KKK endorses McCain: "A black President would go against just about everything we stand for"

[Fandango 1,439]

I think 6 was referring to being specifically white power, not white pride. Haven't we had this thread recently?

Pride is fine as long as its not derogatory of other groups. Simple enough. No $hitpot to stir all that much.

More that I don't understand why anyone would want to promote the "pride/power" of what is a cultural majority.

It might be said that as an Englishman I identify more with my nationality and specific cultural background than my ethnicity. My "whiteness" is more or less irrelevant to me in that respect.

In Black America - you have what is essentially a new sub-culture that defines itself (inevitably) by its ethnicity foremost rather than by severed links to ancient mother-cultures from which it is at least 2 hundred years removed.

I do want to say one thing....for the individual, (s) should be able to promote whatever pride he/she wants...not 'oh, too bad, you're part of a majority so it's not allowed'

And 'black America' is different from being 'an Englishman'....Identifying with a 'mother culture' first and foremost would be kinda strange since it's generations removed. Same could be said for most of us USCs....we all came from somewhere since America is a nation of immigrants and not that old to begin with. But we're all Americans now.

Well this is true - but I think the concept of "White America". White Americans never needed to identify themselves as a distinct culture along ethnic lines. Mother cultures whether they be those of the irish, italian or what have you may have blended into a single homogenous morass (melting pot) which we term "American", but the idiosyncracies of those cultures still remain in some form and are still practiced and cherished by many people.

IMO - That isn't something that happened with Black America. They essentially had their cultural (mother) identity stolen.

I think you're confusing race with culture.

And there are many black Americans who are not descendants of slaves...

[Heracles 417]

I do not see an issue with a group whose sole purpose is the advancement to equality with everyone else in current society, of one race. You need to be precise with the reality of what this society is; and clearly it is not an equal scenario.

I also do not see an issue with members of one race that are at a historical and current disadvantage, receiving incentives, education, and training, in acquiring the means for self-improvement. That, BY, is called advancement.

The reality is that they have access to just the same services and schools as anyone else who is a citizen of America; and illegal immigrants. White kids don't have a monopoly or trademark on success. White kids have to go to school, study hard and then get into UNI like everybody else in this world. Or pursue one of many other prosperous careers outside school. Yet you seem to make the assumption that black kids have the odds stacked against them because of historical events or their skin color. If someone is poor they need to work twice as hard as anyone else to make it. That is the reality for blacks, whites, asians hispanics etc. And certainly not something only affecting the black American community.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[HAL 9000 96]

I get it. I get your logic.

KKK after civil war = bad

Current Palestinian anger = justified

Current Black crime = justified

I think that's someone else's logic mate - combined with not a little wishful thinking on your part.

In any case - my question is answered. You clearly don't have the courage to stand behind your own statements.

I am still trying to figure out which statement in this thread I am not standing behind.

Well you can ask for clarification.

I don't think it was your spelling skills that were being questioned; but rather your highlighting, emphasis, and implication which are suspect and in very good keeping with the nature of the thread's theme. Plus, maybe a little bit of trying to explain how one thing does not equal something else due precisely to the context and more importantly, the reality of history.

Okay lets clarify this. Do you seriously not see any issue with a group whose sole purpose is to promote the advancement of one race???

I do not see an issue with a group whose sole purpose is the advancement to equality with everyone else in current society, of one race. You need to be precise with the reality of what this society is; and clearly it is not an equal scenario.

I also do not see an issue with members of one race that are at a historical and current disadvantage, receiving incentives, education, and training, in acquiring the means for self-improvement. That, BY, is called advancement.

Absolutely - especially if that group is being compared to another which is infamous for repressing and putting down other social groups.

Well to be fair I don't think the majority of "white" Americans actually care, participate, or promote the inequalities of the past. That is why partially, the environment of race relations has improved over time.

I think at this point there are plenty of hidden feelings and mentalities that are detrimental to any further progress, but those are being weeded out slowly.

[Heracles 417]

I am still trying to figure out which statement in this thread I am not standing behind.

No you aren't.

No I seriously am. You have a habit of making something out from nothing. I could say I hate black cars. Yet you will somehow turn it out to mean that I want to kill black babies.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yet you seem to make the assumption that black kids have the odds stacked against them because of historical events...

That American history has treated Americans of African lineage particularly poorly (see: Slavery, Jim Crow) isn't an assumption.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think 6 was referring to being specifically white power, not white pride. Haven't we had this thread recently?

Pride is fine as long as its not derogatory of other groups. Simple enough. No $hitpot to stir all that much.

More that I don't understand why anyone would want to promote the "pride/power" of what is a cultural majority.

It might be said that as an Englishman I identify more with my nationality and specific cultural background than my ethnicity. My "whiteness" is more or less irrelevant to me in that respect.

In Black America - you have what is essentially a new sub-culture that defines itself (inevitably) by its ethnicity foremost rather than by severed links to ancient mother-cultures from which it is at least 2 hundred years removed.

I do want to say one thing....for the individual, (s) should be able to promote whatever pride he/she wants...not 'oh, too bad, you're part of a majority so it's not allowed'

And 'black America' is different from being 'an Englishman'....Identifying with a 'mother culture' first and foremost would be kinda strange since it's generations removed. Same could be said for most of us USCs....we all came from somewhere since America is a nation of immigrants and not that old to begin with. But we're all Americans now.

Well this is true - but I think the concept of "White America". White Americans never needed to identify themselves as a distinct culture along ethnic lines. Mother cultures whether they be those of the irish, italian or what have you may have blended into a single homogenous morass (melting pot) which we term "American", but the idiosyncracies of those cultures still remain in some form and are still practiced and cherished by many people.

IMO - That isn't something that happened with Black America. They essentially had their cultural (mother) identity stolen.

I think you're confusing race with culture.

And there are many black Americans who are not descendants of slaves...

My point was that Black culture in the US is a relatively new construct that has its founding basis in racial solidarity, rather than in the customs and traditions of a identifiable motherland/s. That's the difference as I see it - though not being black myself, my perspective on this can only be a limited one.

Obviously I'm talking in generalities - and yes I know that there are many black American who are not descendents of slaves.

[HAL 9000 96]

I do not see an issue with a group whose sole purpose is the advancement to equality with everyone else in current society, of one race. You need to be precise with the reality of what this society is; and clearly it is not an equal scenario.

I also do not see an issue with members of one race that are at a historical and current disadvantage, receiving incentives, education, and training, in acquiring the means for self-improvement. That, BY, is called advancement.

The fact is they have access to just the same services and schools as anyone else who is a citizen of America; and illegal immigrants. White kids have to go to school, study hard and then get into UNI. Or pursue one of many other prosperous careers outside school. Yet you seem to make the assumption that black kids have the odds stacked against them because of historical events or their skin color. If someone is poor they need to work twice as hard as anyone else to make it. That is the reality for blacks, whites, asians hispanics etc. And certainly not something only affecting the black American community.

They do have odds stacked against them. It has been explained to you before- schooling for inner city children is funded disproportionately according to local taxation- primarily more so than the standard amounts dedicated per pupil from the State and Federal level. Sure, you get diamonds in the rough that make their teachers cry with joy, but even some of these kids get sucked in by a system that is stacked against them (poor home life, lack of proper diet at home, poor health care, violence close to home, etc). These are all byproducts of true and historical circumstance.

Note how race is left out of that argument. You are a product of where you come from.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am still trying to figure out which statement in this thread I am not standing behind.

No you aren't.

No I seriously am. You have a habit of making something out from nothing. I could say I hate black cars. Yet you will somehow turn it out to mean that I want to kill black babies.

There's a pretty clear implication of meaning in the bolded part below - but I expect you'll play dumb and say you were asking an innocent question - because you really wanted to know how that organisation came into being.

As I say - no balls...

The existence of the KKK and the attitudes that support white supremacy pretty much required the creation of an organised political group to promote the interest of disenfranchised blacks.

As far as I'm aware - NAACP members aren't going around in black robes looking for white people to lynch. Nor are they lobbying for the disenfranchisement of whites in the way that the KKK does.

Have you ever wondered why the KKK started in the first place..

[Heracles 417]

The fact is they have access to just the same services and schools as anyone else who is a citizen of America; and illegal immigrants. White kids have to go to school, study hard and then get into UNI. Or pursue one of many other prosperous careers outside school. Yet you seem to make the assumption that black kids have the odds stacked against them because of historical events or their skin color. If someone is poor they need to work twice as hard as anyone else to make it. That is the reality for blacks, whites, asians hispanics etc. And certainly not something only affecting the black American community.

They do have odds stacked against them. It has been explained to you before- schooling for inner city children is funded disproportionately according to local taxation- primarily more so than the standard amounts dedicated per pupil from the State and Federal level. Sure, you get diamonds in the rough that make their teachers cry with joy, but even some of these kids get sucked in by a system that is stacked against them (poor home life, lack of proper diet at home, poor health care, violence close to home, etc). These are all byproducts of true and historical circumstance.

Note how race is left out of that argument. You are a product of where you come from.

Finally I agree with something you have said 110%. Where we will most definitely disagree is whom the responsibility lies on. Is it my job to ensure a kid studies, goes to school, obeys the law? Nope. It is their parents. As it was my parents.

The US is neither Canada or Australia. So allocating funding to fixing these issues is quite difficult. But I will agree that doing nothing is clearly not working at all.

[HAL 9000 96]

The fact is they have access to just the same services and schools as anyone else who is a citizen of America; and illegal immigrants. White kids have to go to school, study hard and then get into UNI. Or pursue one of many other prosperous careers outside school. Yet you seem to make the assumption that black kids have the odds stacked against them because of historical events or their skin color. If someone is poor they need to work twice as hard as anyone else to make it. That is the reality for blacks, whites, asians hispanics etc. And certainly not something only affecting the black American community.

They do have odds stacked against them. It has been explained to you before- schooling for inner city children is funded disproportionately according to local taxation- primarily more so than the standard amounts dedicated per pupil from the State and Federal level. Sure, you get diamonds in the rough that make their teachers cry with joy, but even some of these kids get sucked in by a system that is stacked against them (poor home life, lack of proper diet at home, poor health care, violence close to home, etc). These are all byproducts of true and historical circumstance.

Note how race is left out of that argument. You are a product of where you come from.

Finally I agree with something you have said 110%. Where we will most definitely disagree is whom the responsibility lies on. Is it my job to ensure a kid studies, goes to school, obeys the law? Nope. It is their parents. As it was my parents.

The US is neither Canada or Australia. So allocating funding to fixing these issues is quite difficult. But I will agree that doing nothing is clearly not working at all.

To be frank with you we've agreed on this before. We've also agreed on whose primary job it is to raise kids (parents).

Then again, it also takes a village... as the saying goes.

[Fandango 1,439]

My point was that Black culture in the US is a relatively new construct that has its founding basis in racial solidarity, rather than in the customs and traditions of a identifiable motherland/s. That's the difference as I see it - though not being black myself, my perspective on this can only be a limited one.

Obviously I'm talking in generalities - and yes I know that there are many black American who are not descendents of slaves.

Well how can they identify with their culture when everyone else is calling them African-Americans? They could be from anywhere, not just 'Africa the mother planet'

I do see your point though, but I think it's being a bit oversimplistic because this is far too complicated a topic to be explained away in a thread. Who pushes for racial solidarity, though? Is it every form where you have to 'check the box', is it affirmative action, or similar things? I think they all contribute.

If targeting certain races for being of that race is bad, then we should truly strive to become a color blind society.

[HAL 9000 96]

The fact is they have access to just the same services and schools as anyone else who is a citizen of America; and illegal immigrants. White kids have to go to school, study hard and then get into UNI. Or pursue one of many other prosperous careers outside school. Yet you seem to make the assumption that black kids have the odds stacked against them because of historical events or their skin color. If someone is poor they need to work twice as hard as anyone else to make it. That is the reality for blacks, whites, asians hispanics etc. And certainly not something only affecting the black American community.

They do have odds stacked against them. It has been explained to you before- schooling for inner city children is funded disproportionately according to local taxation- primarily more so than the standard amounts dedicated per pupil from the State and Federal level. Sure, you get diamonds in the rough that make their teachers cry with joy, but even some of these kids get sucked in by a system that is stacked against them (poor home life, lack of proper diet at home, poor health care, violence close to home, etc). These are all byproducts of true and historical circumstance.

Note how race is left out of that argument. You are a product of where you come from.

Finally I agree with something you have said 110%. Where we will most definitely disagree is whom the responsibility lies on. Is it my job to ensure a kid studies, goes to school, obeys the law? Nope. It is their parents. As it was my parents.

The US is neither Canada or Australia. So allocating funding to fixing these issues is quite difficult. But I will agree that doing nothing is clearly not working at all.

To be frank with you we've agreed on this before. We've also agreed on whose primary job it is to raise kids (parents).

Then again, it also takes a village... as the saying goes.

And to add:

The funding is there, its just mis-allocated from the top-down. If third world countries can produce excellent, consistent, bright intellectuals capable of doing the most complicated tasks in a society, then so can inner city schools... problem is that they are not equipped, manned, secure enough, and the parental aspect of improving a child's education are not stimulated at home because the reality is that the parents- when present, can't sustain the amount of economical pressure required to keep their children in a productive environment at home while sustaining the household. The ones that are not present do little and are not an example to be followed. This is of course, assuming a school environment that is adequate. And current educational trends at the local school, state, and federal levels are not supportive of a stimulatory environment for the majority of school kids anywhere- inner city or small town.

My point was that Black culture in the US is a relatively new construct that has its founding basis in racial solidarity, rather than in the customs and traditions of a identifiable motherland/s. That's the difference as I see it - though not being black myself, my perspective on this can only be a limited one.

Obviously I'm talking in generalities - and yes I know that there are many black American who are not descendents of slaves.

Well how can they identify with their culture when everyone else is calling them African-Americans? They could be from anywhere, not just 'Africa the mother planet'

I do see your point though, but I think it's being a bit oversimplistic because this is far too complicated a topic to be explained away in a thread. Who pushes for racial solidarity, though? Is it every form where you have to 'check the box', is it affirmative action, or similar things? I think they all contribute.

If targeting certain races for being of that race is bad, then we should truly strive to become a color blind society.

Where else are black-skinned individuals ancestrally from? Just curious (not counting Australia's Aboriginals and Pacific Islanders)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

My point was that Black culture in the US is a relatively new construct that has its founding basis in racial solidarity, rather than in the customs and traditions of a identifiable motherland/s. That's the difference as I see it - though not being black myself, my perspective on this can only be a limited one.

Obviously I'm talking in generalities - and yes I know that there are many black American who are not descendents of slaves.

Well how can they identify with their culture when everyone else is calling them African-Americans? They could be from anywhere, not just 'Africa the mother planet'

I do see your point though, but I think it's being a bit oversimplistic because this is far too complicated a topic to be explained away in a thread. Who pushes for racial solidarity, though? Is it every form where you have to 'check the box', is it affirmative action, or similar things? I think they all contribute.

If targeting certain races for being of that race is bad, then we should truly strive to become a color blind society.

Certainly - my intent was really to address the whole "if someone of X race said it, there'd be a big hoo-ha". Especially as the character in this thread has been to compare the NAACP with the KKK.

There is a difference and there is a reason why we have things like BET or indeed the NAACP and (IMO) they have less to do with giving racism a pass than some people want to believe.

I will concede though that these things and social engineering like Affirmative Action can and do cause problems - but at the same time abandoning those things will not magically provide the transition to social equality. After all, this is pretty much was what these things were brought in to address in the first place.

I don't know who has the answers - but I do know that pointing fingers at group X or Y doesn't move the debate forward.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Number 6

[HAL 9000 96]

The fact is they have access to just the same services and schools as anyone else who is a citizen of America; and illegal immigrants. White kids have to go to school, study hard and then get into UNI. Or pursue one of many other prosperous careers outside school. Yet you seem to make the assumption that black kids have the odds stacked against them because of historical events or their skin color. If someone is poor they need to work twice as hard as anyone else to make it. That is the reality for blacks, whites, asians hispanics etc. And certainly not something only affecting the black American community.

They do have odds stacked against them. It has been explained to you before- schooling for inner city children is funded disproportionately according to local taxation- primarily more so than the standard amounts dedicated per pupil from the State and Federal level. Sure, you get diamonds in the rough that make their teachers cry with joy, but even some of these kids get sucked in by a system that is stacked against them (poor home life, lack of proper diet at home, poor health care, violence close to home, etc). These are all byproducts of true and historical circumstance.

Note how race is left out of that argument. You are a product of where you come from.

Finally I agree with something you have said 110%. Where we will most definitely disagree is whom the responsibility lies on. Is it my job to ensure a kid studies, goes to school, obeys the law? Nope. It is their parents. As it was my parents.

The US is neither Canada or Australia. So allocating funding to fixing these issues is quite difficult. But I will agree that doing nothing is clearly not working at all.

To be frank with you we've agreed on this before. We've also agreed on whose primary job it is to raise kids (parents).

Then again, it also takes a village... as the saying goes.

And to add:

The funding is there, its just mis-allocated from the top-down. If third world countries can produce excellent, consistent, bright intellectuals capable of doing the most complicated tasks in a society, then so can inner city schools... problem is that they are not equipped, manned, secure enough, and the parental aspect of improving a child's education are not stimulated at home because the reality is that the parents- when present, can't sustain the amount of economical pressure required to keep their children in a productive environment at home while sustaining the household. The ones that are not present do little and are not an example to be followed. This is of course, assuming a school environment that is adequate. And current educational trends at the local school, state, and federal levels are not supportive of a stimulatory environment for the majority of school kids anywhere- inner city or small town.

My point was that Black culture in the US is a relatively new construct that has its founding basis in racial solidarity, rather than in the customs and traditions of a identifiable motherland/s. That's the difference as I see it - though not being black myself, my perspective on this can only be a limited one.

Obviously I'm talking in generalities - and yes I know that there are many black American who are not descendents of slaves.

Well how can they identify with their culture when everyone else is calling them African-Americans? They could be from anywhere, not just 'Africa the mother planet'

I do see your point though, but I think it's being a bit oversimplistic because this is far too complicated a topic to be explained away in a thread. Who pushes for racial solidarity, though? Is it every form where you have to 'check the box', is it affirmative action, or similar things? I think they all contribute.

If targeting certain races for being of that race is bad, then we should truly strive to become a color blind society.

Where else are black-skinned individuals ancestrally from? Just curious (not counting Australia's Aboriginals and Pacific Islanders)

To add a little more (Wifi is slow)

Race is, in this country, way too stigmatized by historical baggage and current attitudes. Some people like to use the white guilt ####### as an excuse not to contribute to an improvement in relations (thereby shadowing their own racist feelings), while calling social programs like Affirmative Action a detriment to going color blind as a society. Sure, some day we won't need it but until we can completely contribute socioeconomic problems in this country to matters of personal choice and not the historical circumstances that have structured communities as they have... we'll continue needing mechanisms for people to try and improve themselves... Be it Affirmative Action strategies, be it Advancement promoted by organizations, etc.

[Fandango 1,439]

Where else are black-skinned individuals ancestrally from? Just curious (not counting Australia's Aboriginals and Pacific Islanders)

If a black Englishman was walking down the street in America, he'd be called 'African-American' of which he is neither.

Im not talking about tracing the origin of where the first black man and woman came from...but there are dark skinned people of every nationality all over the world.