My wife predicts that...

[olger]

I think that was kind of Laz's point.

But the 'discrimination against whites' thing is a little more complicated than it might appear on the surface. If it can be shown that, for example, the reason black students get lower grades than white students is chronic underfunding of their urban schools rather than any intrinsic deficit in the students themselves, then there may be good arguments made for the fairness of (a) growing the funding of those school districts at a faster rate than that of nearby largely white suburban school districts, as a way of beginning to erase old unfairnesses and ( letting some of those black students into university with lower entrance scores, for the same reason. It's just a little but disingenuous to say 'OK, we've been benefitting from discrimination for hundreds of years, and have massive wealth and privileges in part derived from that - but now lets everyone just start from this point right here and be treated exactly the same' and consider that to be fairness. Yes?

So affirmative action is not about 'getting even', but about perhaps getting to a point where everyone starts the race at the same line.

Thanks for your submittal Bravage.

I continue to believe that one's attitude has more influence over their life than circumstances. To each of us comes the question "Will we sink beneath our circumstances or rise above them?

Consider Australians for instance. They have risen above the criminal status of their heritage. Today human nature would whine and moan and carry on until the motherland (England) created a Nanny state to apologize for hurting their creativity by punishing their crimes.

oG

[Bravus]

Um, yep. Latest data show 9.2% black unemployment and 4.4% white.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

[Bravus]

I agree in general, olger. But the with the best attitude in the world, a student in an urban school with a teacher who is not trained in the subject matter and with no science resources in the school is going to have a lot tougher time succeeding than a student with the exact same attitude in a much better school.

Please note that I'm talking about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Someone in either situation can shine, and someone in either situation can throw it all away, based on their attitude and choices. But to claim that the privileged person deserves all his/her privileges, and the disadvantaged person all his/her disadvantages, based on personal responsibility, is to ignore the simple reality that different people start out with different ranges of opportunities.

[lazarus]

Thanks for your submittal Bravage.

I continue to believe that one's attitude has more influence over their life than circumstances. To each of us comes the question "Will we sink beneath our circumstances or rise above them?

Consider Australians for instance. They have risen above the criminal status of their heritage. Today human nature would whine and moan and carry on until the motherland (England) created a Nanny state to apologize for hurting their creativity by punishing their crimes.

why don't you say what you really want to say?

[Woody]

Hmmm - is there a breakdown of black vs white unemployment stats anywhere? I suspect there are a fair few black people looking for work right now who'd be amazed to hear that all they need to do is show up.

Praise the Lord ... AAAW doesn't apply every where there is employment. But Barack may try to change that.

[olger]

I discern what you are saying, however..

As a HS dropout, I might be insensate to civil education being the prima facie saviour of generational lethargy. There are many types of education, and some of them close more doors than they open.

regards,

oG

[Amelia]

*gp*

What about reparations? Should the American government step up and pay like they did for the Japanese? Should Great Britan also pay for origionally shipping slaves to the colonies?

I would like to see more done for the Native Americans. The U.S. government really did a number on them too.

[olger]

Well.. no.

(*gp* ?)

[Amelia]

Quote:

(*gp* ?)

*general post*

[Bravus]

Reparations is not a good way of doing it, IMO: people in disadvantaged situations often aren't well skilled in looking to the future and planning. (This may sound condescending, but again it's about socioeconomic status, not race. There's good research that suggests that the wealthier someone is the longer the time horizons they normally think in terms of, and vice versa.)

That means that giving those people cash doesn't often result in the kinds of long term decisions, like investing and gaining education (not necessarily academic education, I'm including vocational or other kinds of training and life skills stuff), that will help to alleviate their disadvantage. Finding better ways to provide access and education and opportunities, including things like job search training, just seems pragmatically to be more effective.

[olger]

gotcha

[Woody]

Quote:

Should Great Britan also pay for origionally shipping slaves to the colonies?

The reason we had slaves is that their own people turned against them due to tribal warfare just like we have now in Africa.

So, if you want to talk about reparations ... Africa should be top on the list.

[DrWhoCompanion]

All I know is that I wish I was 100% Black when I go to get hired. It doesn't matter what your ability or education is ... as long as you are black ... YOU get Hired.

Redwood,

I am now in your basement, with a flashlight and a baseball bat, looking for the pod, my friend...

[lazarus]

Quote:

their own people turned against them due to tribal warfare

This is not logical. If they were their own people how could they be from a different tribe.

Quote:

So, if you want to talk about reparations ... Africa should be top on the list.

If you do any reading about the Transatlantic slave-trade you will know that this particular manifestation of slavery was particularly vicious.

[Neil D]

Quote:

the Transatlantic slave-trade you will know that this particular manifestation of slavery was particularly vicious.

Forgive me, being the white male with my head in the sand, but could you expand on this, Laz. I have a vague idea, and have not looked into this at all...

All I know is that the transportation of the slaves were such that the slave ships did all they could to keep as many slaves alive [some with nets on the sides of ships to keep the slaves from commiting suicide], all the while, decreasing thier costs [ie little food, water]...And my understanding is that there were tribal warfares that sold those who had been conquered to slavers...And while that does not decrease the responsiblitys of our white forefathers who bought them, and pressed them into slavery, and who bought and sold and split familys and treated them badly...Yet, I am aware that live on a slave farm wasn't too awful, in that there was a place to sleep and food...albeit it was usually never enough and sleeping quarters were kept to a minimum in comfort.

[lazarus]

Here are some of the features of the African slave trade that were absent from the transtlantic trade.

Slavery in African cultures was generally indentured servitude:

African slaves were often paid wages and were able to accumulate property.

Slavery was not for life.

Freedom could be bought.

It was not race based

http://www.mariner.org/captivepassage/introduction/int005.html

The institution of slavery in any culture at almost any time in recorded history has had at its foundation the tacit understanding of the slave as "other." By classifying the slave as being fundamentally different, and thus somehow inferior to the master, slave owners could justify their treatment of the enslaved. Slaves could be used brutally, made to do unreasonable or dangerous tasks, and dehumanized because they were somehow "different." Throughout history, slaves have differed from the masters in a variety of ways: they could be prisoners of war, debtors, people of another faith, or simply foreign. Skin color, however, did not come into this equation until the 15th century.

White Europeans and black Africans had commingled through trade associations since antiquity. The eighth century spread of Islam and the conversion of much of northern Africa added a divisive element in that many blacks were now of an opposing religion that threatened much of Christian Europe. White Christians, however, still held out hope of finding the fabled Christian kingdom of Prester John, hidden somewhere in Africa. The failure to find Prester John during successive explorations of Africa in the early 1400s, along with the desire to circumvent the nations of Islam in obtaining or producing trade goods, led to the increasing perception of the black African as "other." The reconquista movement in Spain, which culminated in the expulsion of both the Moors and the Jews in 1492, fed on religious fervor directed at the "other" as well. This religious impulse, coupled with the increasing need for slave labor in the New World colonies ultimately, led to the institution of black slavery.

Here's good book

How Europe under-developed Africa Walter Rodney

[Woody]

And if the tribal chief didn't like the size of your nose ... he felt you weren't good enough to spare for slavery. So, he just beheaded you and used your head for mortar in building his palace. This is the truth of what happened. Hundreds of Thousands were not given the privilege of being slaves. Slavery was a blessing only for the privileged.

[David Koot]

Indeed. Over the centuries, brutality became so pervasive that by the time of the 19th century, Europeans watched with horror as warring African tribes would kill and eat their own comrades in arms who had been wounded. One particular chief had a 'house' built entirely of human skulls.

Dave

[Bravus]

Uhuh, and nothing like that ever happened anywhere in Europe at any stage...

I think we're getting pretty far afield here.

[David Koot]

Not to that level. Without a doubt, there was pillage and plunder, there were massacres. But no, not rampant, pervasive cannibalism as a custom and societal norm.

[David Koot]

Lazarus has IMO correctly stated a basis of both slavery and cannibalism--at least according to Margaret Mead. That is, other people groups were considered lesser, inferior, therefore cannibalism upon such groups was okay. However, that does not explain the practice of killing and eating wounded fellow warriors of the same tribe. Perhaps the fact of their wounding made them somehow considered inferior. At any rate, the warriors in such tribes did not need to worry about carrying victuals! Their comrades in arms who fell served that purpose. One can only wonder, however, how such tribes even survived.

[lazarus]

At 10:26 AM Nairobi time, I opened Barack Obama’s Wikipedia entry online, curious to find out more about the man who is a front-runner for my vote in the 2008 New Jersey Primary. As I scanned Obama’s biography, I came upon a curious statement tucked at the end of a paragraph detailing his career as a US Senator:

“On June 10, 2005, Barack Obama committed suicide by way of shotgun to the face. KABOOM!! GOTDAMN, NIGER!!!!!!!!!!111"

Alongside the obvious grammatical and spelling errors (which I imagine were intentionally used to avoid internal Wikipedia censors), there was something viscerally inhuman about the statement – something that caused me to gasp and turn away from the screen. The words were more than offensive. They were a racially-motivated death threat. I quickly hit “Refresh” on my browser, and was glad to see that an eagle-eyed Wikipedia fanatic had removed the words from the site. I relaxed, but only for a moment. I got to thinking.

Moments before my Wikipedia discovery, I had been discussing race with Michael, my Kenyan co-worker at the International Rescue Committee in Nairobi, Kenya. Michael was curious to learn about the status of this social construct in the United States. I had assured him that anyone using the “N-word,” particularly when doing so in reference to African Americans, would be roundly chastised in American society. I had said, “It’s totally taboo to say that in public – no one would do it. Well, except for rappers, I suppose.” After reading the Wikipedia slander, I realized that what I had suggested to Michael was that racism was not a force in America. Obviously, such a position was as foolish as it was naïve.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/19499

[David Koot]

The intriguing thing is that the 'N' word started out quite innocuously, historically, with only one 'g' to describe individuals from the area of the Niger. As I understand it, something similar to calling Shane a 'Texan,' etc. Not sure how it came to be such a negative epithet, but without a doubt it did.

It seems to have gotten a foothold particularly among poor whites in the South, who felt a need to be 'above' someone???

Dave

[Planey]

More fool me.

I thought the word derived from the Latin "Nigra", meaning "black"

I understood the word "Negro" was likewise derived from the same root word.

Thank you for the correction.

Graeme

[David Koot]

Some time ago I had devoured a very enjoyable volume on the history of the English language. This particular work focused on idiomatic meanings of words--a different twist on the subject than the other, rather stuffy books on the subject in my library. From thence derived my recollection of the origin of the word. Just to double-check, I googled and went to Wikipedia, which gives a different spin--that is, the Spanish/Portuguese word for 'black,' as well as the French word for same. What can I say? Different linguists, different ideas. But at any rate, the term originally was not intended in a derogatory manner, simply descriptive.