarding schools, but the ones that succeed are those who adapt to it. Those who adapt go on to do good things since they understand early on that they have to put forth more than just a standard effort.
Forced statistics regarding minorities are awful. Some areas just don't have black people, not because they were denied the opportunity to live there, but just because there's less Black People.
(They also bussed people from suburbs to cities. Not just the other way around)
[editline]6th February 2014[/editline]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_v._San_Francisco_Unified_School_District[/url]
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43812278]Huh. This is odd. My definition here says that Assimilation means gradually accepting and identifying with a hosts culture and/or language.
[/QUOTE]
Yes I was mocking your ridiculous statement that assimilation occurred immediately after the international slave trade ended
re: dating a black woman
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;43769145]I could never because I don't take the entitlement seriously in a lot of them. That and the never wrong, I'm tough shit with no consequences.[/QUOTE]
Hi. Welcome to unstated sarcasm through the use of stereotypes while in a forum post.
I thought the post under it made it out that it was pretty unserious.
all your other posts make that hard to believe
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
