Pat Buchanan: Black Americans should be grateful we brought them over on slave ships!

[HAL 9000 96]

Like I've noticed before... assumming most VJers are probably NOT African Americans, its amazing how authoritative we become in race relations as it pertains to understanding the historical and realistic plight of others.

[DeadPoolX 9]

While Buchanan's words are incredibly stupid, I do understand the idea behind his message and it's not really one that is racist. Not completely, anyway. He's more or less saying that even though we brought many blacks over to this country unwillingly, made them slaves and practically forced African Americans to stand up for their rights as U.S. citizens in the mid-20th century, today they are far better off for it than if the majority of them had remained in Africa.

When looking at Buchanan's article in that context (and attempting to ignore his overblown vitriol), he does make a somewhat valid point. The African Americans in the United States of 2008 do, overall, have a much better quality of life than the Africans still living in Africa. How they got here and what their ancestors had to go through was reprehensible, but I don't think very many modern African Americans (despite accusations of unfair treatment) are considered slaves or property and barred from certain professions and schools or forced to enter restaurants/businesses from the back, sit in the back of the bus, use specifically marked areas for "colored individuals" or refused service simply because of their skin tone.

As for the crime statistics, perhaps there might be more black-on-white crime; however, that's looking at only a very small portion of crime. Most criminal activities take on a noted intraracial (as opposed to interracial) flavor. In other words, there is far more black-on-black and white-on-white crime than either black-on-white or white-on-black. This is because most personal crime tends to take place in or around areas the criminal knows best (i.e. within their general neighborhood or relatively close to home) and since people often congregate together with individuals who're like themselves, African American criminals usually operate in areas where there are more African Americans; likewise, Caucasian criminals do the same with other Caucasians.

This reason stated above also explains the much publicized (but misunderstood) theory that "the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime." In many cases, the criminal usually does, but rarely for any grandiose purpose. More often than not, the criminal lives somewhere around or near the "scene of the crime" so his or her appearance there wouldn't be too unusual or unexpected.

Just for the record: I am not a fan of Pat Buchanan and I am not attempting to defend his ideas or morals. I merely think he may have a somewhat decent point hidden within the inflammatory nature of his article. That's all.

Edited March 22, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I guess by the same token Pat Buchanan ancestors should feel lucky that Ireland had a potato famine since it brought them to the US

It's called turning lemons into lemonade.

I don't hear too many Irish b!tch about the famine today. Waaa waaaa no potatoes to eat 150 years ago.... give me a handout today.

Actually, Irish immigrants who came here to escape the potato famine were also subjected to prejudicial treatment, it's just that they were able to blend into society a lot easier than generations of Blacks who were descendents of slaves, and you'd be kidding yourself if you didn't think many Irish immigrants lived in dire poverty. They often relied on handouts just to feed their families which were rather large. Read Angela's Ashes.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[Alex+R 0]

I knew some total racist would show up in this thread and meekly agree with Pat Buchanan. And of course it happened. VJ sux.

Oh, cmon. Echo chambers are no fun! I like that people who disagree with me exist here, it gives us something to argue about

I like disagreeing and talking about someone else's opininion. When it's not some idiotic argument based in ignorance and/or manipulation of the facts. Honestly, I don't know where these people crawl out of to post on VJ.

Look, I understand why someone would hold Rich's opinions. But that's because they have their blinders on and haven't looked at history. But I stand by calling Rich's post (and Rich) racist, and I'm sure I could dig up a lot of posts to back that up. But who cares? It's just VJ.

Oh noes, ground me! I don't give a **. I'm watching German TV, and although I can't understand a frigging word (by the way, German idol is awful), it's somehow more intelligent to me than the conversation here.

[Sylvia_n_Joseph 3]

I may get shot for what I have to say but here goes. My SO is from western Africa. We have talked about everything under the sun and slavery has come up. This is what I was told. In tribal wars they believed that if you did not remove your opponents head then his spirt would do back to his people and enter another body and return to seek vengance. Knowing this the tribe on the losing side would frequently ask to be slaves. ( hmm lose head .. become slave .. which would I pick ) Knowing that is was not smart to have too many former enemies as slaves in your own territory, most were taken to market for sale and export. So if you look at the difference between being put on a slave ship or losing your head I think the slave ship is the better long term option. But it wasn't the whites that actually did that it was the various africans that made the choice.

[SnowyTater 0]

I may get shot for what I have to say but here goes. My SO is from western Africa. We have talked about everything under the sun and slavery has come up. This is what I was told. In tribal wars they believed that if you did not remove your opponents head then his spirt would do back to his people and enter another body and return to seek vengance. Knowing this the tribe on the losing side would frequently ask to be slaves. ( hmm lose head .. become slave .. which would I pick ) Knowing that is was not smart to have too many former enemies as slaves in your own territory, most were taken to market for sale and export. So if you look at the difference between being put on a slave ship or losing your head I think the slave ship is the better long term option. But it wasn't the whites that actually did that it was the various africans that made the choice.

Well...I mean, a choice between two really crappy options choice, yeh. But no I understand what you mean, and there was tribal slavery too, it wasn't like we were exclusively the totally evil ones back in the day.

But we managed to do it on such a larger and more "impressively" exploitative scale than everyone else.

So I mean if your choices were between head chopped off or riding over on a boat and getting a kind of decent family and being a house servant or even a field worker the rest of your days, getting your own cabin, enough food, and raising a family, then yeh I guess that's better. But if you're one of what...the majority that died horrible long-drawn-out deaths on the ships, or that went to the islands where everyone was diseased and it was way too hot and the average lifespan was like what 2 months or something? or if you got one of the families that totally sucked and didn't feed you, etc...I mean keeping in mind you've been taken away from everything you've ever known of course and you don't speak the language but are probably expected to learn it pretty dang fast and this civilization is entirely different than yours, all that stuff. I don't know, even with the good "nice" slaveholding family, dealing with all that culture shock, maybe better still to have your head chopped off. Guess it's...what you're into

[SnowyTater 0]

This is kind of off topic but since someone brought up the Irish:

These are always fun.

The whole concept of "white" and for that matter I guess most (or all) races is pretty much artificial anyway. When the Irish first came over all kind of extreme stereotypes both physically and personality-wise were thought up, and that goes for the Italians too. Irish weren't considered "white" til later once they'd been accepted. Guess kind of the same for the Jews, who have pitchfork tails and horns and hooves

[HAL 9000 96]

And African slaves were not considered 100% human in this country of ours. Go figure!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

While Buchanan's words are incredibly stupid, I do understand the idea behind his message and it's not really one that is racist. Not completely, anyway. He's more or less saying that even though we brought many blacks over to this country unwillingly, made them slaves and practically forced African Americans to stand up for their rights as U.S. citizens in the mid-20th century, today they are far better off for it than if the majority of them had remained in Africa.

When looking at Buchanan's article in that context (and attempting to ignore his overblown vitriol), he does make a somewhat valid point. The African Americans in the United States of 2008 do, overall, have a much better quality of life than the Africans still living in Africa. How they got here and what their ancestors had to go through was reprehensible, but I don't think very many modern African Americans (despite accusations of unfair treatment) are considered slaves or property and barred from certain professions and schools or forced to enter restaurants/businesses from the back, sit in the back of the bus, use specifically marked areas for "colored individuals" or refused service simply because of their skin tone.

As for the crime statistics, perhaps there might be more black-on-white crime; however, that's looking at only a very small portion of crime. Most criminal activities take on a noted intraracial (as opposed to interracial) flavor. In other words, there is far more black-on-black and white-on-white crime than either black-on-white or white-on-black. This is because most personal crime tends to take place in or around areas the criminal knows best (i.e. within their general neighborhood or relatively close to home) and since people often congregate together with individuals who're like themselves, African American criminals usually operate in areas where there are more African Americans; likewise, Caucasian criminals do the same with other Caucasians.

This reason stated above also explains the much publicized (but misunderstood) theory that "the criminal always returns to the scene of the crime." In many cases, the criminal usually does, but rarely for any grandiose purpose. More often than not, the criminal lives somewhere around or near the "scene of the crime" so his or her appearance there wouldn't be too unusual or unexpected.

Just for the record: I am not a fan of Pat Buchanan and I am not attempting to defend his ideas or morals. I merely think he may have a somewhat decent point hidden within the inflammatory nature of his article. That's all.

Like Wright, Buchanan may have a valid point hidden inside his inflammatory rhetoric, but (like Wright) he isn't adding anything new to the issue of race in America.

I should also add that because neither of them are adding anything to the debate - focus naturally falls on the offensive nature of their rhetoric.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Number 6

[kaydee457 13]

I knew some total racist would show up in this thread and meekly agree with Pat Buchanan. And of course it happened. VJ sux.

Oh, cmon. Echo chambers are no fun! I like that people who disagree with me exist here, it gives us something to argue about

I like disagreeing and talking about someone else's opininion. When it's not some idiotic argument based in ignorance and/or manipulation of the facts. Honestly, I don't know where these people crawl out of to post on VJ.

Look, I understand why someone would hold Rich's opinions. But that's because they have their blinders on and haven't looked at history. But I stand by calling Rich's post (and Rich) racist, and I'm sure I could dig up a lot of posts to back that up. But who cares? It's just VJ.

Oh noes, ground me! I don't give a **. I'm watching German TV, and although I can't understand a frigging word (by the way, German idol is awful), it's somehow more intelligent to me than the conversation here.

They "crawl out" of the same hole you do.....Don't get too haughty taughty sister! Just where's your learned credentials to comment on race matters? Are you black?

Rich is no bigot, nor is he racist.

[Nikita2Charles 32]

I wasn't even going to comment on this lunatic. He got his history wrong if he even checked his facts.

blacks didn't come by choice, they were sold and brought into slavery, HE's talking about all the hand out given to blacks, if he check his facts he would know who gets the welfare money, not even mentioning CORPORATE WELFARE.

One thing that's always IRONIC,some JEWS received compensation for the nazi crime, but not ONCE i ever heard of any groups fighting for the FREE labor the slaves provided to the white masters. They made their wealth on the backbone of those slaves. what about countless of families that was thrown OVERBOARD during the Journey by those white master, Any reparation for them?Where's the reparation? It all comes down to SKIN COLOR, the Irish and other groups that came into the country came by choice, they were not FORCED to come to america. AS WHITES, they had a major advantage compare to blacks because they are WHITE. Just look at the immigration system in FLORIDA a few years ago during political unrest in Haiti, Cuban that makes it to FLorida gets FREE PASSAGE< Political Asylum but BLacks( haitian refugees) that comes from other parts of the carribean are sent back, deported or kept in Jail pending deportation.

Just basic History book, and howllywood you can see the brainwash, portraying them mostly in negative roles.

HOW MANY OF VJ"S HERE KNOWS OF THE BATTLE OF SAVANNAH???

Haitians(BLACKS)learn it in school, but it's

virtually unknown in the U.S.: In the Revolutionary War's

bloody siege of Savannah, hundreds of Haitian soldiers

were there for the colonies

We were here in 1779 to help America win

independence.

In October 1779, a force of more than 500 Haitian free

blacks joined American colonists and French troops in an

unsuccessful push to drive the British from Savannah in

coastal Georgia.

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

When i went through high school in Brooklyn, NY, i can only recall just one line of it mentioned in the history book, and that was only after I asked my teacher about it.

Edited March 23, 2008 by Nikita2Charles

[Caladan 19]

Ah, Buchanan. Head so far up his butt he has to unzip his fly to blow his nose.

[pedroh 21]

the only thing is, that white preachers-freaks-whatever, get to say whatever on tv or on the press, and they 'have the right' because 'the other folks are doing it'... look what happened to Obama's preacher, they're killin him because omg he said so many mean things..

but, what has ever happened to David Duke? to Buchanan? to the guys that said that 9/11 was caused by lesbians, gays, satanists? to the westboro baptist church? oh, it's their freedom of speech to say it.. but if it's a minority, it's terrible because they are trying to abuse the now-minority white race...

[Sofargone 2]

the only thing is, that white preachers-freaks-whatever, get to say whatever on tv or on the press, and they 'have the right' because 'the other folks are doing it'... look what happened to Obama's preacher, they're killin him because omg he said so many mean things..

but, what has ever happened to David Duke? to Buchanan? to the guys that said that 9/11 was caused by lesbians, gays, satanists? to the westboro baptist church? oh, it's their freedom of speech to say it.. but if it's a minority, it's terrible because they are trying to abuse the now-minority white race...

Don't be ignorant, why play the race card ? Trying to gain sympathy from the great White guilt trip ??

Sofargone

[pedroh 21]

the only thing is, that white preachers-freaks-whatever, get to say whatever on tv or on the press, and they 'have the right' because 'the other folks are doing it'... look what happened to Obama's preacher, they're killin him because omg he said so many mean things..

but, what has ever happened to David Duke? to Buchanan? to the guys that said that 9/11 was caused by lesbians, gays, satanists? to the westboro baptist church? oh, it's their freedom of speech to say it.. but if it's a minority, it's terrible because they are trying to abuse the now-minority white race...

Don't be ignorant, why play the race card ? Trying to gain sympathy from the great White guilt trip ??

Sofargone

am im not right? when has there been such an outrage like with obama's preacher, with buchanan or falwell or any of those wackos?