All generations who were legally slaves are dead. All generations who suffered the severe racism up to the mid 1900's will soon be dead. Black history month and affiramative action are discriminative things. It is ludicrous to believe any race owes any other in the United States for some past action.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

Caveat you are clearly disconnected from the urban communities in America where racism is clear-cut and very much still exists. You say 'severe racism' no longer exists, tell that to Oscar Grant and black people everywhere who have been unfairly targeted by police. Racism very much still exists in this country. Look at our prison population, look at the amount of black and Hispanic people in poverty... these are not the result of genetics, but of history, a history of subjugation and oppression. A history, I believe, that deserves some reparation. Affirmative Action is one place I'm unsure about, but I think a Black History Month is absolutely justified, and we can at least see the reasoning behind AA.

The historical record doesn't really bear out your claim with regards to Hispanics. Latin American immigrants haven't suffered much more discrimination in the US than Chinese, Italian or Irish immigrants (all of whom are, incidentally, far more successful). Spic hatred is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. Incidentally, statistical data suggests that Argentine Americans, Chilean Americans and Cuban Americans are, in fact, more successful than Americans of old stock.

I'm not saying genetics is necessarily the cause, but pinning it on "oppression" instead is laughably asinine. Jews have certainly experienced no shortage of historical oppression, and look where they are.

Indeed. Even German immigrants were discriminated against for a time, though never to the same degree as Irish, Italian, or Chinese ones. You've essentially said all that needs to be said in regards to placing anti-Hispanic sentiment in a historical context.

To add a personal example, however, my family has partial (1/4) Italian origins. We are very successful. My father is a major business executive who works with the CEO of IBM. This was hardly always the case, however. My grandfather was born in a ghetto in Brooklyn, the son of a mafia-affiliated pimp and a prostitute. He faced a large degree of discrimination throughout his life, due to his Italian heritage and origins in such an environment. Eventually, he found success through engineering and urban planning, after years of hard work. The experience of many Italian-American families runs rather similar to our own, finding success (even if only modest middle-class success) after living for decades in dirt-poor slums. In fact, they have only been fully considered to be a part of the white American mainstream since the 1960s. Irish-American families also went through similar circumstances, though they have been a part of the American mainstream since roughly the 1920s.

Lynching of Italian-Americans also occured, such as the 1891 lynching of eleven Italian immigrants in New Orleans. This was the largest mass lynching in American history. Need I even go into anti-Irish sentiment, with the "no Irish need apply" signs?

If you look at the history of Texas, you'll see a legacy of oppression of Hispanic people. Before the Mexican-American war, white slave-owners and ranchers would push Mexican landowners out of their space, and the ownership of slaves was against Mexican law at the time. When Santa Anna tried to enforce those laws and take back the territory of Texas, he was crushed by the American military after the battle of the Alamo. "Texas Rangers" as they were called would, similar to the minutemen of today (probably what you're referring to when you mention 'spic hatred') hunt down not only Mexicans but also Native Americans who resided in the area.

Regardless, Mexican people were never treated the same as whites and they are not to this day. Hence, they share a history of subjugation and oppression with Native Americans and Blacks, in the sense that they all suffered at the hands of the colonizing white man.

And I suppose the Chinese, Irish and Italians didn't...

The racism which I do not deny do exist within high-population, crime ridden communities is the result of separation in culture and of gang affiliation - racism brought upon oneself. Using the fact the black and hispanic male consist of the majority of all prison population in the U.S. is no correlation to the idea that they are targeted by police "because they are black/hispanic." Crime is concentrated in low-income, dense population neighborhoods, which are generally consistent of black or hispanic peoples.

Look to the prison systems, gangs within these prisons are stictly defined by race, and this is self-imposed.

It's silly to think a person is forced to be low-income, or to live in a high-crime neighborhood because of their ethnicity - that's stupid.

The Irish and Italians, and Germans as our Saxon friend mentioned, are fair-skinned so while they did experience some subjugation upon arrival, they assimilated into the culture in a more complete way than blacks or mexicans or american indians ever could. The Chinese have a long history in this country, and as TIG already mentioned, there was some anti-Chinese sentiment resulting from their involvement in Western economies. I absolutely did not mean to suggest that the groups I mentioned were the only ones ever to be oppressed in this country.



It is obvious that it is partly because they are targeted, but your last point is important as well. It is not black or white, one or the other, but it is a system that perpetuates itself.



It's absurd to deny that this has historical roots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_American_Heritage_Month



East Asians represent approx. 5% of the population and have not had any considerable effect on American culture as a group. The fact there's a number of "American-born Chinese" in coastal cities doesn't change the fact that, while they may individually be American, they're not as a subgroup, and certainly not to the level blacks are.



Sounds more like you're the disconnected one; racism in urban America isn't as prevelent as you believe. Black paranoia is more of a reality, racism being a convenient excuse for underachievement.

As I believe? You mean as I've experienced and seen. And I think it is that prevalent. It's under the surface, but it very much exists. Black people are paid less and hired less than white people. You think "black paranoia" comes from nowhere? You are sorely mistaken. I've grown up in one of these urban areas my whole life.

That's evidence of territorial expansion, not racism or xenophobia. Whenever a nation decides to expand its borders, the neighboring peoples will inevitably be pushed out or subjugated.



You're strongly misinterpreting my statement. Irish-Americans and Italian-Americans waited nearly 100 years to be fully assimilated. They were very far from it in their early days here. Historically speaking, they were discriminated against in America due to their ethnic origins for a greater period of time than Hispanics were.

They also have an avg. IQ 17 points lower than whites and regularly underperform in school; whether due to genetic or memetic structuring, blacks are largely responsible for their own failure. As it is, the only responsibility you can ascribe to America as a whole is the negative effects of some entitlement programs on the black community and family, such as public housing aiding the breakdown of the family by incentivising single mothers to remain so. However, well-intentioned social programs aren't "racism".



Actually, the southwest was largely unpopulated in the early 19th century, and similar to British Canada, Mexico found the easiest way to settle it was by encouraging American immigration.

He was speaking of the frame of time directly preceding the Mexican-American War, however, as well as a portion of the war itself. Citing a war of expansion as proof of xenophobia is absurd.

In Washington East Asians are 6.7%; blacks are 3.7%
In Oregon East Asians are 3.6% and blacks are 2%.
In California East Asians are 12.5% and blacks are 6.7%

Source.

Before the more modern times, there were considerably more Asians and considerably fewer blacks (and whites). Asians had have had a very significant and important role in the west, even if it was less pronounced in the east. I don't see why we can't just agree to that instead of pretending that something in the east has to apply everywhere. All the more reason for us to grab BC and leave Ottawa and DC.

Like I said:

No. Black history should be taught all year round along with world and American history. Additionally it should concentrate on the civil rights movement and how amazing strides have been and continue to be madel

This. There is nothing wrong with teaching it but surely segregating it into it's own month and claiming black people are not Americans and can't be covered in normal American history is insane and surely defeats the whole point of being anti racist.

Other: I don't really care

However, I think that people that vote yes, and also wish to live in a color blind society should be slapped in the face.



I single handily put Dominican Americans there as well...

Ninety-five percent of African-Americans have as much in common as Africa as I do (white Euro stock).
We share a common ancestor, Lucy, who lived in Ethiopia 3 million years ago. That's about it.
Most of them couldn't name ten African countries if their lives depended on it. Yet they want to be thought of as African. Bizarre.

Indeed, all the more reason to abolish black history month and teach American history, which integrates very strongly the history of blacks in America. From slavery to the Civil War to segregation to civil rights, the negro question is at the centre of American history.