Modern day systemic racism, does it exist?

[rjs330]

They kept slaves.

They also conquered each other, killed other tribes and raped and stole their women. They also tortured other people. So I'm wondering what values we wanted to emulate.

 

[rturner76]

Ah. And what would that look like?

Asking for permission to live in their territory and adhering to the laws of the tribe in the area they want to settle (I guess).

 

[rjs330]

What I don't identify with is someone dictating to others what their life experience is and denying that a conquered people are not affected by that down the generations just as the conquerers are affected.

Of course conquered people and oppressed people are affected by it down the generations.

If the oppressors realize their errors and change them I would expect to see the oppression cease for the most part. Fewer and fewer people desiring to.oppress and see an increase is the outcomes of those that were. Time does wonders. But time IS required.

And that is what we have. We recognized the wrongness of the situation. We fought a war to end slavery. We passed laws to end oppression and anytime something has come up like red lining it has been addressed because we as a nation no longer find it acceptable.

It's OVER. What we have now is time. It's getting better all the time and continuing.

There is NOTHING we can do about what happened in the past. It can't be changed and cannot be altered. So keeping on bringing it up is doing nothing because we've done all we can.

We can continue to address something if it arises like redlining. But we have systems in place for that.

People now need to work on taking advantage of the opportunities now available. Because everyone now has the same opportunities if attending school, getting good grades, going to college if that what you want to do.

 

[rjs330]

Asking for permission to live in their territory and adhering to the laws of the tribe in the area they want to settle (I guess).

Hmmm.... How far back do we get to go with that kind of idea? Do the native Americans have to do that with the territories they conquered from each other as well? What about those in the British Isles? Should they give up the lands they took from the Islanders and live by their laws too? I mean we could go to Africa and start that with them as well. Central America, them too.

 

[rjs330]

Not talking about prisoners of war....first colonists traded slaves with native tribes, until they saw what those tribes did to them.

Torture, worked to death, ritualistic sacrifice....etc. Later tribes straight up kept slaves for work. The "trail of tears" is a sad story....sadder for the black slaves who had to carry all their stuff.

They don't teach history in Canada?

Probably not a lot of American history. Well maybe they just teach the bad stuff of the euro trash who were horrible people.

 

[rjs330]

Basically every person I’ve known who grew up affluent. Not that they aren’t decent people or don’t work hard at their jobs, but most of them have had fairly easy times of things.

Not sure that was his point. But maybe I shouldn't butt in.

 

[Pommer]

Of course conquered people and oppressed people are affected by it down the generations.

If the oppressors realize their errors and change them I would expect to see the oppression cease for the most part. Fewer and fewer people desiring to.oppress and see an increase is the outcomes of those that were. Time does wonders. But time IS required.

And that is what we have. We recognized the wrongness of the situation. We fought a war to end slavery. We passed laws to end oppression and anytime something has come up like red lining it has been addressed because we as a nation no longer find it acceptable.

It's OVER. What we have now is time. It's getting better all the time and continuing.

There is NOTHING we can do about what happened in the past. It can't be changed and cannot be altered. So keeping on bringing it up is doing nothing because we've done all we can.

We can continue to address something if it arises like redlining. But we have systems in place for that.

People now need to work on taking advantage of the opportunities now available. Because everyone now has the same opportunities if attending school, getting good grades, going to college if that what you want to do.

Charles M Blow wrote a recent book urging northern urban black people to do a reverse of the Black diaspora (Southern Blacks moving North to seek the factory jobs of the early 20th century) and VOTE.
Things would change pretty quickly as the balance of politcal power would shift dramatically.

 

[RDKirk]

Yeah that was a miserable time. And times have changed thankfully.

Now the Klan is a joke. A movie boogyman. They will always be around cause racism will always be around. Hatred will always be around. As time goes on it will get less and less.

What concerns me right now is racist doctors. Apparently they are a large reason why black women are not getting proper medical care during and after their pregnancy.

I've been looking hard at that. Human births do not normally require medical interventionA normal human birth doesn't require medical intervention at all. If they did, the human race would have died out millennia ago before medical intervention was possible.

The reason for a higher mortality rate for black women isn't racial. What's hard to find out is precisely what black pregnant women are dying from, but it turns out the mortality factor is obesity and high blood pressure. Obese white women die at a higher rate, too, but it occurs to a higher proportion of black women.

 

[rturner76]

If the oppressors realize their errors and change them I would expect to see the oppression cease for the most part.

And that is what we have. We recognized the wrongness of the situation. We fought a war to end slavery. We passed laws to end oppression and anytime something has come up like red lining it has been addressed because we as a nation no longer find it acceptable

Right, but there is still a lingering effect. We now have more avenues to justice but I wouldn't say the race problem has been cured. Our country is still treating the problem with the civil rights laws being the medicine so to speak. There are still a lot of outdated notions about race but the longer time goes on, the better it gets.

There is NOTHING we can do about what happened in the past. It can't be changed and cannot be altered. So keeping on bringing it up is doing nothing because we've done all we can.

We must remember history or be doomed to repeat it (the saying goes something like that).

People now need to work on taking advantage of the opportunities now available. Because everyone now has the same opportunities if attending school, getting good grades, going to college if that what you want to do.

That is true I just think some people because of what they were exposed to and endured as a child, have no hope for their future.

Hmmm.... How far back do we get to go with that kind of idea? Do the native Americans have to do that with the territories they conquered from each other as well? What about those in the British Isles? Should they give up the lands they took from the Islanders and live by their laws too? I mean we could go to Africa and start that with them as well. Central America, them too.

It's already don. There is no changing it now. I was just stating a hypothetical on how the Europeans could have immigrated non-violently.

 

[rturner76]

Charles M Blow wrote a recent book urging northern urban black people to do a reverse of the Black diaspora (Southern Blacks moving North to seek the factory jobs of the early 20th century) and VOTE.
Things would change pretty quickly as the balance of politcal power would shift dramatically.

I thought the South was 50/50 white/black by population. Maybe I misunderstood your statement.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Probably not a lot of American history. Well maybe they just teach the bad stuff of the euro trash who were horrible people.

It's weird to see the characterization of colonialism these days. People seem to imagine these massive imperial European nations waging these large scale wars against the natives of foreign and unknown lands. In reality, those lands and natives fell to the unwanted refuse....the outcasts fleeing the margins of societies they had little influence in. That's a more accurate way to view it...though I can understand why people want to imagine something more heroic for the natives.

They also never want to credit colonialism for any good it did. I also find this bizarre. There's a cliche sort of story about the British in India that I think is a good example if accurate in any way....

Sati was a widespread cultural practice in India whereby the widow of a dead man was burned alive with his corpse upon a funeral pyre. A British officer of some authority put a stop to this in whatever region of India he was responsible for...much to the dismay of the public. Some Hindu priest (or whatever term they use) appealed to the officer proclaiming he had no right to impose upon their culture in this way....that they had practiced sati for thousands of years and since he was in their land they should be allowed to follow their cultural practices. He apologized, said that he understood and sympathized with the priest and he would not prevent them from practicing sati....

However, he also pointed out to the Hindu priest that he had his own cultural practices which he would not abandon. He explained that in British culture, it was common practice to hang a man by the neck until he was dead for burning women alive. This made a very common Indian cultural practice extremely rare....and I don't see anything wrong with that. True, these European empires often damaged or ended cultural traditions that were loved and cherished by the people who practiced them....but not everything lost was worth keeping. Slavery is one such thing amongst many and any honest telling of history should include the good done by colonialism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can see the parallel of them both being nations of conquerors which has gone on since the first person built a fence and got people to help defend it. . What I don't identify with is someone dictating to others what their life experience is and denying that a conquered people are not affected by that down the generations just as the conquerers are affected.

You should read about King Philip's war.

Back when European colonies were so few and small in New England that really any native tribe could have easily annihilated them with little effort....European colonists stayed alive by trading. They had things the natives had never seen....like iron kettles. Imagine going your entire life without a big pot to cook food in that could be reused over and over...and how big a change it was to be able to trade some animal furs for one. The Pequot were the dominant tribe in the New England region of these early colonists (I think Maine) and had been the dominant tribe for some time. They were dominant because of the violence and death they inflicted upon any other tribe that encroached upon them or disobeyed them. This tiny white skinned tribe that took up very little space and had so many new and wonderful things to trade was simply no threat to them....the Pequot numbered in the tens of thousands. There wasn't likely even 10k colonists at the time. The Pequot liked this small white tribe so much, their chieftain named his son Philip as he liked the foreign name. The colonists would call him King Philip as a recognition of his power and influence over the region.

Well King Philip didn't like the strange white tribe....he probably noticed how they had considerably more influence through trade than he had through violence.....and so he began killing colonists who lived on the edges of the colony town. He didn't really understand how this strange tribe waged war....and though muskets were impressive at first...they would have lost the fear they inspired and were far from offering any sort of tactical advantage over the short bows of the natives. What were the colonists to do? They only thing they could do....they appealed to the chiefs of the other tribes for help.

The other tribes already hated the Pequot and were glad to help. They formed armies that would have been 9/10ths native warriors for every colonist. They were promised shares of loot and territory. The colonists were too few to occupy much more territory anyway. The colonists mainly insisted upon having some authority over the warriors in battle. They eventually surrounded the main body of Pequot, killed them, and ended the tribe altogether for all practical purposes. The majority of the fighting was done by natives. The threat to the colonists was gone....and the tribes that allied with them grew in both wealth and power.

This wasn't some anomaly in early colonial America...this was more typical than the idea of a huge colonial army running over the local tribes with little resistance. The colonists were simply too few to fight alone...and I'd say up until they had expanded into Appalachia more significantly, they fought alongside native allies in wars that weren't always even concerning them. There were times they simply fought with native allies because those allied tribes had fought to help the colonists in the past....

This was normal for probably 1500-1700. If you want to imagine some Europeans who simply put their boots to the necks of the locals....that's not an accurate description till really a post 1700 context. Colonists didn't see the natives as equals....but they certainly respected the danger the natives posed. There's even recorded instances of natives accusing colonists of crimes like murder or theft....then winning justice in colonial courts and seeing the colonist hanged. The idea of a "conquered people" who never really stood a chance against their European conquerors is actually a European narrative created and spread for the purpose of....a more merciful and less permanent destruction of native tribes at a point when Europeans actually could just wipe them out.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I thought the South was 50/50 white/black by population. Maybe I misunderstood your statement.....

When?

There's some old censuses that I don't recall if they included any racial data. In early 1900s though...I think the US as a whole would have been basically low 90% to low 80% white by even the "1 drop" rule. There's certainly going to have been a higher percentage of blacks in the south....but I don't think it ever approached 50/50. During the entire trans Atlantic slave trade...the US only imported between 300k and 400k African slaves. I know that sounds like a lot (it's certainly not small) but compared to other nations or regions like Brazil or the Middle East....it actually is a rather small amount.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I have never met a minority who didn't recognize those things. I have never heard a reasonable minority person say "White people never have any problems". I am curious about how you came to those conclusions.

Well right here you made assumptions about me and my lifestyle based on nothing more than my color.

You've had a decent paying job your entire life and you had a job with INCREDIBLE job protection even though your job was very stressful, that certainty of employment (and the pay itself) allowed you luxuries MANY other people don't have and took away struggles others have. Though it gave you other additional stressors too. Do you believe a black and a white cop partner team in, say Los Angeles have the EXACT same list of stressors?

I don’t know how you came to these conclusions based on what you know about me or my job so it would appear that you’ve come to these conclusions because I’m white. Hence because of my color you automatically assume that my life is easier and better than that of minorities. My life is only what I’ve managed to make of it in the last 49 years which isn’t much.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And it speaks to the lack of empathy for those not willing to support victims of racism.

People can use racism for maybe not getting a particular job or promotion maybe, but not for the state of their entire life. Nobody in America gets knocked down over and over throughout their entire life because of their race. People of all colors, nationalities, and religions have literally been perfectly capable of getting jobs in all fields of work in America. There isn’t a single field of work in America that doesn’t have people of all colors doing them. No one can say I wanted to be a doctor, a lawyer, a dentists, a politician, a pilot, or any other field of employment, but I couldn’t because I’m black or Hispanic or Asian or middle eastern or any other group out there.

 

[rambot]

Well right here you made assumptions about me and my lifestyle based on nothing more than my color.



I don’t know how you came to these conclusions based on what you know about me or my job so it would appear that you’ve come to these conclusions because I’m white. Hence because of my color you automatically assume that my life is easier and better than that of minorities. My life is only what I’ve managed to make of it in the last 49 years which isn’t much.

I didn't make assumptions.

I confused you with another poster. I replied to that and apologized for it

 

[DaisyDay]

It’s hard for non minorities to see systemic racism because it’s been that way or it’s the way they have always done it. This is wrong and not right. As an entrepreneur Black woman in America. I see it everyday. We have to fight for every little inch.

How can I see something that benefits me as other than natural and right? [/sarcasm]

 

[rturner76]

Back when European colonies were so few and small in New England that really any native tribe could have easily annihilated them with little effort....European colonists stayed alive by trading. They had things the natives had never seen....like iron kettles. Imagine going your entire life without a big pot to cook food in that could be reused over and over...and how big a change it was to be able to trade some animal furs for one.

This would have been the ideal way to invade. Make then want you there then ake then need you there. But I see how jealousy could develop.

Back when European colonies were so few and small in New England that really any native tribe could have easily annihilated them with little effort....European colonists stayed alive by trading. They had things the natives had never seen....like iron kettles. Imagine going your entire life without a big pot to cook food in that could be reused over and over...and how big a change it was to be able to trade some animal furs for one. The Pequot were the dominant tribe in the New England region of these early colonists (I think Maine) and had been the dominant tribe for some time. They were dominant because of the violence and death they inflicted upon any other tribe that encroached upon them or disobeyed them. This tiny white skinned tribe that took up very little space and had so many new and wonderful things to trade was simply no threat to them....the Pequot numbered in the tens of thousands. There wasn't likely even 10k colonists at the time. The Pequot liked this small white tribe so much, their chieftain named his son Philip as he liked the foreign name. The colonists would call him King Philip as a recognition of his power and influence over the region

They should have kept that respect. Maybe instead of cheating the natives out of pelts they should have traded fairly.

Well King Philip didn't like the strange white tribe....he probably noticed how they had considerably more influence through trade than he had through violence.....and so he began killing colonists who lived on the edges of the colony town. He didn't really understand how this strange tribe waged war....and though muskets were impressive at first...they would have lost the fear they inspired and were far from offering any sort of tactical advantage over the short bows of the natives. What were the colonists to do? They only thing they could do....they appealed to the chiefs of the other tribes for help

I wouldn't like outsiders taking up space and using up resources where I liked.

The other tribes already hated the Pequot and were glad to help. They formed armies that would have been 9/10ths native warriors for every colonist. They were promised shares of loot and territory. The colonists were too few to occupy much more territory anyway. The colonists mainly insisted upon having some authority over the warriors in battle. They eventually surrounded the main body of Pequot, killed them, and ended the tribe altogether for all practical purposes. The majority of the fighting was done by natives. The threat to the colonists was gone....and the tribes that allied with them grew in both wealth and power.

Divide and conquor. Classic tactics that have stood the test of time.

This wasn't some anomaly in early colonial America...this was more typical than the idea of a huge colonial army running over the local tribes with little resistance.

This was normal for probably 1500-1700. If you want to imagine some Europeans who simply put their boots to the necks of the locals....that's not an accurate description till really a post 1700 context. Colonists didn't see the natives as equals....but they certainly respected the danger the natives posed.

It seems like you say, after the 1700;s the government decided to leave them with almost nothing as more and more land was gobbled up as many in the government advocated for a total genocide of all native people. So somewhere along there the attitude changed.

 

[rturner76]

When?

I was under the impression that there were equal populations today but I surely could have been misinformed.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't think you understand the point I made. I've met Roma Gypsys who believe they're persecuted, right here in the US, by people who have no idea they're Roma Gypsys. It's all in their heads....part of a story they tell themselves.

Not referring to them by a derogatory term might ease their feeling of being persecuted. That’s akin to saying Jewish k-word or female c-word. I’m not denying your right to use whatever expression tickles your fancy but them’s fighting words.

Remember the "war on Christmas"?

That was O’Reilly’s seasonal shtick, widely embraced by the talking heads of a certain persuasion. What about it?