Are Race Realist onto something?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2017, 03:21 AM
RE: Are Race Realist onto something?
(23-01-2017 03:13 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(22-01-2017 03:31 PM)Callinectes Wrote:  Blah.

Mate, why bring this horrid old thread back to life? Who are you?

Given that he did bring it back, at least he said something intelligent Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2017, 03:42 AM
RE: Are Race Realist onto something?
(23-01-2017 03:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 03:13 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Mate, why bring this horrid old thread back to life? Who are you?

Given that he did bring it back, at least he said something intelligent Smile

You read it?

Mate, I'm ill. What's your excuse???

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2017, 05:49 AM
RE: Are Race Realist onto something?
(23-01-2017 03:42 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 03:21 AM)morondog Wrote:  Given that he did bring it back, at least he said something intelligent Smile

You read it?

Mate, I'm ill. What's your excuse???

The guy whom you replied to, his comment was good, about the history of racial oppression in America. I actually learned something both from him and from Rocketsurgeon's reply. He's on sides, don't worry. OP of thread was of course a shithead, but even shitty threads sometimes other replies are worth reading Smile

Hope your recovery continues well Smile Hug

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
23-01-2017, 08:35 AM
RE: Are Race Realist onto something?
(22-01-2017 05:47 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I was scrolling down rapidly in order to write almost exactly what you did, above. Even the parts about the prison pipeline/cycle. Well done!

It's amazing to me that this history is so readily available, and yet so few seem to know it. They did, quite literally, deliberately set up that system-- even in the case of veterans returning from the two World Wars, where intense and often violent discrimination marked their return, and money for housing and education was disparately apportioned to soldiers based on skin color after WW2.

I agree the history of African Americans is a traumatizing read. That might be part of the reason people skim over it in school. They are told some slaves were brought over and worked cotton fields. It was bad and a civil war was fought to free them. Very sanitized.

What I don't get is the bold part. What do they have to gain by impoverishing African Americans? Wouldn't they have a bigger market with economically empowered blacks? I question whether the outcome was intentional. It might just be that white people at the time did not want to be around people who they considered sub-human. So they moved and the jobs that brought the blacks in followed them.

I am saying they were motivated by race, but not because they wanted to impoverish blacks. That was an accidental outcome. Obviously you know more in this area than I do, but that is the impression I get from the little I know.

(22-01-2017 05:47 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I had an argument with someone (now banned) here recently, explaining that no, it was not the nations of Africa's fault that there was so much tribalism, warfare, and poverty there, because they were doing as well as anyone (including several empires) until European colonialism devastated and plundered their countries... and continue to do so through corporate proxies which enforce poverty and prop up dictators allied with their corporate interests, today.

Since I know Mr. Banned is probably still reading these pages but unable to comment, I feel the need to point out (a pet peeve of his) that it is 2017 and not 1946. Or 1817. C'mon, it's Current Year, man!

Africa's is an interesting story. A while back I read up on Liberia's history and was shocked to discover that freed black slaves who moved to Liberia, also engaged in slave trade themselves. I don't say this to exonerate Europeans, but to demonstrate the complex dynamics of human relations in general. Africa was depopulated and set back by the slave trade.

That said there was indeed tribal violence, even before colonialism. Shaka, for example, wiped out or assimilated by force entire peoples that were not Zulus. A lot of Africans fleeing the chaos he wrought in that part of the continent wound up doing the same thing by displacing or exterminating the groups they found further North in their flight. None of this had to do with colonialism. To be fair, prior to Shaka, those levels of violence were unknown at least in Southern Africa.

But if you want to get the sheer scale of cruelty, violence, plunder and destruction in Africa, you want to read King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. Upto 500,000 people were dying every year during the 23 year period Leopold owned the Congo as personal(not Belgian) property.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tomilay's post
23-01-2017, 09:22 AM
RE: Are Race Realist onto something?
(23-01-2017 08:35 AM)tomilay Wrote:  I agree the history of African Americans is a traumatizing read. That might be part of the reason people skim over it in school. They are told some slaves were brought over and worked cotton fields. It was bad and a civil war was fought to free them. Very sanitized.

What I don't get is the bold part. What do they have to gain by impoverishing African Americans? Wouldn't they have a bigger market with economically empowered blacks? I question whether the outcome was intentional. It might just be that white people at the time did not want to be around people who they considered sub-human. So they moved and the jobs that brought the blacks in followed them.

I am saying they were motivated by race, but not because they wanted to impoverish blacks. That was an accidental outcome. Obviously you know more in this area than I do, but that is the impression I get from the little I know.

I say "intentional" because they openly stated their reasons for doing the things they did. They don't have anything to gain by impoverishing African Americans. They have everything to gain by establishing programs that lift whites out of poverty and create (or vastly expand) a middle class which excludes African Americans-- because, as you said, they considered them sub-human and undesirable. Exploit their labor and leave them to fester in third world conditions-- why not? When they get too "uppidy", you can just incarcerate them and (literally) return them to slave conditions, as-needed.

This is Angola prison, about five miles up the road from where my parents live:

[Image: lead_960.png?1442602181]

(23-01-2017 08:35 AM)tomilay Wrote:  
(22-01-2017 05:47 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I had an argument with someone (now banned) here recently, explaining that no, it was not the nations of Africa's fault that there was so much tribalism, warfare, and poverty there, because they were doing as well as anyone (including several empires) until European colonialism devastated and plundered their countries... and continue to do so through corporate proxies which enforce poverty and prop up dictators allied with their corporate interests, today.

Since I know Mr. Banned is probably still reading these pages but unable to comment, I feel the need to point out (a pet peeve of his) that it is 2017 and not 1946. Or 1817. C'mon, it's Current Year, man!

Africa's is an interesting story. A while back I read up on Liberia's history and was shocked to discover that freed black slaves who moved to Liberia, also engaged in slave trade themselves. I don't say this to exonerate Europeans, but to demonstrate the complex dynamics of human relations in general. Africa was depopulated and set back by the slave trade.

That said there was indeed tribal violence, even before colonialism. Shaka, for example, wiped out or assimilated by force entire peoples that were not Zulus. A lot of Africans fleeing the chaos he wrought in that part of the continent wound up doing the same thing by displacing or exterminating the groups they found further North in their flight. None of this had to do with colonialism. To be fair, prior to Shaka, those levels of violence were unknown at least in Southern Africa.

But if you want to get the sheer scale of cruelty, violence, plunder and destruction in Africa, you want to read King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. Upto 500,000 people were dying every year during the 23 year period Leopold owned the Congo as personal(not Belgian) property.

If you'll look closely at what I wrote, I didn't even mention slavery. I did, however, mention "Empires", a category which Shaka's collection of nationalized tribes definitely qualifies. They even had an army as organized as the Roman Legions, with their shields painted in unit designations!

Slavery and the related "Superior/Inferior Groups" system was definitely part of what was behind it all, but the primary issue I was discussing was the wholesale robbing of wealth and natural resources. The Brits (etc) believed they were a superior race, and that exploitation of the people who really didn't neeeeeed those resources as much wasn't a bad thing. Like adults taking care of children. Can't you see it was benign, old chap!

But it's not the only basis for establishing your superiority over some Other People: you can come along with a different religion and think "It's okay what I do to Them, because they're The Other"... it can be religion, or tribe/ethnicity, or any number of other factors. Justification need not be very thick if your greed and propaganda games are strong.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2017, 10:16 AM
RE: Are Race Realist onto something?
(23-01-2017 09:22 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(23-01-2017 08:35 AM)tomilay Wrote:  I agree the history of African Americans is a traumatizing read. That might be part of the reason people skim over it in school. They are told some slaves were brought over and worked cotton fields. It was bad and a civil war was fought to free them. Very sanitized.

What I don't get is the bold part. What do they have to gain by impoverishing African Americans? Wouldn't they have a bigger market with economically empowered blacks? I question whether the outcome was intentional. It might just be that white people at the time did not want to be around people who they considered sub-human. So they moved and the jobs that brought the blacks in followed them.

I am saying they were motivated by race, but not because they wanted to impoverish blacks. That was an accidental outcome. Obviously you know more in this area than I do, but that is the impression I get from the little I know.

I say "intentional" because they openly stated their reasons for doing the things they did. They don't have anything to gain by impoverishing African Americans. They have everything to gain by establishing programs that lift whites out of poverty and create (or vastly expand) a middle class which excludes African Americans-- because, as you said, they considered them sub-human and undesirable. Exploit their labor and leave them to fester in third world conditions-- why not? When they get too "uppidy", you can just incarcerate them and (literally) return them to slave conditions, as-needed.

This is Angola prison, about five miles up the road from where my parents live:

[Image: lead_960.png?1442602181]

(23-01-2017 08:35 AM)tomilay Wrote:  Africa's is an interesting story. A while back I read up on Liberia's history and was shocked to discover that freed black slaves who moved to Liberia, also engaged in slave trade themselves. I don't say this to exonerate Europeans, but to demonstrate the complex dynamics of human relations in general. Africa was depopulated and set back by the slave trade.

That said there was indeed tribal violence, even before colonialism. Shaka, for example, wiped out or assimilated by force entire peoples that were not Zulus. A lot of Africans fleeing the chaos he wrought in that part of the continent wound up doing the same thing by displacing or exterminating the groups they found further North in their flight. None of this had to do with colonialism. To be fair, prior to Shaka, those levels of violence were unknown at least in Southern Africa.

But if you want to get the sheer scale of cruelty, violence, plunder and destruction in Africa, you want to read King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild. Upto 500,000 people were dying every year during the 23 year period Leopold owned the Congo as personal(not Belgian) property.

If you'll look closely at what I wrote, I didn't even mention slavery. I did, however, mention "Empires", a category which Shaka's collection of nationalized tribes definitely qualifies. They even had an army as organized as the Roman Legions, with their shields painted in unit designations!

Slavery and the related "Superior/Inferior Groups" system was definitely part of what was behind it all, but the primary issue I was discussing was the wholesale robbing of wealth and natural resources. The Brits (etc) believed they were a superior race, and that exploitation of the people who really didn't neeeeeed those resources as much wasn't a bad thing. Like adults taking care of children. Can't you see it was benign, old chap!

But it's not the only basis for establishing your superiority over some Other People: you can come along with a different religion and think "It's okay what I do to Them, because they're The Other"... it can be religion, or tribe/ethnicity, or any number of other factors. Justification need not be very thick if your greed and propaganda games are strong.

I get you. That image is really bad optics. The idea of exploiting people's labor without just reward ought to be criminalized with or without loop holes.

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like tomilay's post
29-01-2017, 10:09 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2017 10:21 PM by Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver.)
RE: Are Race Realist onto something?
(01-10-2016 06:00 PM)1994californication Wrote:  .......one can't help but notice how poverty and crime stricken most black dominated neighborhoods are when compared to white ones.And the fact the most African countries(South Africa doesn't count) are also poverty stricken and war torn.I can't help but wonder if these Race Realist we scoffed at and dismissed as racist could be right about black people being more predisposed to aggression and lower IQ's then other races.You can only ignore the elephant in the room for so long before you start looking foolish.

I dunno. I've met plenty of stupid, violent white people who do nothing with their lives but convert beer into piss as well as plenty of stupid, violent black people, so I really can't say one group is more predisposed to violence and negative contributions to society than the other.

As for Africa being poverty stricken and war torn, yeah there's a lot of that there, no doubt. I'd say what you're getting at here was answered by Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies. Diamond's answer to these questions is that the technological growth and domination of Eurasian cultures over African, Asian, and primitive tribes was due more to the geographic necessities as well as a few critical inventions, technological innovations and immunological circumstances. Read the book; its well worth it to ponder and answer such questions

The questions you ask are no necessarily racist and a thorough understanding of them is a good place for understanding the nature and fate of our communities and our societies.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2017, 07:10 AM
RE: Are Race Realist onto something?
(01-10-2016 06:00 PM)1994californication Wrote:  First of all I'm black and don't hold any hateful or prejudiced views towards other black people but one can't help but notice how poverty and crime stricken most black dominated neighborhoods are when compared to white ones.And the fact the most African countries(South Africa doesn't count) are also poverty stricken and war torn.I can't help but wonder if these Race Realist we scoffed at and dismissed as racist could be right about black people being more predisposed to aggression and lower IQ's then other races.You can only ignore the elephant in the room for so long before you start looking foolish.

Predisposed in what way? Predisposed in the way one might say of an heritable disease?

DO you have a low IQ, and are your prone to aggression more so than your white counterparts?

Are they predisposed as a result of their biology, or "predisposed" as a result of a variety of cyclic environmental factors, sort of the way children of divorced parents and more prone to divorce?

If you took a black child out of a particular environment, perhaps raised him in the suburbs, would you still expect to see the same IQ scores and level of aggression if he was born in an impoverished area?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: