Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Right here we see the proof of what I said: when one observes that not everything is caused by racism, it gets twisted into a bizarre accusation of denial that racism exists. Everything is seen in the light of class distinction, and anyone who disagrees with the party line must therefore be some sort of bigot.
How so?See, there you go proving my point as well.
Right there we see the problem with racism. Those who are not the victims of racism continually deny the existence of racism. There was a time when being racist was fashionable. People could be overt about their racism and still be accepted into society. But today it is not fashionable to express racism openly. As a consequence, those who insist on harboring racist perspectives resort to ploys like this, claiming that the fact the average blacks households of only 1/7 the wealth of the average white household has absolutely nothing to do with racism.
That is true, it was fashionable and now it is not. But it is also true that most people now are not racists. If they don't like you its not because of your skin colour but because of your character but people want to overlook that. Truly racist people are in the minority not the majority.There was a time when being racist was fashionable. People could be overt about their racism and still be accepted into society. But today it is not fashionable to express racism openly.
They say that because most of the time it does have nothing to do with racism.claiming that the fact the average blacks households of only 1/7 the wealth of the average white household has absolutely nothing to do with racism.
You actually did just prove chilehed's point. As someone who isn't American but looking on I can see it, whether you can or not.
The vast majority of people know that racism exists, very few would deny racism. So lets get that out of the way first.
What is being asked is not "does it exist?" but rather "does it exist to the extent that you think it does?" and "Does it cause the amount of issues you think it does".
Someone with a victim mentality will see racism where there is none because the assumption they have is that anything that occurs that they don't like is due to racism. All other possible reasons are not looked at because they have become focused on race as being the only reason for everything.
Example: I was watching a video and was looking at the comments and this one person said while they were at work they stopped a shoplifter in the process of cutting security devices off of some Nikes.
He (shoplifter)went on a rant about how I was oppressing him by trying to stop him from stealing $100 worth of shoes. In the middle of it this another shopper interrupted and tried to make a victim out of the thief.
The shoplifter was a black male. The employee who stopped him was white male and the shopper who interrupted was a white woman.
The shoplifter had the mentality that because he was black that being stopped from shoplifting was oppression rather than I got caught doing something wrong.
The white lady who stepped in also had the mentality of 'because he is black he should get a pass'. That somehow being black earns him special treatment.
All this is based on feelings of pity. Woe is me/Woe is them.
The facts are if you shoplift you may get caught and face the consequences. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, Asian or something else, you need to take responsibility for your own actions.
That is true, it was fashionable and now it is not. But it is also true that most people now are not racists. If they don't like you its not because of your skin colour but because of your character but people want to overlook that. Truly racist people are in the minority not the majority.
They say that because most of the time it does have nothing to do with racism.
By claiming everything is racism is covering up other real reasons.
Why are high- and middle-income white families so much wealthier than Black families with the same incomes?
1) White families receive much larger inheritances on average than Black families. Economists Darrick Hamilton and Sandy Darity conclude that inheritances and other intergenerational transfers “account for more of the racial wealth gap than any other demographic and socioeconomic indicators.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1007/s12114-010-9063-1
2)high- and middle-income Black families are more likely than their white counterparts to be called upon to assist family members.
Depleting Capital? Race, Wealth and Informal Financial Assistance
3)Black families who make it to the top of the income distribution in a particular year are more likely than white families to drop out of the top in subsequent years, and their respective wealth levels reflect this difference.
Now I couldn't find much data on this. It's possible discrimination is playing a role in this but that doesn't mean its the only role and that other factors are not also at play. Again very few people deny that racism doesn't exist, what they doubt it exists to the extent that you are others are trying to push it to. There is a difference.
4) The largest reason would be family wealth. Wealthy people live in better safer neighbourhoods, which gives their children more access to good schools and they carry on to be wealthy and pass that down to their kids and so on.
Wealth also opens up other opportunities such as owning your own business.
Then the income from wealth is taxed at much lower rates than income from work, which means that wealth begets more wealth.
Leveling the Playing Field between Inherited Income and Income from Work through an Inheritance Tax | The Hamilton Project
Just because that white young man got to enjoy that good neighborhood, good school and the wealth passed down doesn't make what he enjoys wrong nor is it his fault that the young black man on the same bus grew up in a bad neighbourhood, went to poor schools and lives in poverty. It isn't the white mans job to somehow 'make it up' to that black man. It isn't his fault and life isn't fair. This doesn't make that white man an inherent racist because he got to enjoy these things. The same way a rich black person enjoying his wealth is not to blame for that other black mans life. The rich don't owe the poor anything except when they employ them. Americas terrible work/pay/life balance is a whole other topic but that also comes back to money not race.
I am sure everyone agrees if a person grows up in poverty life is going to be harder for them, whether they happen to be black, white or something else.
There is always a reason followed by another reason and yet another reason we could follow. We could blame slavery as the cause and certainly it was a major cause of black poverty in the US, but then you can look back further and say well how did slavery come about in the first place, and you will see once again it was rich people getting richer. Rich black Africans sold slaves to Arabs and Europeans, it was a big booming economy, but people don't want to see that. White people didn't go into the interior of Africa and steal them away -white people would have lasted all of two seconds with the fierce tribes, animals and diseases. They came to the coast and bought slaves. How do you think those slaves came to be in cages being sold in the first place? It's far easier to only blame the Europeans who bought them then put any of the blame on their own country men who took and sold them. And why did they? Because of money. Money is the root of all evil not skin colour. The Europeans going to the Americans chose the Africans as slaves not because they were black but because they were cheap, in plentiful supply and generally hardier. They first tried enslaving the natives but they were more trouble and died more easily of the diseases the Europeans carried. It was later that race was used as an excuse to try and make slavery seem justified, but this was only because enough people were against it. People only need to start justifying something when they face opposition and who opposed it? Other white people. American was one of the first countries to abolish slavery not the last. Slavery was for the most part was accepted world wide it wasn't something unique to the US or to black people. Slavery itself had been going on since the dawn of time across every race including white slaves and its still going on in Asia in particular with female sex trafficking. I watched a video of a North Korean woman who said she was sold as a sex slave to China at 13 and how 2 years later she was helped escape and walked all the way to Mongolia in the dead on winter. Slavery wasn't about race but money and power.
There was a lot more I could say but I figure this post is long enough. The main point is that of course there is racism but racism is not as big as you try and make it out to be nor is it the main cause of black poverty. Money and power are, and always have been.
The Boomer generation was the last generation that, as a whole generation, was explicitly taught to be racist.
No, we have not died off yet. We still largely control society.
The current generation, unlike the boomers, is being taught racism in school rather than by their parents.
Maybe you should read what the US Catholic Bishops have to say about racism and its "non-existence":
What is Systemic Racism?
I hope you are not going to claim that the US Catholic Bishops are in the pocket of the Democratic Party.
Racism is real, it is ingrained in the culture of White America. It is getting worse as the US moves towards a majority minority state and the once powerful majority is afraid. So, by their fear, they are getting more outspoken, more overt. All I can think is that they're afraid of us doing to them what they did to us.
Another question that is also asked is whether racism is individual or systemic (institutional). There is a substantial group of people who admit there may be some individual racism, but claim systemic or institutional racism does not exist anymore in the US. This claim I believe is false.The vast majority of people know that racism exists, very few would deny racism. So lets get that out of the way first.
What is being asked is not "does it exist?" but rather "does it exist to the extent that you think it does?" and "Does it cause the amount of issues you think it does".
The loudest voices claiming there is racism seem to be coming not from the victims (or supposed victims) of racism, but from those of privilege who recognize their privilege (like me) and feel moved to advocate on behalf of those that are victims of racism. There probably are people with a victim mentality that claim there is racism against them, but there at least as many non-victims that claim the same thing on their behalf. So I would not so easily dismiss claims of racism based on a victim mentality.Someone with a victim mentality will see racism where there is none because the assumption they have is that anything that occurs that they don't like is due to racism.
This is actually a good example to explain some things about the claims of racism. As an individual example, the shoplifter was wrong and deserved to be caught. The employee who stopped him cannot be faulted for doing so. There is no proof of racism in that individual case. But behind that individual case is a statistical generalization that tells a different story. What this one example does not tell us is how many times innocent blacks were questioned for shoplifting compared to whites. Focusing on this one case where the man was guilty of shoplifting is a form of cherry-picking when applied to the larger generalization of suspicion against blacks in stores where they appear out of place because of their race. The bystander in the example may have been thinking of this statistical fact, although she probably should not have brought it up in this case where the man actually was guilty. She should have saved her accusation for one of those other times when a black shopper is questioned or searched and found to be innocent.Example: I was watching a video and was looking at the comments and this one person said while they were at work they stopped a shoplifter in the process of cutting security devices off of some Nikes.
He (shoplifter)went on a rant about how I was oppressing him by trying to stop him from stealing $100 worth of shoes. In the middle of it this another shopper interrupted and tried to make a victim out of the thief.
The shoplifter was a black male. The employee who stopped him was white male and the shopper who interrupted was a white woman.
I agree. Most people are not racist. But the few people who are racist can do a lot of damage, as we saw in February 2020 when Ahmud Arbery was murdered while jogging in a white neighborhood.That is true, it was fashionable and now it is not. But it is also true that most people now are not racists.
I agree with that too. In fact I was going to bring up that point to support the claim of racism. Since most black people in the US today are descended from slaves who had zero wealth, and whose families experienced undeniable institutional racism at least until the 1960's, the (racist) wealth gap was bound to persist. We can look at inheritance law as a form of institutional racism in that it helps keep wealth in the hands of the families that had it in the past.They say that because most of the time it does have nothing to do with racism.
By claiming everything is racism is covering up other real reasons.
Why are high- and middle-income white families so much wealthier than Black families with the same incomes?
1) White families receive much larger inheritances on average than Black families. Economists Darrick Hamilton and Sandy Darity conclude that inheritances and other intergenerational transfers “account for more of the racial wealth gap than any other demographic and socioeconomic indicators.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1007/s12114-010-9063-1
I had not heard that one before, but it makes sense to me. This factor is likely due to the fact that their family members are likely black as well, and are more likely to be in need. But if the poverty of their family members is caused by racism, then the effect of the middle income black families is by extension also indirectly due to racism. I can't help noticing that this factor of needing to help family members is, from a Christian perspective, a laudable act. It is odd that the tendency of blacks to engage in this laudable act should be used against them. If anything, they should be rewarded for it, just like we have tax deductions for charitable contributions.2)high- and middle-income Black families are more likely than their white counterparts to be called upon to assist family members.
Depleting Capital? Race, Wealth and Informal Financial Assistance
That is true. I do not blame racism for every individual inequity. But I am satisfied that you recognize the possibility of discrimination is the loss of black wealth after it is achieved.3)Black families who make it to the top of the income distribution in a particular year are more likely than white families to drop out of the top in subsequent years, and their respective wealth levels reflect this difference.
Now I couldn't find much data on this. It's possible discrimination is playing a role in this but that doesn't mean its the only role and that other factors are not also at play.
I don't think I have been very specific on the "extent" of racism that you could confidently claim I go too far.Again very few people deny that racism doesn't exist, what they doubt it exists to the extent that you are others are trying to push it to.
Exactly! And why should that be? Why should children in rich families get better government-supported education than children in poor families? Funding schools from local property taxes is an unnecessary inequity that could be remedied by spreading school funding over a larger area that includes both rich and poor neighborhoods alike. The same goes for public safety. Any service provided by the society at large (government) should serve all classes of that society equally. (There is still private schooling for those that want to pay extra for it.) The preservation of inequitable school funding is another form of racism. State governments do not consider poor neighborhoods and the people who live in them as important as the rich neighborhoods. That is why when the interstate I-94 when it came through St. Paul, Minnesota, avoided the rich neighborhoods and destroyed the vibrant black neighborhood of Rondo. That is why cities grant permits to industries that pollute to relocate to areas that already have a concentration of pollution, and where the poor (who are predominately black) live. These are not instances of individual racism where one person looks at another person of a different race and treats him unfairly. These are instances of institutional racism where no one is consciously making any racist decisions. Yet these institutional factors have a far greater impact on racial minorities than any individual act of racism.4) The largest reason would be family wealth. Wealthy people live in better safer neighbourhoods, which gives their children more access to good schools and they carry on to be wealthy and pass that down to their kids and so on.
In one sentence I can expose the fallacy this entire thread is built upon.
A child is morally responsible for the actions of his parents and I am morally responsible for the actions of my neighbor.
here are the life stories of three black men: Frederick Douglas. Booker T. Washington, and Oscar Micheaux. Douglas was born and lived as a slave until he was an adult. Booker T. was born a slave but was freed as a child. Oscar Micheaux was a novelist in the early 1800s who wrote his life story in novel form. He was the very first black homesteader in the Dakotas in the early 1800s.. All three men completely reject the idea of giving anyone anything based upon their skin color. Why? Because when a person is given things they don't respect it and it creates a sense of entitlement. It warps their character and causes them to expect others to give them what they want.
Here are download links to their books.
Micheaux The Homesteader: A Novel by Oscar Micheaux
Douglas Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave by Douglass
Booker T. The Story of My Life and Work by Booker T. Washington
If you really want to understand how to actually help people, all people, these three books will teach you more than any media or academia narrative because they actually lived what it's like to be discriminated against.
All three men were outliers in multiple ways and can't be considered representative of the mean, no more than Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, or Theodore Roosevelt can be considered representative of the mean.
Heck, I'm not representative of the mean, at least more than one standard deviation from the mean. My parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents were more than a standard deviation from the mean in multiple ways. The fact that my great-great grandparents were Exodusters who found a way to get off the sharecrop plantation and participate in the 1889 Oklahoma Land Rush shows they were ahead of the mean.
It's taken nearly 70 years for me to realize the significance of that. It means I have to look at what the mean has been able to accomplish, not what my great-great grandparents accomplished.
We can't look at the best, we have to look at the mean.
Mr. President:
I came here, as I come always to the meetings in New England, as a listener, and not as a speaker; and one of the reasons why I have not been more frequently to the meetings of this society, has been because of the disposition on the part of some of my friends to call me out upon the platform, even when they knew that there was some difference of opinion and of feeling between those who rightfully belong to this platform and myself; and for fear of being misconstrued, as desiring to interrupt or disturb the proceedings of these meetings, I have usually kept away, and have thus been deprived of that educating influence, which I am always free to confess is of the highest order, descending from this platform. I have felt, since I have lived out West, that in going there I parted from a great deal that was valuable; and I feel, every time I come to these meetings, that I have lost a great deal by making my home west of Boston, west of Massachusetts; for, if anywhere in the country there is to be found the highest sense of justice, or the truest demands for my race, I look for it in the East, I look for it here. The ablest discussions of the whole question of our rights occur here, and to be deprived of the privilege of listening to those discussions is a great deprivation.
I do not know, from what has been said, that there is any difference of opinion as to the duty of abolitionists, at the present moment. How can we get up any difference at this point, or any point, where we are so united, so agreed? I went especially, however, with that word of Mr. Phillips, which is the criticism of Gen. Banks and Gen. Banks’ policy. I hold that that policy is our chief danger at the present moment; that it practically enslaves the Negro, and makes the Proclamation of 1863 a mockery and delusion. What is freedom? It is the right to choose one’s own employment. Certainly it means that, if it means anything; and when any individual or combination of individuals undertakes to decide for any man when he shall work, where he shall work, at what he shall work, and for what he shall work, he or they practically reduce him to slavery. [Applause.] He is a slave. That I understand Gen. Banks to do—to determine for the so-called freedman, when, and where, and at what, and for how much he shall work, when he shall be punished, and by whom punished. It is absolute slavery. It defeats the beneficent intention of the Government, if it has beneficent intentions, in regards to the freedom of our people.
I have had but one idea for the last three years to present to the American people, and the phraseology in which I clothe it is the old abolition phraseology. I am for the “immediate, unconditional, and universal” enfranchisement of the black man, in every State in the Union. [Loud applause.] Without this, his liberty is a mockery; without this, you might as well almost retain the old name of slavery for his condition; for in fact, if he is not the slave of the individual master, he is the slave of society, and holds his liberty as a privilege, not as a right. He is at the mercy of the mob, and has no means of protecting himself.
It may be objected, however, that this pressing of the Negro’s right to suffrage is premature. Let us have slavery abolished, it may be said, let us have labor organized, and then, in the natural course of events, the right of suffrage will be extended to the Negro. I do not agree with this. The constitution of the human mind is such, that if it once disregards the conviction forced upon it by a revelation of truth, it requires the exercise of a higher power to produce the same conviction afterwards. The American people are now in tears. The Shenandoah has run blood—the best blood of the North. All around Richmond, the blood of New England and of the North has been shed—of your sons, your brothers and your fathers. We all feel, in the existence of this Rebellion, that judgments terrible, wide-spread, far-reaching, overwhelming, are abroad in the land; and we feel, in view of these judgments, just now, a disposition to learn righteousness. This is the hour. Our streets are in mourning, tears are falling at every fireside, and under the chastisement of this Rebellion we have almost come up to the point of conceding this great, this all-important right of suffrage. I fear that if we fail to do it now, if abolitionists fail to press it now, we may not see, for centuries to come, the same disposition that exists at this moment. [Applause.] Hence, I say, now is the time to press this right.
It may be asked, “Why do you want it? Some men have got along very well without it. Women have not this right.” Shall we justify one wrong by another? This is a sufficient answer. Shall we at this moment justify the deprivation of the Negro of the right to vote, because some one else is deprived of that privilege? I hold that women, as well as men, have the right to vote [applause.], and my heart and my voice go with the movement to extend suffrage to woman; but that question rests upon another basis than that on which our right rests. We may be asked, I say, why we want it. I will tell you why we want it. We want it because it is our right, first of all. No class of men can, without insulting their own nature, be content with any deprivation of their rights. We want it again, as a means for educating our race. Men are so constituted that they derive their conviction of their own possibilities largely from the estimate formed of them by others. If nothing is expected of a people, that people will find it difficult to contradict that expectation. By depriving us of suffrage, you affirm our incapacity to form an intelligent judgment respecting public men and public measures; you declare before the world that we are unfit to exercise the elective franchise, and by this means lead us to undervalue ourselves, to put a low estimate upon ourselves, and to feel that we have no possibilities like other men. Again, I want the elective franchise, for one, as a colored man, because ours is a peculiar government, based upon a peculiar idea, and that idea is universal suffrage. If I were in a monarchial government, or an autocratic or aristocratic government, where the few bore rule and the many were subject, there would be no special stigma resting upon me, because I did not exercise the elective franchise. It would do me no great violence. Mingling with the mass I should partake of the strength of the mass; I should be supported by the mass, and I should have the same incentives to endeavor with the mass of my fellow-men; it would be no particular burden, no particular deprivation; but here where universal suffrage is the rule, where that is the fundamental idea of the Government, to rule us out is to make us an exception, to brand us with the stigma of inferiority, and to invite to our heads the missiles of those about us; therefore, I want the franchise for the black man.
There are, however, other reasons, not derived from any consideration merely of our rights, but arising out of the conditions of the South, and of the country—considerations which have already been referred to by Mr. Phillips—considerations which must arrest the attention of statesmen. I believe that when the tall heads of this Rebellion shall have been swept down, as they will be swept down, when the Davises and Toombses and Stephenses, and others who are leading this Rebellion shall have been blotted out, there will be this rank undergrowth of treason, to which reference has been made, growing up there, and interfering with, and thwarting the quiet operation of the Federal Government in those states. You will see those traitors, handing down, from sire to son, the same malignant spirit which they have manifested, and which they are now exhibiting, with malicious hearts, broad blades, and bloody hands in the field, against our sons and brothers. That spirit will still remain; and whoever sees the Federal Government extended over those Southern States will see that Government in a strange land, and not only in a strange land, but in an enemy’s land. A post-master of the United States in the South will find himself surrounded by a hostile spirit; a collector in a Southern port will find himself surrounded by a hostile spirit; a United States marshal or United States judge will be surrounded there by a hostile element. That enmity will not die out in a year, will not die out in an age. The Federal Government will be looked upon in those States precisely as the Governments of Austria and France are looked upon in Italy at the present moment. They will endeavor to circumvent, they will endeavor to destroy, the peaceful operation of this Government. Now, where will you find the strength to counterbalance this spirit, if you do not find it in the Negroes of the South? They are your friends, and have always been your friends. They were your friends even when the Government did not regard them as such. They comprehended the genius of this war before you did. It is a significant fact, it is a marvellous fact, it seems almost to imply a direct interposition of Providence, that this war, which began in the interest of slavery on both sides, bids fair to end in the interest of liberty on both sides. [Applause.] It was begun, I say, in the interest of slavery on both sides. The South was fighting to take slavery out of the Union, and the North fighting to keep it in the Union; the South fighting to get it beyond the limits of the United States Constitution, and the North fighting to retain it within those limits; the South fighting for new guarantees, and the North fighting for the old guarantees;—both despising the Negro, both insulting the Negro. Yet, the Negro, apparently endowed with wisdom from on high, saw more clearly the end from the beginning than we did. When Seward said the status of no man in the country would be changed by the war, the Negro did not believe him. [Applause.] When our generals sent their underlings in shoulder-straps to hunt the flying Negro back from our lines into the jaws of slavery, from which he had escaped, the Negroes thought that a mistake had been made, and that the intentions of the Government had not been rightly understood by our officers in shoulder-straps, and they continued to come into our lines, threading their way through bogs and fens, over briers and thorns, fording streams, swimming rivers, bringing us tidings as to the safe path to march, and pointing out the dangers that threatened us. They are our only friends in the South, and we should be true to them in this their trial hour, and see to it that they have the elective franchise.
I know that we are inferior to you in some things—virtually inferior. We walk about you like dwarfs among giants. Our heads are scarcely seen above the great sea of humanity. The Germans are superior to us; the Irish are superior to us; the Yankees are superior to us [Laughter]; they can do what we cannot, that is, what we have not hitherto been allowed to do. But while I make this admission, I utterly deny, that we are originally, or naturally, or practically, or in any way, or in any important sense, inferior to anybody on this globe. [Loud applause.] This charge of inferiority is an old dodge. It has been made available for oppression on many occasions. It is only about six centuries since the blue-eyed and fair-haired Anglo Saxons were considered inferior by the haughty Normans, who once trampled upon them. If you read the history of the Norman Conquest, you will find that this proud Anglo-Saxon was once looked upon as of coarser clay than his Norman master, and might be found in the highways and byways of Old England laboring with a brass collar on his neck, and the name of his master marked upon it were down then! [Laughter and applause.] You are up now. I am glad you are up, and I want you to be glad to help us up also. [Applause.]
Yeah, you know exactly what those men had to say and why they said it just because you're black. You're black so you don't need to read their life stories as there is nothing for you to learn.
There are just as many poor whites as there are blacks. They also grew up with substandard educations and their opportunities are limited because they think like poor people, just like poor blacks. But we need to feel guilt over poor blacks.
The greatest determiner of success is determination and character.
One last thing. If we are to look at the mean then you also need to look at the mean for all races, not just blacks. Ever heard of white trash?
[I've faced more discrimination than you ever have. I was hated by my own family. I was told as a kid that I was responsible for everything that went wrong for the entire family. My old man wanted to punch me out because I asked for a $1/hour raise when I increased his revenue by more than $400/day back in the seventies. You don't know what hatred is.
All that abuse screwed me up. Am I supposed to blame them for the lousy life choices and all the drugs I did? Or did I make the right choice by taking responsibility for my own choices and changing my life with no help from them?
I told my old man we needed to talk all those years of abuse over because I wanted to love and respect him. His reply? He wasn't about to discuss anything with me.
The only responsibility we have to anyone is to be kind, friendly and lend a helping hand to those we know regardless of the color of our skin, or theirs.
The story of our inferiority is an old dodge, as I have said; for wherever men oppress their fellows, wherever they enslave them, they will endeavor to find the needed apology for such enslavement and oppression in the character of the people oppressed and enslaved. When we wanted, a few years ago, a slice of Mexico, it was hinted that the Mexicans were an inferior race, that the old Castilian blood had become so weak that it would scarcely run down hill, and that Mexico needed the long, strong and beneficent arm of the Anglo-Saxon care extended over it. We said that it was necessary to its salvation, and a part of the “manifest destiny” of this Republic, to extend our arm over that dilapidated government. So, too, when Russia wanted to take possession of a part of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks were “an inferior race.” So, too, when England wants to set the heel of her power more firmly in the quivering heart of old Ireland, the Celts are an “inferior race.” So, too, the Negro, when he is to be robbed of any right which is justly his, is an “inferior man.” It is said that we are ignorant; I admit it. But if we know enough to be hung, we know enough to vote. If the Negro knows enough to pay taxes to support the government, he knows enough to vote; taxation and representation should go together. If he knows enough to shoulder a musket and fight for the flag, fight for the government, he knows enough to vote. If he knows as much when he is sober as an Irishman knows when drunk, he knows enough to vote, on good American principles. [Laughter and applause.]
But I was saying that you needed a counterpoise in the persons of the slaves to the enmity that would exist at the South after the Rebellion is put down. I hold that the American people are bound, not only in self-defence, to extend this right to the freedmen of the South, but they are bound by their love of country, and by all their regard for the future safety of those Southern States, to do this—to do it as a measure essential to the preservation of peace there. But I will not dwell upon this. I put it to the American sense of honor. The honor of a nation is an important thing. It is said in the Scriptures, “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” It may be said, also, What doth it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, but lose its honor? I hold that the American government has taken upon itself a solemn obligation of honor, to see that this war—let it be long or let it be short, let it cost much or let it cost little—that this war shall not cease until every freedman at the South has the right to vote. [Applause.] It has bound itself to it. What have you asked the black men of the South, the black men of the whole country, to do? Why, you have asked them to incur the deadly enmity of their masters, in order to befriend you and to befriend this Government. You have asked us to call down, not only upon ourselves, but upon our children’s children, the deadly hate of the entire Southern people. You have called upon us to turn our backs upon our masters, to abandon their cause and espouse yours; to turn against the South and in favor of the North; to shoot down the Confederacy and uphold the flag—the American flag. You have called upon us to expose ourselves to all the subtle machinations of their malignity for all time. And now, what do you propose to do when you come to make peace? To reward your enemies, and trample in the dust your friends? Do you intend to sacrifice the very men who have come to the rescue of your banner in the South, and incurred the lasting displeasure of their masters thereby? Do you intend to sacrifice them and reward your enemies? Do you mean to give your enemies the right to vote, and take it away from your friends? Is that wise policy? Is that honorable? Could American honor withstand such a blow? I do not believe you will do it. I think you will see to it that we have the right to vote. There is something too mean in looking upon the Negro, when you are in trouble, as a citizen, and when you are free from trouble, as an alien. When this nation was in trouble, in its early struggles, it looked upon the Negro as a citizen. In 1776 he was a citizen. At the time of the formation of the Constitution the Negro had the right to vote in eleven States out of the old thirteen. In your trouble you have made us citizens. In 1812 Gen. Jackson addressed us as citizens—”fellow-citizens.” He wanted us to fight. We were citizens then! And now, when you come to frame a conscription bill, the Negro is a citizen again. He has been a citizen just three times in the history of this government, and it has always been in time of trouble. In time of trouble we are citizens. Shall we be citizens in war, and aliens in peace? Would that be just?
I ask my friends who are apologizing for not insisting upon this right, where can the black man look, in this country, for the assertion of his right, if he may not look to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society? Where under the whole heavens can he look for sympathy, in asserting this right, if he may not look to this platform? Have you lifted us up to a certain height to see that we are men, and then are any disposed to leave us there, without seeing that we are put in possession of all our rights? We look naturally to this platform for the assertion of all our rights, and for this one especially. I understand the anti-slavery societies of this country to be based on two principles,—first, the freedom of the blacks of this country; and, second, the elevation of them. Let me not be misunderstood here. I am not asking for sympathy at the hands of abolitionists, sympathy at the hands of any. I think the American people are disposed often to be generous rather than just. I look over this country at the present time, and I see Educational Societies, Sanitary Commissions, Freedmen’s Associations, and the like,—all very good: but in regard to the colored people there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. [Applause.] The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner-table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot-box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,—your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks’ “preparation” is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. [Applause.] Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live. He will work as readily for himself as the white man. A great many delusions have been swept away by this war. One was, that the Negro would not work; he has proved his ability to work. Another was, that the Negro would not fight; that he possessed only the most sheepish attributes of humanity; was a perfect lamb, or an “Uncle Tom;” disposed to take off his coat whenever required, fold his hands, and be whipped by anybody who wanted to whip him. But the war has proved that there is a great deal of human nature in the Negro, and that “he will fight,” as Mr. Quincy, our President, said, in earlier days than these, “when there is a reasonable probability of his whipping anybody.” [Laughter and applause.]
Because I'm black...and because I'm old enough to have gone to schools named Booker T Washington and Frederick Douglass back when all our teachers and principals were black HBCU graduates and were careful to tell us about many of the great figures of our history...not just three of them. We didn't get black history one month of the year, we got it every day.
Who are you arguing with? The strawman you set up?
What does that have to do with anything I said?
I pointed out that men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt were outliers--'way above the standard deviation of white men. So that certainly recognizes that there will be white men below the standard deviation.
Your abusive father is irrelevant to a discussion about racism.
Still kicking your own strawman.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?