Search the Community

To play gator's advocate, many of those slaves were not allowed to learn how to read or write. We're five generations removed from black folks who were prohibited by law from learning pretty much anything besides picking cotton. Fast forward to 1900 and still only 50% of black men aged 20-64 can read and write. By 1930 about 20% of all blacks aged 10 and up are illiterate. It's considerable improvement, but we're only about 70-75 years removed from a full fifth of the black population not being able to read or write. It is not surprising, then, that many blacks, and the impoverished as a whole, continue to live in a way that makes middle-class white people raise their eyebrows. Their way of thinking about things is vastly different from the way you or I may think. You and I are future-oriented in our thinking. We invest, save, prioritize around the future. Our parents raised us to think about the future, it's all we know. The impoverished as a whole are present-oriented. Their lives revolve around what they and their kids are going to eat tomorrow, where they'll find decent winter coats and boots for this winter, where the money for utility bill that's due next week is coming from, etc. Everything is prioritized around the present out of necessity. Kids fall in with gangs and the drug trade because they provide immediate safety and financial security. They won't live to see 30, but hey, at least they'll have friends and some cash. So the way to change culture is to change thinking. The benefit and safety net type programs are in place so that impoverished folks can worry less about the present and invest and work hard towards the future. But there's no incentive or motivation to work and invest towards the future if there's no education and no end to the benefits in sight. They keep thinking about the present and often never even see a way out even though it's there for them.

No link here. I'm just trying to pin down the exact date and time at which the most important thing you could possibly do in your life became making known that you've been hurt in some way. Or, better yet, that your distant relatives/relatives two or more generations older than you were hurt in some way, and it's automatically highly relevant to whatever argument you happen to be making, on the internet or in real life. Just look at the comment section of any article about Israel/Jews/whatever; someone is bound to use the fact that their great uncle thrice removed was at Auschwitz to justify some silly argument they're making which has nothing to do with the holocaust. Or the real-life example that I witnessed today, a young black woman telling us how her great-great-grandpappy was a slave and therefore the criminal justice system has no real justification for felony murder statutes. Or when I tell a fat white kid to get a lap band and he tells me that he's a loser because Obama's affirmative action nation is holding him down. I mean really, when the !@#$ did this happen? How did we become a nation full of crybabies? I see things every day that make me think of LA's avatar and it's disgusting. How can it be fixed?

This is part of why I started this thread. Every person who claims victim-hood status in the way I mentioned in the OP seems to think they're owed something just because their relative was in Auschwitz (also, I've noticed that everyone claims that their relative was in Auschwitz. What, no love for Buchenwald?) or their relative was a slave. In my example, they think they deserve attention. Another time, a young black man in one of my classes claimed that white people in general were responsible for slavery and should pay some sort of restitution, while in the same breath he denied whites collective achievement for advances in science, culture, etc. Personally, I think collective achievement and collective responsibility are retarded, but if you want to have one can you not have the other as well? Doesn't that sort of dissonant thinking that my classmate displayed lend credibility to those white power/skinhead groups who claim collective achievement for the sake of their race?

This. Also, if Chip Kelly really didn't like having black people around, he sure picked the wrong profession.

I think that if a man can call himself a woman and use the same bathroom as a six year old girl, it's perfectly within the rights of some white guilt-ridden, small-minded SJW to call herself black and take a position with an organization for colored folk.

Not just a truther, but a ZOG believer too? For the triple whammy, is he also a black supremacist?

That's probably part of the reason why blacks are so against it, not to mention that black "culture" is extremely abrasive towards homosexuals.

I don't know. Right about now, a bunch of black women who sing pretty well and talk really loudly doesn't seem as bad as finding a few heads in the road.

I think you and JiA are talking about different things. JiA is saying that you should have to work to achieve/receive something in order to be proud of that something. If you didn't work for it, how can you be proud of it? Thus his blue eyes question. And as an aside: if the "struggle" is what they're proud of, then very few blacks, gays, women, etc. have any right to be "proud," by your logic.

The high school I attended (public) was about 70% white, 25% black, and 5% other. There were a lot more crime and behavior issues in my school than in my neighborhood, mostly with the black kids. But, with few exceptions, the black kids all came from poor families and a very poor section of my fairly large hometown. We had our share of racists in the school, who doesn't? But, mostly, the behavior issues at my school were summed up like this: "!@#$ing poor people." It all comes down to what you see as the impetus behind crime when crime and race and crime and socioeconomic situation are both relationships that are highly correlated. It could be that neither of them are causal, but if you had to pick one that was far less retarded, it would be crime and socioeconomic situation.

It's fairly well-documented that violent crime is generally intraracial. For example, the typical street robbery victim - young, black, lower class - has the same profile as the typical street robbery offender.

It didn't benefit European nations, it handcuffed them. Tom was using a different meaning of "benefit." The EP tied abolition, as a goal of war, to the Union and, by extension, tied slavery to the Confederacy. The people of Britain (for example) were none too fond of slavery, so direct support for the Confederacy was no longer an option. The black soldiers in the Union army were free before the EP, so it didn't free them. Slave-holding states in the Union, such as Missouri, Maryland, and Kentucky, were unaffected by the EP. The EP was more a statement of intentions than anything else.

Ancient Egyptians weren't black anyway.

4merper4mer is right, you're swinging alright. Swinging and missing. The name "redskin" has nothing to do with scalping. Red became a color label in the 19th century, like black and white. Would you be offended if they changed their name to the Washington Whiteskins and made some honkey their mascot? I think not. Pressure isn't likely to come from Native Americans not because of their small population (they have a loud voice regardless of their population size) but because they don't care. Neither should we. This has happened before, many times. And it blows over every time. This is no different. The liberal media and their ilk (read: you) will get back to wetting their pants over Vlad Putin any day now. You're reaching so far up your ass for this stuff that you can bite your fingernails. Liability carrier? Really? Liability for what? As far as courts go, this issue has been shot down so many times it thinks it's Black Kettle. Non-issue. What do I think the conversation on this is? I don't care. And neither does Dan Snyder. Most NFL owners aren't as delicate as you seem to be. Obama weighed in because he was asked directly. And civil rights groups have been at this for years, making no progress except to make a little bit of a stink every year. Again, who cares? And public opinion is still firmly on Snyder's side, with 70% of Americans believing that the name should not be changed. And if Snyder doesn't keep fighting he could lose millions in merchandise sales that he's already made. If they lose the federal trademark on the name in a lawsuit, Snyder and the franchise will get screwed faster than trailer trash on prom night. Not caving on the name actually helps him in the legal battle and on the merchandise sales he's already made, not just on some future merchandise sales that you've conjured up in your mind. This legal battle over the trademark continues even after your fairy tale of creating documentaries and **** based on the name. No, I've put him in a situation where he's completely in control of the matter, can fight from a position of strength on the trademark battle, and where he doesn't look like a pansy who grabbed his ankles for the sake of the liberal media. You've put him in a position where he looks like a pliable panty waist because, according to you, the media and the public are already in front on this. If he takes your advice, he'll look like a pile of putty limping in with a compromise to try and save face. He will never be forced to change the name. Precedent is on his side, he just needs to fight a little longer. And, evidently, you're the guy with soft arms, a hard head, and a limp dick. Levi is the tribe of priests and teachers, and I've been taking your ass back to school for this entire debate.

She looked highly !@#$able in that little black dress. Despite the chickenhawking and bible-thumping, Cruz came out and impressed me last night. Kasich was good, though I don't like him politically. Carson is sensible as hell, and brilliant. Rubio was impressive as well. Not impressed with: Jeb (no surprises there), Christie (when you lean that much on sophistry and sentimentalism, you look like an asshat), Trump (needs moar insults). Like others have said, Fiorina was killing it out there in the early debate. Nobody else looked like they belonged on stage.

It already is. There is chatter among SJW's that straight black men are the "white men" of black people. As to this little story, let's see if I can conjure up something in SJW language: "Just because the owner is black doesn't mean he can't have internalized racism! Look at Ben Carson! Or Clarence Thomas! They must be racist because they're conservative, so the oreo cupcake people must be racist too because... muh feelings!"

What WaPo wants you to do here is assume that since black men account for 6% of the population, they only account for about 6% of total interactions with the police as well, which is false. That 40% number doesn't look so high once you realize that. This is of course not to say that there isn't a problem with police shootings in this country. But the whole "lies, damn lies, and statistics" thing is highly relevant in articles like that.

"Clampdown" is a great song, but I just didn't think it was eardrum-busting enough for this thread. Some more: The Darkness - "Black Shuck" Electric Six - "Don't Be Afraid of the Robot" Nine Inch Nails - "The Great Destroyer"

Since billsfan89 hasn't come around to champion The Gaslight Anthem yet, I'll do it for him. All three albums are worth a listen; I really enjoy their second album, "The '59 Sound." Band of Horses is one of my favorite "new" bands - they're great live, too. I second The Black Keys. For me, Guster is hit or miss, but I know some people really enjoy them. Against Me! is a new-ish punk-ish band that I enjoy. I also enjoy: The National The Ruse The Soundtrack of our Lives The Antlers Beirut The Cat Empire

I'm not really sure if this is actually Nix/Gailey's thing, especially when I look at religious demographics in the United States (particularly in the black community). Fact is, almost 80% of this nation is Christian, so it stands to reason that almost 80% of American football players will be too (it's probably more than that, if we're honest, considering the southern background that many of these football players come from).

Let's look at some key words here: It's speculation, assclown. Speculation that Gene made. Where's your evidence that it was a black militant group member? Triple hearsay?

It probably has more to do with a high percentage of blacks being poor rather than "blacks are cheap."

Well, when you need a "revelation" in 1978 to allow blacks in your temple ceremonies and to be ordained as priests...

When you're black and from a big city, it's your fault when people get shot while in said city.

It's still not close. Some soccer fans still throw peanuts and bananas at black players.