American, not African American?

[ASTA]

So Boerd said
1. So, what, Europeans are guilty by "corruption of blood?" Unconstitutional. Why don't we have anti-Aztec affirmative action or pro-Scandinavian affirmative action in Southern Greenland or pro-Neanderthal affirmative action everywhere or pro-European affirmative action in Mongolia? History is history. I'm Asian, mind you, and we Koreans didn't have it easy.2. Colonization was not a zero-sum game. Can you honestly tell me that the African tribes, some of whom had not even invented the WHEEL, mind you, would be better off today if nobody brought technology to them?

1) No, they're not, and I wish that people in this thread would stop claiming that I'm advocating white guilt, white hatred or collective responsibility whenever I bring up the bits and piece of European history that make people squirm with discomfort. I don't have an indirect or direct issue with whites as whole. My primary beef is with history and its persistent impact on my life and the lives of other people like me. I've found that the further I look into Europe's darker history, the more disgusted and revolted I become with said historical texts. It makes me shudder at what I could find if I dig further into Asia's and Africa's history.

And Neanderthals? Really?

2) No, I don't see any benefit whatsoever in European powers coming to Africa. That continent was perfectly fine before European explorers arrived. It will be left to speculation and personal thought experiments as to how African tribes would have progressed without Europe's intervention until mankind invents time machines that somehow avoid the temporal paradox. Pretty skyscrapers and firearms were 'fortunate' byproducts of colonialism (among other things), but that's just it: they're byproducts. They weren't intended at the time. You're implying that African nations absolutely depended on Europe for technical advancement and civilization, which is a global misconception widely held as fact. And ironically, civilization itself is a concrete term wrapped in subjectivity; its underlining definition is forged by those that emerge with victory in hand. If your society and culture do not mimic that of the conqueror's, you're uncivilized. It's a ridiculous logical fallacy and blatant lie reinforced by corrupted historical texts and victor's essays laced throughout American and European history books.

[xAsunaWolfx]

Side comment

I wonder if everyone else here is white, arguing over what to call my own race.
Has anyone noticed the difference of asking a white person and black person race?
Black people will say black.
White people will say: 2% Irish, .04% Indian, 45% Hawaiian, 16% European, 5% Irish and what not

... i feel as if...Black or African American is fine, as long as the other party does not mind being called white or Caucasian
But if everyone is calling each other: Negro, Nigga, nigger, Cracker, "lost in the snow" or "lost in the night" = Something is not right, especially if it's outside of some friendship. Just call the person what they request to be called. If that 2% Irish white person wants to be labeled as Irish, call them Irish

. I'm constantly bombard with the name "Oreo" because i act white yet i am black on the outside, therefore i'm suppose to act like a hoodrat ._. I am constantly called white along with the oreo thing, because i am tan and i have blue eyes which run in the family. Honestly, none of these things, which could be considered racist, has bothered me because those names are not THAT negative and life is good. I have many black and white friends and i love them all the same.

I'd rather people focus less on labels but the actual racism going on in our country that goes rather than the names.Yes, you can't change the past. Yes, some of the past is shameful. Yes, words can hurt but actual racist actions has cost lives lately, example: Lately Americans have been thinking of racist happenings between unarmed black men and the cops, that cops are more likely to shoot/kill a black man. Or how store clerks will watch the black people more and are less likely to hire them. Of course this doesn't account for all cops but i fear for some...
. I don't understand why people are more concerned about what they are called when other things are happening..... it's kinda like trying to figure out if Iggy azelea's butt is real or not when Ebola is entering the country and nothing is being done to the African borders

..whereas i'm more concerned about being shot by what we call justice as well as a LOT of the males of my race are in jail. I also understand that people of the middle east origin are experiencing problems as well. i can't imagine what it's like to have people avoid me because they're afraid i'll bomb them and what not. But maybe that's just me.

[So Boerd]

2) No, I don't see any benefit whatsoever in European powers coming to Africa. That continent was perfectly fine before European explorers arrived. It will be left to speculation and personal thought experiments as to how African tribes would have progressed without Europe's intervention until mankind invents time machines that somehow avoid the temporal paradox. Pretty skyscrapers and firearms were 'fortunate' byproducts of colonialism (among other things), but that's just it: they're byproducts. They weren't intended at the time. You're implying that African nations absolutely depended on Europe for technical advancement and civilization, which is a global misconception widely held as fact. And ironically, civilization itself is a concrete term wrapped in subjectivity; its underlining definition is forged by those that emerge with victory in hand. If your society and culture do not mimic that of the conqueror's, you're uncivilized. It's a ridiculous logical fallacy and blatant lie reinforced by corrupted historical texts and victor's essays laced throughout American and European history books.

The wheel, Lum.

My primary beef is with history and its persistent impact on my life and the lives of other people like me

I'm Korean. You can't match my historically oppressed credentials.

[ASTA]

So Boerd said
The , Lum.

What would have prompted its creation?

[So Boerd]

The desire to move large quantities of stuff over a distance?

[ASTA]

So Boerd said
The , Lum.

It was invented, just not widely used as a way to augment transportation efficiency. The wheel is easymode to create (Nubian peoples/Ancient Egypt as well as sub-Saharan African groups). The axle and the physics behind it? Not so much. Wheels (and axles) gave way to an excellent method of ferrying goods cheaply from place to place (obviously), but African societal groups primarily relied on pack animals and human-powered delivery methods to ferry goods to predetermined destinations. This is more expensive and less efficient (in theory), which probably stunted economical (and therefore technological) growth. Other reasons cited for this diminished level of development probably lies in Africa's lack of easily-broken animals (you're not going to have much luck in domesticating something like an elephant and then having it till land; most you can do is tame it, which isn't going to cut it for farm work), African tribe's being close to ample food sources (jungles and roaming herd animals) and environmental factors that imposed limitations on wheeled transport usage and extended development.

Again, the idea that Africa didn't invent the wheel is a common (and stupid) misconception that is widely regarded as fact--much like the idea that Africans willingly sold other Africans into slavery (held at gunpoint by Europeans and under the assumption that European indentured servitude and slavery practices were similar to those of their own) or that they ate each other willingly (evidence for African cannibalism is sparse; you find more evidence of this occurring in Europe and especially with early settling efforts in the Americas). Ancient Nubians used the wheel for pottery.

EDIT: That above question wasn't supposed to be posted. Thanks Mahz.

[So Boerd]

much like the idea that Africans willingly sold other Africans into slavery

Not according to the rapid white supremacists in the Nigerian government.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-trade

You've only proven my point, with no incentive to develop the very helpful wheel any further, they would not have. Thus the long term material impact of colonialism.

[ASTA]

So Boerd said
Not according to the rapid white supremacists in the Nigerian government.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/18/africans-apologise-slave-tradeYou've only proven my point, with no incentive to develop the very helpful wheel any further, they would not have. Thus the long term material impact of colonialism.

It's like you didn't even read the parenthesized material or the post in its entirety.

EDIT: Or my post before that one.

[So Boerd]

ASTA said
It's like you didn't even read the parenthesized material or the post in its entirety.EDIT: Or my post before that one.

Except in order for the Europeans to force them to give slaves, they had to...have had slaves.

It's like you didn't read the article in its entirety.

[Gwazi Magnum]

xAsunaWolfx said I wonder if everyone else here is white, arguing over what to call my own race.

Sorry, but this in regards to

1) The colour of one's skin, so if your skin is what the English language defines as Black it is going to be called black. Someone with white skin is not unable to recognize the colour black because they're own colour is white.

2) We're debating parameters/requirements for certain racial terms, and honestly it has overwhelmingly been in the direction of "Racial terms are inaccurate and outdated". So in truth the only thing we're really deciding on calling your race is human.

xAsunaWolfx said Has anyone noticed the difference of asking a white person and black person race?
Black people will say black.
White people will say: 2% Irish, .04% Indian, 45% Hawaiian, 16% European, 5% Irish and what not

If you ask someone their skin colour, they give you their skin colour (though honestly, someone's colour of skin is obvious unless you're blind). If you ask them their heritage they'll give you they'll heritage. I've never seen anyone (white or black) simply claim their ancestry was black, and not bother to say where their parents originated from.

xAsunaWolfx said But if everyone is calling each other: Negro, Nigga, nigger, Cracker, "lost in the snow" or "lost in the night" = Something is not right, especially if it's outside of some friendship.

Where here did we call anyone any of these names? :/
Plus, I don't know where you live but the only times I hear these words being used is if they're in mutual humor among friends.

xAsunaWolfx said Just call the person what they request to be called. If that 2% Irish white person wants to be labeled as Irish, call them Irish

I am a white person, I request to be called black. So you better call me black.
Or "I learned how to speak french in class, therefore call me french".

Having the tiniest ancestry of one country, or knowing something of one country doesn't mean that is the majority of your heritage.
I mean sure, if you're 2% Irish you are partly Irish, but you're not all Irish, there's another 98% there.

But honestly, majority of the time a person is called by the country they live in. If you live in Canada you're Canadian, America is American, England is English/British etc.

xAsunaWolfx said Lately Americans have been thinking of racist happenings between unarmed black men and the cops, that cops are more likely to shoot/kill a black man. Or how store clerks will watch the black people more and are less likely to hire them. Of course this doesn't account for all cops but i fear for some...

Honestly the cop thing is under debate as to if it's actual racism, or just a matter of due to history most of the poor neighbourhoods tend to be filled with black people. A result of their ancestors having been slaves and not had many means to financially secure their family. Where in modern day it results to a lot of those people turning to crime, where since those environments have a high amount of black people you get a high amount of black criminals, and as a result more black people shot.

The store thing though? Yea, that's basically just racism.

xAsunaWolfx said when Ebola is entering the country and nothing is being done to the African borders

Ebola is honestly in my mind being over-hyped like the Swine Flu.
Diseases always cause a panic even when their impact is completely minimal.

[ASTA]

Honestly the cop thing is under debate as to if it's actual racism, or just a matter of due to history most of the poor neighbourhoods tend to be filled with black people. A result of their ancestors having been slaves and not had many means to financially secure their family. Where in modern day it results to a lot of those people turning to crime, where since those environments have a high amount of black people you get a high amount of black criminals, and as a result more black people shot.

This shouldn't even be up for debate.

A 13-14 percent racial demographic comprises most of the poor neighborhoods in the US while the 50-60 percent white majority is largely exempt from poverty? That doesn't make sense; it's disproportionate for one. Easy-to-find sources for crime/race/poverty statistics on the internet (government-sanctioned and government-made websites) point to whites committing more crimes than their black counterparts, occupying a larger share of the poverty percentile and being just as likely (if not more so) to commit violent or nonviolent crimes as blacks. As expected, many more whites should be dying from police shootings and significantly more of them should be in jail when compared to their black counterparts.

The proportions/ratios and not the solid figures point to a biased police force and justice system. Why are these claims even disputed despite overwhelming evidence provided by the US government itself?

[So Boerd]

ASTA said
This shouldn't even be up for debate.A 13-14 percent racial demographic comprises most of the poor neighborhoods in the US while the 50-60 percent white majority is largely exempt from poverty? That doesn't make sense; it's disproportionate for one. Easy-to-find sources for crime/race/poverty statistics on the internet (government-sanctioned and government-made websites) point to whites committing more crimes than their black counterparts, occupying a larger share of the poverty percentile and being just as likely (if not more so) to commit violent or nonviolent crimes as blacks. As expected, many more whites should be dying from police shootings and significantly more of them should be in jail when compared to their black counterparts. The proportions/ratios and not the solid figures point to a biased police force and justice system. Why are these claims even disputed despite overwhelming evidence provided by the US government itself?

I won't let you say sources exist. Cite them.

[ASTA]

So Boerd said
I won't let you say sources exist. Cite them.

It's as if you don't know what Google is.

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf Official racial demographics in the US. Also, apparently I was off by approximately ten percent.. Apparently whites make up about 70 percent of the US population rather than 50-60 percent.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf Official FBI website that has cataloged 2012 crime statistics based on race. 2012 is the earliest year I could find, but I do not anticipate the percentiles to differ much in spite of two years having passed.

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html Poverty/annual income statistics. Basic math yields about 13-14 million persons of white racial background being poverty stricken while 8 or so million persons of black racial background are poverty stricken. Note the skewed ratio.

Do you want links that provide support for the belief that America's justice system is beyond fucked up or have you finally come to realize that it's biased against minority groups? Because I'm seriously not looking forward to the Trayvon Martin Thread Antics V2 with you again if that's the case.

EDIT: Actually it's anti-male as well but that's an entirely different thread altogether.

[Rare]

HollywoodMole said
Listing "benefits" to the enslavement of thousands isn't okay...

Well there are benefits to bad and good things that has happened from thousands of years. Like from example, World War 2 got major countries (America, England, etc) out of the Great Depression. It showed that women could work by themselves and how powerful they can be; and it ended discrimination against African Americans and helped the Hispanics out as well. And the USA became a superpower because other countries were beaten down badly; so the US helped them get them back on their feet.

The Holocaust helped formed Israel from Jewish people and it will help stop future acts of hatred before they can even start. The Black Death helped lower the population, ended feudalism, and jumped start the Renaissance.

Just pick up a history book and read it, you will see bad things have both good and bad outcomes.

[So Boerd]

ASTA said
It's as if you don't know what Google is. Official racial demographics in the US. Also, apparently I was off by approximately ten percent.. Apparently whites make up about 70 percent of the US population rather than 50-60 percent. Official FBI website that has cataloged 2012 crime statistics based on race. 2012 is the earliest year I could find, but I do not anticipate the percentiles to differ much in spite of two years having passed. Poverty/annual income statistics. Basic math yields about 13-14 million persons of white racial background being poverty stricken while 8 or so million persons of black racial background are poverty stricken. Note the skewed ratio.Do you want links that provide support for the belief that America's justice system is beyond fucked up or have you finally come to realize that it's biased against minority groups? Because I'm seriously not looking forward to the Trayvon Martin Thread Antics V2 with you again if that's the case.EDIT: Actually it's anti-male as well but that's an entirely different thread altogether.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

[Gwazi Magnum]

ASTA said It's as if you don't know what Google is.

It's a general rule though that the one who provides the claim shows the evidence.

ASTA said Official racial demographics in the US. Also, apparently I was off by approximately ten percent.. Apparently whites make up about 70 percent of the US population rather than 50-60 percent.

This one isn't really relevant. It's the percentage of a race that commits crimes that matter, not the percentage of a race there are living in a country.

ASTA said -The other two sources-

These are pretty valid and relevant though, enough so I'll retract the argument I made earlier about it being debateable.

However, to play Devil's advocate.

Your third source although showing a lower number of black people being poverty than white still shows a higher percentage. Perhaps this can suggest focused neighbourhoods where crime is bad, where elements such as peer pressure and mob mentality can kick in? So cops are generally more aggressive/on edge because of the environment these happen in?

Now, that is a pretty weak and shitty argument made there but I felt it should have at least been voiced in order to cover all our angles.

[So Boerd]

Shame on you. allegedly rational Magnum, for falling for cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Quick impressions on FBI source:

1. White people (including Hispanics) murder less than Black people
2. 700,000 of the margin between white and black is DUI, which they rarely send you to prison for.
3. Seeing as Black people evidently commit crime at a much higher rates than Whites+Hispanics, about 85% of the population, that proves that recidivism is much more likely among blacks, prompting longer sentences and explaining the large prison population.

[ASTA]

So Boerd said
Shame on you. allegedly rational Magnum, for falling for cum hoc ergo propter hoc.Quick impressions on FBI source:1. White people (including Hispanics) murder less than Black people2. 700,000 of the margin between white and black is DUI, which they rarely send you to prison for.3. Seeing as Black people evidently commit crime at a much higher rates than Whites+Hispanics, about 85% of the population, that proves that recidivism is much more likely among blacks, prompting longer sentences and explaining the large prison population.

1. Cherrypicking and irrelevant. A crime is a crime.

2. And? Again, a crime is a crime.

3. Yeah, you still don't get it. I'm now positive that arguing with you is pointless. I'm not about to spend 30 pages wrestling with you and RPG's white-screening problem.

Also, instead of posting latin phrases, actually explain what your issue with my response is.

[So Boerd]

So what exactly is your issue? Thought we were complaining about prison pop.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, if you cared to google it, means that correlation does not imply causation. A discrepenancy between black and white poverty does not mean ipso facto the system is racist

[Lo Pellegrino]

So Boerd said
So what exactly is your issue? Thought we were complaining about prison pop.Cum hoc ergo propter hoc, if you cared to google it, means that correlation does not imply causation. A discrepenancy between black and white poverty does not mean ipso facto the system is racist

“'If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out that's not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made. And they haven't even pulled the knife out much less heal the wound. They won't even admit the knife is there.'”

Congratulations, So Boerd, you've made this quote relevant in 2014! Feel deeply dirty, deeply ashamed, and despicable at your leisure (or simply don't recognize it, that's working well for you so far)!