When did racism end? - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14910643
One Degree wrote:It is idealism without a basis in reality.

This is where I think you get lost ... Idealism is not based in reality, it's based on Ideas. Idealism creates reality, it doesn't rely on it for justification.

Zam :hippy:
#14910646
Zamuel wrote:This is where I think you get lost ... Idealism is not based in reality, it's based on Ideas. Idealism creates reality, it doesn't rely on it for justification.

Zam :hippy:

So you are free to banish Southern Culture while idealizing Indian culture even though the ‘civilized tribes’ were aligned with the South? You are right. The views have nothing to do with reality. They are blind bias.
You seem to know history, but I wonder how many people are aware neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor the 13th and 14th amendments applied to the Indian nations. Their population was 14% slave and did not end with these acts. Why do you not hate them for their slavery?
#14910648
[quote="One Degree"]
.... wonder how many people are aware neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor the 13th and 14th amendments applied to the Indian nations. Their population was 14% slave and did not end with these acts. ...
/quote]

Please provide evidence for this claim.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14910650
One Degree wrote:So you are free to banish Southern Culture

Possum belly for dinner washed down with shine = Culture ? Yeah, shotgun it and dump it in the river.
The upper crust breeding children with their slaves and then selling them ...? Yeah, burn it down and plow it under.
while idealizing Indian culture even though the ‘civilized tribes’ were aligned with the South?

Pretty sure those "Civilized Tribes" didn't amount to much and not at all aware that I had "idealized" them. Have you had a few ?
You seem to know history, but I wonder how many people are aware neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor the 13th and 14th amendments applied to the Indian nations.

I don't think people focus on what history "does not apply to."

Zam :roll:
#14910651
Pants-of-dog wrote:


All you have to do is read them. They spell out who they apply to.
#14910653
Zamuel wrote:Possum belly for dinner washed down with shine = Culture ? Yeah, shotgun it and dump it in the river.
The upper crust breeding children with their slaves and then selling them ...? Yeah, burn it down and plow it under.

Pretty sure those "Civilized Tribes" didn't amount to much and not at all aware that I had "idealized" them. Have you had a few ?

I don't think people focus on what history "does not apply to."

Zam :roll:


Okay, I take back saying you appear to know history. Look up ‘civilized tribes’ and see how foolish your comment is.
Otherwise, nice to know you are not about to let facts change your blind bias.

Edit: Slavery was ended by individual treaties with the different tribes. This should be obvious, but we often overlook the obvious when confirming our biases.
#14910658
One Degree wrote:All you have to do is read them. They spell out who they apply to.


So no evidence.

Please learn to debate.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14910661
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and I claimed that racism can be perpetuated while the laws are followed, andI also said that does not mean that the laws themselves are racist.


So we are agreed that the laws themselves are not racist. Great.

They are simply implemented in such a way that racism is the social impact. I can think of many other examples that have this same dynamic, such as Voter ID laws.


This depends on what counts as support for racism. I will continue that argument below.

Dog whistle terminology is used to make racism socially acceptable by communicating racism to people who find it socially acceptable, while trying to avoid criticism from those who are opposed to racism.

Obviously, racism is socially acceptable to a large percentage of the population. This is true even if it is not acceptable for another large percentage of the population.


Racism, a way of thinking so socially acceptable that, even though it is believed by a large percentage of the population (supposedly), its adherents are forced to communicate in coded language and secret handshakes, lest they be exposed. :lol:

Yes, I listed the residnetial school system.

Here in Canada, we underfund indigenous communities so that they have no hospitals or schools, then we use that as an excuse to take their children away. This then allows us to have indigenous kids raised by white people, which in turn disrupts the passing on of culture.

This is literally cultural genocide.


Oh for fuck's sake. This is literally MUH WHITE GENOCIDE for indigenous people. :roll:

But we can point to indicators that feudalism ended, such as global capitalism. Do you have any indicators that racism ended?


Civil Rights Act.

As I said, please look up “residential school system”.

Let me know when you get to the mass graves and medical experiments without consent.


What? In the last 50 years? Show me the evidence. Put up or shut up.

So you have no argument as to why taking land from indigenous people is not racist. Got it.


I've already given you the argument, you've just chosen to ignore it.

No, the social impact of saving a nazi’s life may be completely insignificant. Police support of racism is not.


Both can be socially insignificant and both can be socially significant. You just chose to believe which is which when it suits your argument, and besides that you have no good reason for believing why saving the life of a (as I said many times before) PROMINENT Neo-Nazi is of no social significance.

Yes, the defendant is the Muslim man. He is, after all, the ine being charged with a crime.


And for the umpteenth time. What is the name of the prosecutor? Are you saying that the defendant (the Muslim man) cooperated with the prosecution in his own trial? Why can't I get a goddamn straight answer out of you on any of these questions?

So four different studies show that Trump used racism to boost his power, but you dismiss them all because you feel they are leftist.


I haven't dismissed them at all. I've showed you way they do not prove your claims or are seriously flawed.
#14910663
Pants-of-dog wrote:So no evidence.

Please learn to debate.


Please note: @Pants-of-dog is actually refusing to accept the wording of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th and 14th amendments as evidence. Lmao

Edit: @Pants-of-dog did you even see my edit above showing the obvious way slavery had to be abolished in the Indian nations?
#14910677
Saeko wrote:Racism ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the martyrdom of MLK Jr. This ended racism as both official state policy and mainstream ideology. It is no longer considered acceptable by anybody to harbor racial prejudice.

That's not to say that there are no more racist people.


You can't legislate away how people think. Racism is alive and well, it exists among all races today. Every single one. Tribalism and "fear of the other" is ingrained into our DNA as an evolutionary survival mechanism and can be rid of by using our rational minds rather than our animal instincts (ie: education, critical thinking) and also by exposure, so that we learn to not fear people who are different. Laws will help but not solve the problem alone.

Making a mainstream ideology illegal doesn't destroy it, it drives it underground, and people still think it and discuss it privately amongst their friends and family but will never admit it publicly for fear of social and legal repercussions.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14910695
Unthinking Majority wrote:You can't legislate away how people think. Racism is alive and well, it exists among all races today. Every single one. Tribalism and "fear of the other" is ingrained into our DNA as an evolutionary survival mechanism and can be rid of by using our rational minds rather than our animal instincts (ie: education, critical thinking) and also by exposure, so that we learn to not fear people who are different. Laws will help but not solve the problem alone.

You speak truth, but you take it out of context. The proper context inre: "Death of Racism" here is the death of it as a government sponsored policy. That sponsorship did indeed die (at least until Trump came along.)

As to "fear of the other" let's try that as "fear of the unknown." (a very real consideration) The passing of the last generation raised under government sponsored racism, and integration (especially of schools and housing) are working on that fear. There is progress. My blond haired, blue eyed, daughter lived and was pre-schooled in a black neighborhood. Her primary schooling was integrated with Mexican and Indian kids. She never realized they were minorities. Her mother was a black haired, olive skinned Slovak (true Aryan) and I'm of Scandinavian extraction. These days she confesses to being a little uncomfortable in all white groups ...

Making a mainstream ideology illegal doesn't destroy it, it drives it underground, and people still think it and discuss it privately amongst their friends and family

And with time (generations) it gently fades away. Racism still lives because it's fostered by people who draw money and power from it. We're working on that.

Zam
User avatar
By Verv
#14910707
Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free to provide evidence.

The evidence, so far, shows that we were ethnically cleansing all land east of the Mississippi.


... We literally made treaties with them to preserve settlements and tried to come to precise deals to avoid bloodshed and the likes.

I just.. don't know why you would think that what you've described was this official policy proceeding forth from us.


That whites were awesome and better than everyone else and deserved to have the land and labour of other races for free.

Please note that this has not ended.


That is pretty silly. That would not describe a classical view at all. While there would be some minority concept of the right to slave labor of Africans and perhaps the need to genocide, these were often tempered by the majority of people that even if they supported slavery as an institution they supported eventual manumission of slaves. Moreover, there were countless attempts (and so many successful) to convert the Natives to Christianity, and to reach good conclusions.

A classical view of race would be that there is a clear separation of groups but that there is not some global entitlement to absolutely everything.

Just check out the 16th century Valladolid debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate

You really just overplay your hand and then you add to it this note like... Oh yeah, wypipo still believe they can enslave everyone & take their land and have zero universal obligation to treat others well.

This isn't a discussion -- this is just being audacity of zealotry on display.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14910713
One Degree wrote:Okay, I take back saying you appear to know history. Look up ‘civilized tribes’ and see how foolish your comment is. Otherwise, nice to know you are not about to let facts change your blind bias.

Like I said before, this is a historical footnote of little consequence. The records indicate around 25,000 Indians served (on both sides) during the civil war ... That includes over a dozen tribes, not just the two or three of your "civilized" 5 that participated. The "Civilized Tribes" contributed maybe 3-4 thousand.

Indians mostly raided (mostly each other). The most significant battle they fought was the battle of Round Mountain (not to be confused with the battle of Little Round Top). There were around 3,000 troops involved around 1/2 of which it seems were Indians. There were a little over 100 troops killed.It wasn't a strategic fight, the confederates goal was to prevent Union resupply. Big whup ...

Civil War history books generally ignore Indian involvement because it has such minor import and little significance.

Zam
#14910732
Zamuel wrote:Like I said before, this is a historical footnote of little consequence. The records indicate around 25,000 Indians served (on both sides) during the civil war ... That includes over a dozen tribes, not just the two or three of your "civilized" 5 that participated. The "Civilized Tribes" contributed maybe 3-4 thousand.

Indians mostly raided (mostly each other). The most significant battle they fought was the battle of Round Mountain (not to be confused with the battle of Little Round Top). There were around 3,000 troops involved around 1/2 of which it seems were Indians. There were a little over 100 troops killed.It wasn't a strategic fight, the confederates goal was to prevent Union resupply. Big whup ...

Civil War history books generally ignore Indian involvement because it has such minor import and little significance.

Zam

25,000 is insignificant? Keep defending the winners version. Now, about the idiocy of praising the civilized tribes while hating Southerners? They were allies and both had slaves. How do you explain this other than blind bias based upon fantasy?

How often is the ‘trail of tears’ brought up, but no one mentions they went on to support the South?
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14910751
One Degree wrote:25,000 is insignificant?

On both sides, over the course of the entire war, yes ... Especially considering few of them ever left their own territories, yes ... Tell me about (any) Indian units that were formed? Any major battles they fought in. You tell me what is significant about them ?
Now, about the idiocy of praising the civilized tribes while hating Southerners? They were allies and both had slaves. How do you explain this other than blind bias based upon fantasy?

Explain what? I have no idea what "Praise," "Bias," or "Fantasy" you refer to ... Indians had slaves, so what?
How often is the ‘trail of tears’ brought up, but no one mentions they went on to support the South?

As many of them fought for the North as fought for the south ... Evidently one tribe even had an internal fight and shed blood about which side to support. The relocations were significant, a blot on the government of that era (no argument). They were driven by greed and politics more than by racism.

If there's some point to this ranting about Indians and the civil war? Perhaps you could clarify it? Nothing can ever redress the crimes committed against Native Americans. Awareness of what was done to them and comprehension of the genocidal duplicity perpetrated against them has become an educational factor, as it should be. Prejudice against them has greatly diminished. Under American "Multiculturalism" their tribal heritage is preserved. So? what's the beef? Chief?

Zam
#14910753
Zamuel wrote:On both sides, over the course of the entire war, yes ... Especially considering few of them ever left their own territories, yes ... Tell me about (any) Indian units that were formed? Any major battles they fought in. You tell me what is significant about them ?

Explain what? I have no idea what "Praise," "Bias," or "Fantasy" you refer to ... Indians had slaves, so what?

As many of them fought for the North as fought for the south ... Evidently one tribe even had an internal fight and shed blood about which side to support. The relocations were significant, a blot on the government of that era (no argument). They were driven by greed and politics more than by racism.

If there's some point to this ranting about Indians and the civil war? Perhaps you could clarify it? Nothing can ever redress the crimes committed against Native Americans. Awareness of what was done to them and comprehension of the genocidal duplicity perpetrated against them has become an educational factor, as it should be. Prejudice against them has greatly diminished. Under American "Multiculturalism" their tribal heritage is preserved. So? what's the beef? Chief?

Zam


The first battles of the civil war were fought in Indian territory against Indians.
Why do you hate white Southerners but not their Indian allies who shared the same slave culture? I don’t want you to hate Indians. I want you to see how ridiculous it is to hate Southerners and demand any Southern symbol be destroyed. The hatred is based upon a fantasy that white people kept slaves because they were evil. Liberal ideology prevents you from believing a minority can be evil, so you just blot out the civilized tribes so you can c0ntinue on with your fantasy. Just as you blot out Blacks owning slaves. The North oppressed both Indians and the South. To believe one was great and the other terrible is illogical. It was a war. The winner wrote the history. To continue to punish Southerners for a war their ancestors lost is just silly.
User avatar
By Zamuel
#14910757
One Degree wrote:The first battles of the civil war were fought in Indian territory against Indians.

No, the first battle (aside from the bombardment of fort Sumter) was the "Battle of Philippi" a 30 minute skirmish that resulted in 10 or 12 men wounded, none killed. The first "Major" engagement was the 1st Battle of Bull Run (near Manassas Virginia). Not Indian territory and AFAIK no Indians involved.

Why do you hate white Southerners but not their Indian allies who shared the same slave culture?

Why don't you show me where I ever said I "Hated" anybody, or even disliked southerners? Or that I loved Indians ... Stop making shit up ...

To believe one was great and the other terrible is illogical.

To think I ever expressed either one is insane ... are you nuts?

It was a war. The winner wrote the history. To continue to punish Southerners for a war their ancestors lost is just silly.

Who is punishing southerners? Are you're rambling about the "statue" issue? It's southerners themselves wanting those statues removed. Really you sound like you're drunk ... have some coffee, sleep it off.

Zam
#14910760
Zamuel wrote:No, the first battle (aside from the bombardment of fort Sumter) was the "Battle of Philippi" a 30 minute skirmish that resulted in 10 or 12 men wounded, none killed. The first "Major" engagement was the 1st Battle of Bull Run (near Manassas Virginia). Not Indian territory and AFAIK no Indians involved.


Why don't you show me where I ever said I "Hated" anybody, or even disliked southerners? Or that I loved Indians ... Stop making shit up ...


To think I ever expressed either one is insane ... are you nuts?


Who is punishing southerners? Are you're rambling about the "statue" issue? It's southerners themselves wanting those statues removed. Really you sound like you're drunk ... have some coffee, sleep it off.

Zam


Obviously, I used the Royal ‘you’. You deciding it was personal is a weak deflection from the issue. The current liberal position is incompatible with factual history. It requires dismissing the actions of Native Americans and Black Americans in slavery simply so you can place the blame solely on white people. This fantasy is then used to perpetuate the idea of institutionalized racism. It assumes slavery was about racism despite the clear evidence it was not. Why do you want confederate statues removed but Native American artifacts returned and revered? They are both cultures destroyed by the North. They are simply different, not evil.
Why would I post sober? The idiotic fantasies people perpetuate are unbearable when sober.
#14910772
One Degree wrote:Please note: @Pants-of-dog is actually refusing to accept the wording of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th and 14th amendments as evidence. Lmao

Edit: @Pants-of-dog did you even see my edit above showing the obvious way slavery had to be abolished in the Indian nations?


Post a link to another source that gives information about your claim.

Quote the text that supports your claim.

——————————

Saeko wrote:So we are agreed that the laws themselves are not racist. Great.


Yes, and this does not chnage the fact that the laws are often applied in such a way as to perpetuate racism.

This depends on what counts as support for racism. I will continue that argument below.


No, it does not depend on any definition. Voter Id laws have been shown to disenfranchise voters of colour.

Racism, a way of thinking so socially acceptable that, even though it is believed by a large percentage of the population (supposedly), its adherents are forced to communicate in coded language and secret handshakes, lest they be exposed. :lol:


Not really. Everyone knows they are being racist. Dig whistle terminology is ised so that they can point to their words and say that they did not really say something racist and pretend they were just discussing states rights, or whatever the term is.

Oh for fuck's sake. This is literally MUH WHITE GENOCIDE for indigenous people. :roll:


No. It has actually been defined as cultural genocide by a Canadian judge who worked on the TRC.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/na ... e24688854/

Civil Rights Act.


And we have seen how the issues supoosedly addressed by this piece of legislation have not actually been addressed by this piece of legislation.

What? In the last 50 years? Show me the evidence. Put up or shut up.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia ... ool_system

    In Canada, the Indian residential school system[nb 1] was a network of boarding schools for Indigenous peoples.[nb 2] The network was funded by the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs and administered by Christian churches.

    The school system was created for the purpose of removing children from the influence of their own culture and assimilating them into the dominant Canadian culture. Over the course of the system's more than hundred-year existence, about 30% of, or roughly 150,000, Indigenous children were placed in residential schools nationally.[3][4]:2–3 At least 6,000 of these students are estimated to have died while residents.[5][6]

    The system had its origins in laws enacted before Confederation, but was primarily active from the passage of the Indian Act in 1876. An amendment to the Indian Act in 1884 made attendance at day schools, industrial schools, or residential schools compulsory for First Nations children. Due to the remote nature of many communities, school locations meant that for some families residential schools were the only way to comply. The schools were intentionally located at substantial distances from Indigenous communities to minimize contact between families and their children. Indian Commissioner Hayter Reed argued for schools at greater distances to reduce family visits, which he thought counteracted efforts to civilize Indigenous children. Parental visits were further restricted by the use of a pass system designed to confine Indigenous peoples to reserves. The last federally operated residential school closed in 1996.

I've already given you the argument, you've just chosen to ignore it.


No, you just said that the government could come up with a reason for seizing indigenous lands. You never actually told me what the basis is.

If they are taking land from people of a certain race, and they do not provide justification like they do when they take lnad from other races, this is a double standard based on race.

Both can be socially insignificant and both can be socially significant. You just chose to believe which is which when it suits your argument, and besides that you have no good reason for believing why saving the life of a (as I said many times before) PROMINENT Neo-Nazi is of no social significance.


Please explain how the social impact from a doctor treating a neo-Nazi is the same as cops perpetutating racism.

And for the umpteenth time. What is the name of the prosecutor? Are you saying that the defendant (the Muslim man) cooperated with the prosecution in his own trial? Why can't I get a goddamn straight answer out of you on any of these questions?


Yes, the defendant worked with the prosecutor who was prosecuting his case.

This is clear in the excerpt I quoted for you specifically to answer this. Please feel free to read it.

I haven't dismissed them at all. I've showed you way they do not prove your claims or are seriously flawed.


No, you dismissed one because of some claim about leftist ideology and ignored the rest.

——————————

Verv wrote:... We literally made treaties with them to preserve settlements and tried to come to precise deals to avoid bloodshed and the likes.

I just.. don't know why you would think that what you've described was this official policy proceeding forth from us.


Because it was an official policy. It was called the Indian Removal Act. I posted a link to the wiki article.

That is pretty silly. That would not describe a classical view at all. While there would be some minority concept of the right to slave labor of Africans and perhaps the need to genocide, these were often tempered by the majority of people that even if they supported slavery as an institution they supported eventual manumission of slaves. Moreover, there were countless attempts (and so many successful) to convert the Natives to Christianity, and to reach good conclusions.

A classical view of race would be that there is a clear separation of groups but that there is not some global entitlement to absolutely everything.

Just check out the 16th century Valladolid debate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate

You really just overplay your hand and then you add to it this note like... Oh yeah, wypipo still believe they can enslave everyone & take their land and have zero universal obligation to treat others well.

This isn't a discussion -- this is just being audacity of zealotry on display.


Considering that you have brought no evidence, this seems like something I can just dismiss.

For the record, indigenous people in Latin America are still being killed and arrested for trying to own their own land. Where I come from, the government is using anti terrorism laws thatnwere written in the time of the dictatorship for use against the rebels. Now the same rebels who are now the government are using those same laws against indigenous people.

——————————

@One Degree and @Zamuel

What does this civil war discussion have to do with the thread topic?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Dr Fauci is now saying that we could see 100,000 […]

The right finally has made this country Socialist[…]

Can you even fucking read @fokker? This from y[…]

My reflections on 2020 AD

^ @annatar1914 You nailed it.