[OAW]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

You've bought into the myth that black Americans are the victims of such a pervasive and debilitating brand of prejudice that no other group could compare in our history.

I'll let the history of the US speak for itself on this particular point. While it is true that the Irish and Italians have experienced prejudicial treatment in the US in earlier times in the history of this country (primarily because of anti-Catholic bias), and while Jews have indeed experienced anti-Semitism in this country ... only the most seriously misinformed among us would contend that the level of intensity and vitriol of these injustices in any way, shape, form, or fashion approached that of the anti-black sentiment in this country. I'm sorry, but to compare a 7 year stint of indentured servitude that thousands of white men endured (many willingly to pay for passage to the US, others not so willingly to pay off debt) to the horrors faced by millions of Africans who endured abject chattel-slavery is beyond asinine. While it is true that the Irish faced "No Irish Need Apply" during an earlier time in this country, to attempt to equate it to the Jim Crow and segregation is utterly ridiculous. Hell even the Irish knew that though they were treated as "second class" among whites .... they were still white. And thus, were higher up in the pecking order than those they referred to as n*ggers just as often as their WASP brothers and sisters. There simply is no analogous organization like the Ku Klux Klan that targeted the Irish or Italians. The Irish and the Italians simply do not have a history of being systematically lynched in this country. There were small numbers of Jews who got caught up in this, but that generally happened when they were organizing against Jim Crow and segregation in the Deep South. And while the Klan and their sympathizers were certainly not fans of Jews, most of the instances of violence they perpetrated against them in these situations was because they considered them "n*gger lovers".

Even if we limit the discussion to modern times there still is no comparison. Ethnic distinctions among whites doesn't carry nearly the same weight as it used to. Outside of Jews and to a certain extent Italians, it generally isn't a major issue in the US. German, French, Italian, Central European, etc. is beside the point in this country because the major divide here as always been the color line. Hell now every year it's "cool" for everybody to be Irish on St. Patrick's Day. "No Irish/Italians/Jews Need Apply" signs simply do not exist anymore. By the same token "No Blacks Need Apply" signs don't exist anymore either. The difference is there aren't even any claims of rampant discrimination against white ethnic minorities today, whereas anti-black discrimination in job hiring, housing, education, etc. continues to be clearly and undeniably documented any time a TV crew sends undercover, identically qualified black and white "testers" into such situations.

I mean seriously. It ought to be .... obvious.

OAW

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'll let the history of the US speak for itself on this particular point. While it is true that the Irish and Italians have experienced prejudicial treatment in the US in earlier times in the history of this country (primarily because of anti-Catholic bias), and while Jews have indeed experienced anti-Semitism in this country ... only the most seriously misinformed among us would contend that the [i]level of intensity[/b] and vitriol of these injustices in any way, shape, form, or fashion approached that of the anti-black sentiment in this country. I'm sorry, but to compare a 7 year stint of indentured servitude that thousands of white men endured (many willingly to pay for passage to the US, others not so willingly to pay off debt) to the horrors faced by millions of Africans who endured abject chattel-slavery is beyond asinine. While it is try that the Irish faced "No Irish Need Apply" during an earlier time in this country, to attempt to equate it to the Jim Crow and segregation is utterly ridiculous. Hell even the Irish knew that though they were treated as "second class" among whites .... they were still white. And thus, were higher up in the pecking order than those they referred to as n*ggers just as often as their WASP brothers and sisters. There simply is no analogous organization like the Ku Klux Klan that targeted the Irish or Italians. The Irish and the Italians simply do not have a history of being systematically lynched in this country. There were small numbers of Jews who got caught up in this, but that generally happened when they were organizing against Jim Crow and segregation in the Deep South. And while the Klan and their sympathizers were certainly not fans of Jews, most of the instances of violence they perpetrated against them in these situations was because they considered them "n*gger lovers".

Even if we limit the discussion to modern times there still is no comparison. Ethnic distinctions among whites doesn't carry nearly the same weight as it used to. Outside of Jews and to a certain extent Italians, it generally isn't a major issue in the US. German, French, Italian, Central European, etc. is beside the point in this country because the major divide here as always been the color line. Hell now every year it's "cool" for everybody to be Irish on St. Patrick's Day. "No Irish/Italians/Jews Need Apply" signs simply do not exist anymore. By the same token "No Blacks Need Apply" signs don't exist anymore either. The difference is there aren't even any claims of rampant discrimination against white ethnic minorities today, whereas anti-black discrimination in job hiring, housing, education, etc. continues to be clearly and undeniably documented any time a TV crew sends undercover, identically qualified black and white "testers" into such situations.

I mean seriously. It ought to be .... obvious.

OAW

OAW, I would think, given the history history, one could pitch a script to Hollywood telling the story of the Black American Cowboy. If it were a serious piece it would be a compelling story. Why hasn't a film been made about the West from the black perspective? If we can do one about the Japanese, I think more serious films from a multicultural perspective would be interesting.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

OAW, I would think, given the history history, one could pitch a script to Hollywood telling the story of the Black American Cowboy. If it were a serious piece it would be a compelling story. Why hasn't a film been made about the West from the black perspective? If we can do one about the Japanese, I think more serious films from a multicultural perspective would be interesting.

Why is it 2007 and there have only been four African-Americans who have won an Oscar for Best Actor? 3 of those within the last 6 years? Why has there only been one African-American who has won an Oscar for Best Actress? And that too was in the last few years. The power brokers in Hollywood, that is the people who "green light" films or not, have not historically featured films that showcase the black experience in the US. Especially outside of the stereotypical stories regarding slavery, sports, or "gangsta" films. In days gone by Hollywood featured white actors in "black face" rather than hire black actors for a role. In more recent times things are markedly improved, but there is still a long way to go.

It goes back to that point I've been making about "taking things for granted" and unspoken assumptions. Today many studio execs are hesitant to back TV shows or films that feature a predominantly black (or other minority) cast because they fear a "mainstream audience" will not support it. And that's just a euphemistic way of saying that they don't believe white people will pay to go see it in numbers large enough to make it a profitable endeavor. Even if the theme of the movie has nothing whatsoever to do with hot-button issues like slavery, racism, etc. There are notable exceptions (e.g. Ray comes to mind) but these tend to have musical or sport themes. Imagine Friends with a predominantly black or Latino cast. Nothing racial. Nothing controversial. Just a funny show. In a prime time slot. Would a studio even take a chance on something like that? Though things are improving ... you do see a bit more diversity on shows with the token black or Latino but still hardly any Asian characters ... but the sad truth is that even today it is not likely. There are certain African-American actors with a lot of "cross over appeal" .... Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Will Smith, Halle Berry, etc. ... and we are just here recently getting to the point where films they star in can be box office successes in numbers beyond what a core African-American audience can produce. Hell we even have 24 where we've had two black presidents in the series ... and there's virtually no controversy about it whatsoever! Personally I think Dennis Haysbert had a lot more presence in the role than the other guy who's playing his younger brother ... but I digress. My point is that I think predominantly African-American casts is still a ways off given the reasons I've outlined above.

Having said all that, Mario Van Peebles did tackle this subject in Posse in 1993. A relatively low-budget film marketed primarily to an African-American audience. As was/is typical for such films.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

No problem, but you do understand the Duke rapists are innocent?

I understand they aren't going to be prosecuted. Beyond that, I don't really know enough to comment.

I understand that what qualifies as a hate crime is subjective. I have similar issues that you have with hate crime legislation. I also know that people fabricate things.

That being said, it's completely fallacious to use the flaws in hate crime legislation and the FBI's woeful statistical ability to prove that blacks somehow don't suffer a disproportionate amount of racially motivated violence.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Imagine Friends with a predominantly black or Latino cast. Nothing racial. Nothing controversial. Just a funny show. In a prime time slot. Would a studio even take a chance on something like that?

Cosby Show.
Hanging With Mr Cooper.
Fresh Prince of Bel Air.

Have you ever thought that the reason why there's not many black actors is maybe because most of you are too busy whining about the white man oppressing you to get off your asses and go get the job? Get over yourselves. Nobody, save a few odd freakos who hang out on Stormfront, gives a crap about your skin colour - only your attitude (and the same goes for anyone of any colour).

Originally Posted by OAW 

Hell we even have 24 where we've had two black presidents in the series ... and there's virtually no controversy about it whatsoever!

Are you getting the idea yet? You've had two black presidents in 24 (don't forget Curtis) because nobody gives a crap about your skin colour. Heck, we even liked Mr T way back in the 80s and Antonio Fargas back in the 70s. So give it up and stop your whining.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Have you ever thought that the reason why there's not many black actors is maybe because most of you are too busy whining about the white man oppressing you to get off your asses and go get the job?

So, is this why there aren't a bunch of middle-aged female actors either?

There are plenty of black actors. They get the job as thug #2 because that's what's available.

Did you stop seeing Debra Winger and Rosanna Arquette because they were too busy whining, or that there aren't any roles for them?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

There are plenty of black actors. They get the job as thug #2 because that's what's available.

Indeed.

He names a handful of notable shows. And given the relative dearth of such shows on network TV ... and even more so when you factor in cable ... anybody with more than 2 cents worth of intelligence will see that these are merely the exception to the rule. Their existence definitely does not negate the rule. It only makes it patently obvious just great the disparity is between the rule and its exceptions.

OAW

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

The Irish, Jews, Italians, and Catholics in general. How is that for a start?

I am not doubting that these groups of people have been oppressed, but they have not been oppressed by an entire society, it's government and it's citizens to the same level as Black people have. And to top that off, these groups are still White. They were still allowed to use the White restrooms and drinking fountains 50 years ago. And they were still allowed to sit at the front of the bus. Blacks did not have that privilege.

You're kidding right? I mean you realize that shows total incidents in a year rather than incidents per capita? That's going to mean a Jew is far more likely to be a victim of a "hate crime" than a black person. Those stats also don't say who the perpetrators of the crimes are. It would be just as likely blacks commit crimes on Korean Americans or Arabs committing crimes against Jews than saying a white person was more prone to do it.

Your numbers aren't really telling of anything other than whomever decided to label one act a "hate crime' and another vandalism or battery is an elected official subject to appeasing the political whims of their constituency. Political pressures are the most dramatic driving force determining what is and what is not a "hate crime." As I said above "hate crimes" are fabricated charges than follow no consistent application in the legal system. No one can say otherwise because the criteria and decision process for finding what is a hate crimes is tailored to suit circumstances.

No, I am not kidding, and I still stand by my statement no matter how you want to dissect the numbers. And if you want to reject the term "hate crime" because it points out that you may be wrong, go ahead because it is YOU who sounds ignorant when you do. A hate crime is a hate crime just as it is defined in an encyclopedia and it is a real social issue. No, it is not political pressure that defines a hate crime, it is the crime itself which defines a hate crime. You can call it subjective, and say legislation is flawed, but even with some sort of +/- margin of error the fact matters that there are still hate crimes otherwise the term would not exist.

If you can't draw on anything from today and be specific then you can only compare things like this to Jim Crow and other events of that era. Racism today can only be brought up in a case by case instance which has a couterpart in every other ethinic minority community where it is just as common.

You've bought into the myth that black Americans are the victims of such a pervasive and debilitating brand of prejudice that no other group could compare in our history. So far we've seen no less than 3 viable black candidates names thrown around for our government's highest office. And 2 black Supreme Court justices. Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans can claim no such accomplishments. No on denies racism is out there but to say blacks are more subjected to it than anyone else is a fallacy. I bet in 50 years there will be a dramatically larger percentage of upper middle class Hispanics than black Americans. Not because Hispanics aren't subject to the same type of racism and institutional oppression as blacks but because of cultural differences within their community that don't promote such a victim mentality. The majority of the problems in the black community are not the fault of racism. And I'd wager anything that time will show this to be the case when history compares them to other minority groups in the United States.

OAW put it perfectly, history speaks for itself.

It is no myth that Black Americans are the victims of such a pervasive and debilitating brand of prejudice that no other group could compare in our history. It is the truth, and history speaks for itself. It may be another 100 years before your idea of Black American's playing the victim card contains even a sliver of validity. It has not even been 40 years since the end of the civil rights movement, and yet you claim Black American's promote a victim mentality? Give me a break, a huge portion of Black society alive today lived through the movement and they WERE the victims of racial discrimination. Although racial discrimination is not happening at the same level as it did 40 years ago, it is still happening at an unacceptable level today, and their victim attitude is completely warranted.

Hispanic's did not have the population in this country 40 years ago that they do now. Asians have never had the same population level as Blacks. Native American population was decimated in the 1700's & 1800's, and their population has never been the same, or as close as Black population has become. White's have always held a strong majority in this country. Looking back at events in time one can see that Asians and Blacks have no history of hating each other. Neither do Hispanics and Blacks or Native American's and Blacks. However, Whites have had a history of violence and discrimination against Blacks (among other groups too). So it becomes easy to point out that the obvious perpetrators of hate crimes against Blacks are White people. Specifically White Supremacy groups, Neo-Nazi groups and KKK groups.

Finally I would like to add that I am speaking a lot from personal experience. I have seen and experienced racism and discrimination on all levels that allow me to make the statements I do. Just because you have not seen or committed an act of racism or discriminated against another does not mean it does not happen still to this day. It still happens and it will keep happening, especially when people want to turn a blind eye to it. And it will keep happening when people stay ignorant to it by making unfounded and uneducated statements and stay behind their glass screen all the time.

[Atomic Rooster]

Why doesn't anyone mention the 20,000,000 native Americans who were killed by white and black Americans in probably one of the worst genocide's on this planet.

I guess you all forgot, huh?

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Why doesn't anyone mention the 20,000,000 native Americans who were killed by white and black Americans in probably one of the worst genocide's on this planet.

I guess you all forgot, huh?

Because that is STILL not as bad as slavery. duh.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Did you stop seeing Debra Winger and Rosanna Arquette because they were too busy whining, or that there aren't any roles for them?

Clue: Women have babies.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by gururafiki 

I am not doubting that these groups of people have been oppressed, but they have not been oppressed by an entire society, it's government and it's citizens to the same level as Black people have. And to top that off, these groups are still White.

Yes, they were, that was the entire point. It was a societal and government reinforced discrimination. And how dense does one have to be to not believe that at that time those people weren't viewed as "wholly white" by other groups of caucasians?

And if you want to reject the term "hate crime" because it points out that you may be wrong, go ahead because it is YOU who sounds ignorant when you do. A hate crime is a hate crime just as it is defined in an encyclopedia and it is a real social issue.

I wasn't talking about the encyclopedia definition I was speaking of the legal validity of "hate crime" statutes. This i talk about this with a high level of background on the subject. When you have a law degree you can argue it until then your argument is sophomoric at best and hinges on the semantics of politically correct biases.

Hispanic's did not have the population in this country 40 years ago that they do now. Asians have never had the same population level as Blacks. Native American population was decimated in the 1700's & 1800's, and their population has never been the same, or as close as Black population has become.

That would be because Hispanics were all forced of the country when the U.S. appropriated everything from Texas to Oregon. And as I just said which you ignored, the laws when the largest waves of immigrations happened in the first half of the last century were made so that large number of Asians weren't allowed to come in to the country. As for Native Americans I am sure they would agree that what happened to blacks was worse than what happened to them.

Looking back at events in time one can see that Asians and Blacks have no history of hating each other. Neither do Hispanics and Blacks or Native American's and Blacks.

you clearly missed the groups of black labor organizations who sat outside factories around the time of the immigrations rallies last year. Apparently the intimidation tactics and racist slurs they used to target Hispanics was a gesture of love and unity. The fact you don't thin there's hostility between minority groups is laughable.


Listen, if you feel so strongly about what someone you may or may not been related to did to blacks 150 years ago then i am sure there is some groups who takes donations for a reparations fund. You can start your own business and give preferential hiring to whomever you desire and by the end of your life maybe you will have repaid what you believe is your debt towards the injustices others have done. Also I would suggest you read that link on the bottom right of my sig.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Clue: Women have babies.

Which doesn't seem to affect the careers of younger actresses who have them.

If anything, it gets them more publicity.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed.

He names a handful of notable shows. And given the relative dearth of such shows on network TV ... and even more so when you factor in cable ... anybody with more than 2 cents worth of intelligence will see that these are merely the exception to the rule. Their existence definitely does not negate the rule. It only makes it patently obvious just great the disparity is between the rule and its exceptions.

OAW

The Cosby Show, is the only show I recall where the characters were real and not some vaudeville stereotypes. I personally dislike most of the black "comedy" style after dinner shows because of the general buffoonery and low class humor. Offering up low class stereotypes as authentic blackness is damaging and insulting. I see it across the board. Maybe I don't live in the real world, but the culture deserves more not less. I find most black entertainment offensive, degrading and shallow. Either this garbage is being force fed by corporate or the black community is buying into it hook line and sinker. I'm afraid it has been the latter, it has been damaging beyond belief and there in no consensus in the black community to stop it. The rejection of middle class values, which was originally the topic of this thread, assigning middle class values as something white, imposed, and not something to aspire to, has ruined a generation. And it is the the black community to blame. Glorification of the quick buck, the misogyny, the drugs and thuggery have further disenfranchised the fatherless, the poorer and least educated among you as much as anything. It has lowered the self esteem and victimised more people than any simple prejudice. In my own life, I would constantly point out black role models to my children, when they were apparent, that yes, blacks can speak english, there are professionals among you and who serve with distinction and grace. But all to often the models I pointed out were, more often than not, later described as uncle Tom's, inauthentic and worse. I'll point out Justice Thomas, who till this day is unable to speak at most univeristies. Condoleeza Rice simply portrayed in the media as Bush's nazi and sterotyped with big lips in cartoons. There is an intolerance in the black community for diversity of opinion, a conformist view that authenticity trumps blackness. And ya'll will rally round authenticity well before embracing an idea painted as whiteness which in reality has no color at at all.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by OAW 

only the most seriously misinformed among us would contend that the level of intensity and vitriol of these injustices in any way, shape, form, or fashion approached that of the anti-black sentiment in this country.

While it is try that the Irish faced "No Irish Need Apply" during an earlier time in this country, to attempt to equate it to the Jim Crow and segregation is utterly ridiculous. Hell even the Irish knew that though they were treated as "second class" among whites .... they were still white

There simply is no analogous organization like the Ku Klux Klan that targeted the Irish or Italians.

Even if we limit the discussion to modern times there still is no comparison. Ethnic distinctions among whites doesn't carry nearly the same weight as it used to.

anti-black discrimination in job hiring, housing, education, etc. continues to be clearly and undeniably documented any time a TV crew sends undercover, identically qualified black and white "testers" into such situations.


OAW

There is no more loudly touted persecution as that of Black Americans. The entire history of injustices in the world piddles in comparison to the hardships and difficulties imposed upon them in our history. And God help anyone who tries to tell society otherwise because those criers are clearly racist for discounting it.

Right?

All the systematic racism that paralleled their own struggle just wasn't "as bad" because there weren't as many of those people. Or not as significant because separate but equal laws amount to being less just than we won't even let you in our country laws. Its easier if we call one racism and the other prejudice. The inherent connotations make the other sound worse. I mean are you even capable of finding one thing that was done to another group here in U.S. which was worse or even sort of comparable? Or are you so blinded by being black that you feel that it was the end all and be all of tragedies which created perpetual cross for you to bear? I don't deny the things that happened to blacks but I simply won't acknowledge that it is worse than some other things that have gone on. To me you just simply aren't the only one who gets to cry foul.

Our society is such that the sensational and graphic makes the greatest impression upon our public. You can't limit the discussion to post Reconstruction history because inevitably you will invoke the images of slavery to supplement your argument. Simply because that image which has been repeated over and over again during our lifetime that it will overshadow other equally factual events. I am sure if a graphic narrative of the Trail of Tears, the Japanese (and Italian BTW) Internment Camps, and the Jews who were in concentration camps because they were denied entry into the U.S. were represented as often as slavery narratives that they would live as equally as vivid in our minds. If you were able to keep the discussion confined to the last 100 years you'd be forced to note that the discrimination that occurred to blacks was not a unique one.

And while I will not question that the majority of victims of Klan violence were black it is not an irrelevant point that the lack of access to other targets in the Protestant South were the Klan flourished was a factor. I doubt there was a large Klan presence in Manhattan around the turn of the century to string up Jews or Catholics. Which is fine because the local police forces and individual mobs picked up some of the slack to persecute them without a white hood.

I am curious why you believe Asians and Hispanics aren't subjected to the same level of discrimination and prejudice. Hell, take a look at the immigration threads in here. The most liberal and anti-Republican members of this board have posts laced with anti-Mexican sentiment. Its PC'ed up with comments about legality and process but that's because they have the keen ability to distinguish upon sight who is and who is not documented. Somehow they want you to believe they can check the level of bias they have with a piece of paper. The racism blacks face now is no worse than what other minority groups face today. The truth is that no distinctions carry as much weight as they once did but if you say its clear and undeniable for blacks then you better believe its there for other persons on color. Black society just can't get past that they are not a special case.

Let's suppose what I said a page back about the future is true. That in 50 years a notable fraction of Hispanics have surpassed Black Americans in social class and education. What if they prove that the common racism they are victims of was not so insurmountable that as a collective group they are able to change their reality. What then? What is going to be the argument Black America puts forth? That 200 years hasn't been enough to overcome the injustices of the past? That Hispanics aren't as discriminated against because they aren't as dark in skin color? At a certain point racism is going to cease being your trump card that explains away the problems .

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

All the systematic racism that paralleled their own struggle just wasn't "as bad" because there weren't as many of those people.

Not as many of those people? What are you talking about? Irish is the second most claimed ancestry in the US following German. The number of people who claim Irish ancestry (34 million) is nearly equal to the number of African-Americans (39 million) in this country. Regardless, the million dollar question is when anti-Irish discrimination in this country was at its peak, how many of them would have traded places with African-Americans since the latter group apparently had it so much better in your view? My contention remains ... even though they were considered second-class and even "non-white" by some racial "purists" of the day .... the color line was still in effect. And that can be summed up with the lyrics to a classic song entitled Black, Brown And White Blues by Bill Bill Broonzy.

This little song that I'm singin' about,
People, you all know that it's true,
If you're black and gotta work for livin',
Now, this is what they will say to you,
They says: If you was white,
You's alright,
If you was brown,
Stick around,
But if you's black, oh, brother,
Get back, get back, get back.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Or not as significant because separate but equal laws amount to being less just than we won't even let you in our country

So living in the US during this time and experiencing racism and discrimination firsthand on a daily basis is not worse than being denied an immigration VISA in your view? Uh ... ok. And even if you want to go there ... compare the treatment received by Cubans and Haitian immigrants today when it comes to the granting of asylum.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

I mean are you even capable of finding one thing that was done to another group here in U.S. which was worse or even sort of comparable?

In the US? The only group even remotely comparable are the Native Americans. And their plight is worse. Genocide is no joke. Today Hispanics have very similar challenges, especially the darker-skinned they are.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

I don't deny the things that happened to blacks but I simply won't acknowledge that it is worse than some other things that have gone on.

Well if you are speaking about Native Americans then you'd have a point. Otherwise, you are welcome to hold this delusional viewpoint to your heart's content. It is a free country after all.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Our society is such that the sensational and graphic makes the greatest impression upon our public. You can't limit the discussion to post Reconstruction history because inevitably you will invoke the images of slavery to supplement your argument.

I can limit it to the Post-Reconstruction Era just fine. There's no need to invoke slavery. Official Jim Crow in the South and de facto Jim Crow in the North has no comparison. Segregated public facilities has no comparison. Lynchings, cross-burnings, and other KKK terrorization has no comparison. And for me personally, the experiences of my parents ... not some distant ancestor .... who lived through this convey a reality that I fear you would have much difficulty acknowledging.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

I am sure if a graphic narrative of the Trail of Tears, the Japanese (and Italian BTW) Internment Camps, and the Jews who were in concentration camps because they were denied entry into the U.S. were represented as often as slavery narratives that they would live as equally as vivid in our minds.

The Trail of Tears? I thought you wanted to limit the discussion to the Post-Reconstruction Era? That was 1838 after all. Japanese Internment Camps? A terrible blight on our nation's history without question. A few years in the early 1940s. The Jews in concentration camps? I thought we were discussing the US? Furthermore, no other tragedy gets more press than the Holocaust. Not even close.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

If you were able to keep the discussion confined to the last 100 years you'd be forced to note that the discrimination that occurred to blacks was not a unique one.

I've never said discrimination in the last 100 years was a unique and singular experience of black people. What I am saying is that the hostility that African-Americans faced during this era is unparalled in terms of its virulence and openness ... its scope and pervasiveness. It was codified into law for God's sake! Jim Crow. Anti-miscegenation laws. The fact that the term miscegenation was was specifically coined to refer to intermixing of blacks and whites (as opposed to other combinations). The promotion of the "one drop rule" that stated that a single drop of African blood would render the person "black" in the eyes of white society ... even if that person was blonde haired, blue eyed and as white as all his/her friends and neighbors. I could go on, but as I said before the historical record speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

And while I will not question that the majority of victims of Klan violence were black ....

Well that's promising.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

.... it is not an irrelevant point that the lack of access to other targets in the Protestant South were the Klan flourished was a factor. I doubt there was a large Klan presence in Manhattan around the turn of the century to string up Jews or Catholics. Which is fine because the local police forces and individual mobs picked up some of the slack to persecute them without a white hood.

It is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that while Jews and Catholics suffered their share of beatdowns at the hands of the police, African-Americans did as well. So they were dealing with police brutality up North and lynchings down South. The bottom line is that everything Jews and Catholics faced .... African-Americans also faced. And then some.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

I am curious why you believe Asians and Hispanics aren't subjected to the same level of discrimination and prejudice. Hell, take a look at the immigration threads in here. The most liberal and anti-Republican members of this board have posts laced with anti-Mexican sentiment. Its PC'ed up with comments about legality and process but that's because they have the keen ability to distinguish upon sight who is and who is not documented. Somehow they want you to believe they can check the level of bias they have with a piece of paper. The racism blacks face now is no worse than what other minority groups face today. The truth is that no distinctions carry as much weight as they once did but if you say its clear and undeniable for blacks then you better believe its there for other persons on color. Black society just can't get past that they are not a special case.

If we are talking about today, then the only group that faces discrimination even remotely comparable to African-Americans are Hispanics. Asians? Not even on the map. They are the wealthiest and best educated ethnic group in America (though they seem to run neck and neck with Jews). Hispanics are a different situation though. The first thing to keep in mind is that Hispanic is an "ethnic group" based on language and/or national origin ... not a "racial group". So a Hispanic can be white, black, indigenous American ... or some combination thereof. Having said that, as the great W.E.B. Dubois noted ... "for the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color-line" And unfortunately it remains so for the 21st century. So the degree to which a HIspanic will encounter discrimination will in great measure be impacted by his/her skin color. The blonde haired, white skinned Christina Aguileras and Cameron Diazs of the world simply are higher up in the "racial pecking order" in this crazy society of ours than the Rosie Perezs and Jennifer Lopezs of the world. And even they are higher up than the Zoe Saldanas and the Rosario Dawsons of the world.

To drive this point home, I'll reference a recent study that delves deeper into the "race" or "color line" issue within the Hispanic community:

Latinos who described themselves as white on the 2000 Census had the highest incomes and lowest rates of unemployment and poverty, and they tended to live near communities of non-Latino whites, said the report, which analyzed Census figures nationwide. Nearly 50 percent of Latinos who filed a Census report said they were white, according to the center's report.

The 2.7 percent of Latinos who described themselves as black, most of them from the Caribbean, had lower incomes and higher rates of poverty than the other groups -- despite having a higher level of education.


Among Latinos who described themselves as "some other race," earnings and levels of poverty and unemployment fell between black and white members of their ethnic group. About 47 percent of Latinos said on Census forms that they are "some other race," according to the report.

Source - How Race Counts for Hispanic Americans

The article shows, backed up by facts and figures, that the issue is race. And in this country it always has been. It is even today. And I suppose we'll see what the future holds.

OAW

[Captain Obvious]

So to summarize what you are trying to convey:

Black Americans will always get screwed and they are kept down by the racist hand of the man. All the ills they suffer from stem from the fact that they can't reach a higher societal potential because of white oppression.

If any other racial demographic who may have begun at a lower point in their history within the United States was able to overcome it they did so because they simply don't have as darkly colored skin.

Well, that doesn't at all make it sound like there's an engrained victim mentality in Black American culture.

Also I was being slightly PC when I used Hispanic as a term. Who are we kidding, we both know I meant Mexicans as they are the only group numerous enough and socially low enough to compare to blacks in the US. In the context of a discussion like this no one would logically considered people Celia Cruz or Salma Hayek to be grouped in with what is generally considered beaners. They were black and middle eastern from the day they were conceived. I could move to India and change my name to Naresh but it wouldn't mean I could come back and check off the box for minority in a job application. To put it more bluntly: those guys who do the landscaping... odds are that their grandkids will go to college as where the 10th generation grandchildren of the plantation slave will still be talking about how they can't get ahead in this racist America.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Also I was being slightly PC when I used Hispanic as a term. Who are we kidding, we both know I meant Mexicans as they are the only group numerous enough and socially low enough to compare to blacks in the US. In the context of a discussion like this no one would logically considered people Celia Cruz or Salma Hayek to be grouped in with what is generally considered beaners. They were black and middle eastern from the day they were conceived. I could move to India and change my name to Naresh but it wouldn't mean I could come back and check off the box for minority in a job application. To put it more bluntly: those guys who do the landscaping... odds are that their grandkids will go to college as where the 10th generation grandchildren of the plantation slave will still be talking about how they can't get ahead in this racist America.

Beaners? WTF?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

So to summarize what you are trying to convey:
Black Americans will always get screwed and they are kept down by the racist hand of the man. All the ills they suffer from stem from the fact that they can't reach a higher societal potential because of white oppression.

No. That's what you are saying. I've said nothing of the sort. It is a sad reality that there are those in the white community (typically, but not necessarily the Fox News crowd) who buy into the myth that the average African-American spends his/her day "blaming whitey" for the ills that they personally and/or their community at large face. The reality is that many of the ills facing the black community are in fact self-inflicted ... just like those facing the white, Hispanic, and Asian-American communities ... and the vast majority of African-Americans are well aware of it. It is only this peculiar segment of the white community (and their African-American lackeys, uh I mean apologists i.e. Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Ward Connerly, et al) who seem to insist on the false dichotomy of "all the ills of the black community stem from white oppression" vs. "all the ills of the black community are self-inflicted and the result of a victim mentality". The historical record clearly shows that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. And the overwhelming majority of African-Americans recognize that quite clearly.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

If any other racial demographic who may have begun at a lower point in their history within the United States was able to overcome it they did so because they simply don't have as darkly colored skin.

Again ... I never said that. And again you resort to the false dichotomy. Having dark skin vs. not having dark skin is not the only factor involved. It is simply a factor and it clearly has an impact as the historical record clearly demonstrates. Even the whitest white man who drops out of high school, sits around on his butt, and refuses to get a job will find that his upward mobility in this society will be most limited ... despite the advantages that being white in this society affords. And at the same time the average college-educated black male still earns less than the average white male who only has a high-school diploma. As the Census data consistently reflects. So in the end things aren't as "black and white" as you seem to think. There are a variety of factors that impact (positively or negatively) the chances for success in this society. Race is just one ... and it's impact should not be overstated nor dismissed.

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

Well, that doesn't at all make it sound like there's an engrained victim mentality in Black American culture.

Well as I said before, there is unfortunately a certain segment of the white community who will translate any mentioning of the historical record with regard to race in this country into some presumed evidence of a "victim mentality" among African-Americans. Yet, the interesting thing is that it is typically never accompanied by a rebuttal of the statement. For instance, I posted evidence that within the Hispanic community race still matters. Evidence that showed that better-educated, yet darker skinned Hispanics still earned less than their white skinned counterparts in this supposed "meritocracy" of ours. Were the facts challenged? No! Instead, the response is the typical straw-man argument where my position is misrepresented to be what you think I'm saying instead of what I actually said .... only to more easily attack it and make some semblance of a point. A misrepresentation influenced undoubtedly by your false assumptions about how African-Americans view race in our society. The false dichotomy that I mentioned above.

The fact of the matter is that in this thread my discussion with you has centered around the following issue:

Discrimination against other ethnic minorities in the US has been/is just as bad as that against blacks. True or False?

Your contention is that it is true. In fact, you were the one who brought it up. I challenged that assessment (outside of Native Americans) and presented my argument/evidence to the contrary. And it essentially boiled down to this:

- 400 + years of abject chattel slavery for blacks

- Lynchings and terrorization from organizations like the KKK 90% directed at blacks

- Jim Crow ... codified into law in the South and de facto elsewhere for blacks for 100 years

- Modern day anti-black discrimination in job hiring, housing, education, etc. clearly an deniably documented by undercover, identically qualified black and white "testers"

And your argument/evidence essentially boiled down to this:

- Forced migration to reservations for Native Americans

- 4 year Japanese internment during WWII

- Anti-immigration legislation directed at white ethnic minorities

I'll say it again ... the historical record speaks for itself. By any measure ... # of people killed, length of time, codification into law, intensity and level of vitriol ... no other ethnic group can cite discrimination as bad as African-Americans in this country with the notable exception of Native Americans. To this day African-Americans with higher educational qualifications still earn less than their less educated white counterparts. To this day African-Americans with equivalent credit ratings and income are denied or required to pay higher interest rates for auto loans and mortgages than their white counterparts. These are facts.

But the best you can do is play the "Black people have a victim mentality" card!

Anyhoo, I suppose it really does come down to assumptions. Taking things for granted. The power of the unspoken that I mentioned earlier. There are those in the white community who take for granted that this is how African-Americans see themselves. There are those in the white community who assume that they know how black people think better than black people do themselves. Perhaps one day a clue will descend upon them and take root.

OAW

[OAW]

Anyway ... back to the original topic.

"Black churches" had their genesis because good white "Christian" people refused to allow African-Americans to participate. But now a church that simply embraces and acknowledges its heritage is accused of being "Klanish" because of it. Would the same mentality apply to St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish because they are a Polish church? They have a Polish Heritage Center and cater to the Polish community but that's OK it seems.

Just like you generally hear little to no complaints about Irish American Heritage Month (March), Asian Pacific American Heritage Month (May), Older Americans Month (May), Hispanic American Heritage Month (Sep. 15 - Oct. 15), or American Indian/Alaskan Native Heritage Month (Nov.) .... but certain people get their panties in a wad over Black History Month (Feb.). These individuals get all bent out of shape over Black Entertainment Television that caters to an African-American audience, but have nothing to say about Univision or Telemundo that caters to a Hispanic audience.

It truly is an "interesting" phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Orion27 

The rejection of middle class values, which was originally the topic of this thread, assigning middle class values as something white, imposed, and not something to aspire to, has ruined a generation.

Again, I encourage you to the go straight to the source that I posted earlier instead of making assumptions about what the mission statement meant on this point. But I'll help out a bit by referencing the relevant section.

Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”

Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified as separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which while training them to earn
more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us”.

So, while it is permissible to chase “middle-incomeness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method-the psychological entrapment of Black
“middleclassness”: If we avoid the snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary”
contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright, the leadership, resourcefulness, and example of their own talented persons.

This is just a "fancy intellectual" way of saying that African-Americans should avoid the "I got mine now you get yours" mentality that often accompanies joining the middle class. That we have a common struggle as a people regardless of our income level and that we should not forget from whence we came when success is achieved. It has nothing to do with a "rejection of middle class values" or an "embrace of thuggery" as you seem to believe.

Finally, I thought I'd reference another excerpt from the White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege essay by Tim Wise. Since its theme focuses on the assumptions and taking things for granted that I've been talking about.

Likewise, the ongoing backlash against affirmative action, by those who seem to believe that opportunity would truly be equal in the absence of these presumably unjust efforts to ensure access to jobs and higher education for persons of color. We are to believe that things were just fine before affirmative action, and that were such efforts abolished now, we could return to this utopic state of affairs: to hell with the persistent evidence that people of color continue to face discrimination in employment, housing, education and all other institutional settings in the U.S.

So if the University of Michigan gives applicants of color twenty points on a 150-point admission scale, so as to promote racial diversity and balance out the disadvantages to which such students are often subjected in their K-12 schooling experience, that is seen as unfair racial preference. But when the same school gives out 16 points to kids from the lily-white Upper Peninsula, or four points for children of overwhelmingly white alumni, or ten points for students who went to the state's "top" schools (who will be mostly white to be sure), or 8 points for those who took a full slate of Advanced Placement classes in high schools (which classes are far less available in schools serving students of color), this is seen as perfectly fair, and not at all racially preferential.

What's more, the whites who received all those bonus points due to their racial and class position will not be thought of by anyone as having received unearned advantages, in spite of the almost entirely ascriptive nature of the categories into which they fell that qualified them for such bonuses. No matter their "qualifications," it will be taken for granted that any white student at a college or University belongs there.

This is why Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in the successful "reverse discrimination" suit against Michigan's undergraduate affirmative action policy, found it a supreme injustice that a few dozen black, Latino and American Indian students were admitted ahead of her, despite having lower SATs and grades; but she thought nothing of the fact that more than 1400 other white students also were admitted ahead of her and her co-plaintiffs, despite having lower scores and grades. "Lesser qualified" whites are acceptable, while "lesser qualified" people of color must be eliminated from their unearned perches of opportunity. This is the kind of racist logic that people like Gratz, who now heads up the state's anti-affirmative action initiative with the financial backing of Ward Connerly, find acceptable.

Such is the way of the world it seems.

OAW