It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Biographer Claims Barack Obama Called America ‘Racist Society’ in Unpublished Manuscript

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: seasonal

Is he wrong?

I had a friend who woke up to a burning cross in their front yard.


I have a white female friend that was sexually harassed because they felt she owed them for owning slaves.

Got any more cool stories?


And my kids went to school with a black kid that was continuously stopped walking home from school.

He was even questioned sitting on his own front porch.



That is a just an example of intelligent resource lead policing. Black males committ a disproportionately larger amount of crime, so it makes financialy good tactical and strategic sense to stop and question a larger portion of them.


What makes more sense to me is figuring out why that is so.

Science can find no discernable difference between humans, beyond maybe a spread of small/minor variance (Maori jaws, or the teeth of southeast asians having a specific groove on them). But even those traits are seen elsewhere (the striated teeth, for example, can be found in the new world as well). So with this knowledge, we can make a very reasonable assumption: humans are humans, with differences being either regional genetics of nurtured behavior.

Then you take that assumption and figure out why young black men break more laws (as you state). It would seem to me that stopping more young black men not only marginalizes all young black men, but results in nothing better than a band aid being applied (i.e., detecting crime after its occured) rather than effecting cure (removing the causes for that crime to begin with).

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


If you feel spending time and energy will serve some good purpose, good, even if it serves to make you feel better about it. To me it simply is what it is. Maybe it will change, but I'm not betting the farm on it. You may find it more comfortable to think of a hard statistic as an assumption, I prefer to face reality and live with it.




posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

LOL, so human behavior just is what it is. No need probing the status quo to find points of failure. We just need to live with the consequences of whatever it is that is thrown at us, and not waste the time and effort to create something more equitable.

I mean...thats a life philosophy I suppose.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


But it's not just black men that don't a fair shake. I wonder how much the male ego has to do with their internalization of perceived/actual inequities within a patriarchal society.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: CulturalResilience

LOL, so human behavior just is what it is. No need probing the status quo to find points of failure. We just need to live with the consequences of whatever it is that is thrown at us, and not waste the time and effort to create something more equitable.

I mean...thats a life philosophy I suppose.


Once again, it yours to interpret and decide what, if any, action and attention the facts merit.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


Would this patriarcal society you are referring to be somewhere in Africa, or the Middle East?

But it's not just black men that don't a fair shake. I wonder how much the male ego has to do with their internalization of perceived/actual inequities within a patriarchal society.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


But it's not just black men that don't a fair shake. I wonder how much the male ego has to do with their internalization of perceived/actual inequities within a patriarchal society.


Would this patriarchal society you are referring be in Africa or the middle east?.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


But it's not just black men that don't a fair shake. I wonder how much the male ego has to do with their internalization of perceived/actual inequities within a patriarchal society.


Would this patriarchal society you are referring be in Africa or the middle east?.


Here in the U.S. We do live in a patriarchal society. Does that mean it's as bad as the most patriarchal societies in the world? No. So don't conflate my comment.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


But it's not just black men that don't a fair shake. I wonder how much the male ego has to do with their internalization of perceived/actual inequities within a patriarchal society.


Can you rephrase? Im not sure im clear.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


But it's not just black men that don't a fair shake. I wonder how much the male ego has to do with their internalization of perceived/actual inequities within a patriarchal society.


Would this patriarchal society you are referring be in Africa or the middle east?.


Here in the U.S. We do live in a patriarchal society. Does that mean it's as bad as the most patriarchal societies in the world? No. So don't conflate my comment.


The last vestiges of patriarchy were eradicated from western society by circa 1965. This is clearly indicated by the continual increase in state largesse, and the continual decrease in the wages of a flooded labour market. I think conflate does not mean what you seem to think it does.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The U.S. has historically been a patriarchal society. I don't know why that's such an awful thing to suggest but it's true. Men have historically held the most powerful positions in government, business, family...not that these things are absolute and aren't changing and fluid.

So, I wonder if it's especially hurtful to black men to be made to feel powerless in a society with a history as being both racially oppressive and patriarchal...is it especially hurtful to the male ego? To rephrase, is the level of discrimination worse for them or is it just harder for them to deal with it?

You mentioned we are one race --I agree, you are absolutely correct. But we are two sexes. Someone else brought up crime statistics about black men, in particular, suggesting it to be a byproduct of racism. I just wondered if perhaps it's harder for young black men to deal with inequity than black women and white women because black men feel especially powerless in a society where men have traditionally been the most powerful sex.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


But it's not just black men that don't a fair shake. I wonder how much the male ego has to do with their internalization of perceived/actual inequities within a patriarchal society.


Would this patriarchal society you are referring be in Africa or the middle east?.


Here in the U.S. We do live in a patriarchal society. Does that mean it's as bad as the most patriarchal societies in the world? No. So don't conflate my comment.


The last vestiges of patriarchy were eradicated from western society by circa 1965. This is clearly indicated by the continual increase in state largesse, and the continual decrease in the wages of a flooded labour market. I think conflate does not mean what you seem to think it does.


Oh. Do you have the specific date it was eradicated? I kinda thought it was an ongoing process.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


But it's not just black men that don't a fair shake. I wonder how much the male ego has to do with their internalization of perceived/actual inequities within a patriarchal society.


Would this patriarchal society you are referring be in Africa or the middle east?.


Here in the U.S. We do live in a patriarchal society. Does that mean it's as bad as the most patriarchal societies in the world? No. So don't conflate my comment.


The last vestiges of patriarchy were eradicated from western society by circa 1965. This is clearly indicated by the continual increase in state largesse, and the continual decrease in the wages of a flooded labour market. I think conflate does not mean what you seem to think it does.


Oh. Do you have the specific date it was eradicated? I kinda thought it was an ongoing process.


I don't, and that is what circa indicates when it is placed in front of stated date, which is why I used it.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


But it's not just black men that don't a fair shake. I wonder how much the male ego has to do with their internalization of perceived/actual inequities within a patriarchal society.


Would this patriarchal society you are referring be in Africa or the middle east?.


Here in the U.S. We do live in a patriarchal society. Does that mean it's as bad as the most patriarchal societies in the world? No. So don't conflate my comment.


The last vestiges of patriarchy were eradicated from western society by circa 1965. This is clearly indicated by the continual increase in state largesse, and the continual decrease in the wages of a flooded labour market. I think conflate does not mean what you seem to think it does.


Oh. Do you have the specific date it was eradicated? I kinda thought it was an ongoing process.


I don't, and that is what circa indicates when it is placed in front of stated date, which is why I used it.


So you agree that the U.S. is historically a patriarchal society and the departure *date* from that is nebulous, at best, and 'ongoing' is not incorrect.

Thanks for your super-helpful challenge to thoughts we both seem to agree on.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

With just a casual glance its easy to see that young black men don't get a fair shake. Some of it is their choices, all of it is due to the situation our nation has created for them.


But it's not just black men that don't a fair shake. I wonder how much the male ego has to do with their internalization of perceived/actual inequities within a patriarchal society.


Would this patriarchal society you are referring be in Africa or the middle east?.


Here in the U.S. We do live in a patriarchal society. Does that mean it's as bad as the most patriarchal societies in the world? No. So don't conflate my comment.


The last vestiges of patriarchy were eradicated from western society by circa 1965. This is clearly indicated by the continual increase in state largesse, and the continual decrease in the wages of a flooded labour market. I think conflate does not mean what you seem to think it does.


Oh. Do you have the specific date it was eradicated? I kinda thought it was an ongoing process.


I don't, and that is what circa indicates when it is placed in front of stated date, which is why I used it.


So you agree that the U.S. is historically a patriarchal society and the departure *date* from that is nebulous, at best, and 'ongoing' is not incorrect.

Thanks for your super-helpful challenge to thoughts we both seem to agree on.


I agree that the US was a patriarchy, and I disagree with the statement you made when you said "We do live in a patriarchy in the US. I hope this has cleared up the confusion that we are in complete agreement. Because we are not, unless you are now saying your statement about living in the US today is living in a patriarchy, is incorrect.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Ah. You are in denial because you are sensitive. Your knee-jerk reaction was to freak and suggest I was comparing the U.S. to the worst patriarchal societies in the world.

Apparently, my observation hurt you. I am sorry. It wasn't a knock against you or American men, at all.

But, I imagine it feels much like what women, black, disabled, disfigured, or depressed, etc...people feel when they get offended by generalizations they believe are not true.

Sorry for offending you.

But my opinion on this is every bit as valid as yours.

Moving on. There really is no debate about it. I'd like to carry on my discussion without you being so hung up on the date of "circa. 1965" as the precise time that the patriarchal system was completely eradicated from the American way of life.

ETA: BTW, I don't think the word 'continual' means what you think it means -- it doesn't mean 'circa 1965.'
edit on 10-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Ah. You are in denial because you are sensitive. Your knee-jerk reaction was to freak and suggest I was comparing the U.S. to the worst patriarchal societies in the world.

Apparently, my observation hurt you. I am sorry. It wasn't a knock against you or American men, at all.

But, I imagine it feels much like what women, black, disabled, disfigured, or depressed, etc...people feel when they get offended by generalizations they believe are not true.

Sorry for offending you.

But my opinion on this is every bit as valid as yours.

Moving on. There really is no debate about it. I'd like to carry on my discussion without you being so hung up on the date of "circa. 1965" as the precise time that the patriarchal system was completely eradicated from the American way of life.

ETA: BTW, I don't think the word 'continual' means what you think it means -- it doesn't mean 'circa 1965.'


I am not American and nothing you said offended me. My responses to you have been measured and in no way knee-jerk as is plain to anyone who cares to read them objectively wil see. Read my reply to you again with your comprehension fully engaged and you will see that I did not say circa means continual.

It was not my intention to confuse you so completely and I apologise for not using more rudimentary English terms.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   
So what's the problem? That he spoke the truth?



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I do not have the perspective to do much more than ponder on that one. But it is a good observation.

BTW, western civilization is patriarchal. We derive from Rome, a very patriarchal society.



posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Ah. You are in denial because you are sensitive. Your knee-jerk reaction was to freak and suggest I was comparing the U.S. to the worst patriarchal societies in the world.

Apparently, my observation hurt you. I am sorry. It wasn't a knock against you or American men, at all.

But, I imagine it feels much like what women, black, disabled, disfigured, or depressed, etc...people feel when they get offended by generalizations they believe are not true.

Sorry for offending you.

But my opinion on this is every bit as valid as yours.

Moving on. There really is no debate about it. I'd like to carry on my discussion without you being so hung up on the date of "circa. 1965" as the precise time that the patriarchal system was completely eradicated from the American way of life.

ETA: BTW, I don't think the word 'continual' means what you think it means -- it doesn't mean 'circa 1965.'


I am not American and nothing you said offended me. My responses to you have been measured and in no way knee-jerk as is plain to anyone who cares to read them objectively wil see. Read my reply to you again with your comprehension fully engaged and you will see that I did not say circa means continual.

It was not my intention to confuse you so completely and I apologise for not using more rudimentary English terms.


No reason to apologize, my vocabulary includes all the words you have used thus far (and all the words I used, too)...even though I am just a mere woman.

For someone who isn't even an American, I find it derisory that you would suggest that the patriarchal American way of life was absolutely eradicated circa 1965.




posted on Apr, 10 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Ah. You are in denial because you are sensitive. Your knee-jerk reaction was to freak and suggest I was comparing the U.S. to the worst patriarchal societies in the world.

Apparently, my observation hurt you. I am sorry. It wasn't a knock against you or American men, at all.

But, I imagine it feels much like what women, black, disabled, disfigured, or depressed, etc...people feel when they get offended by generalizations they believe are not true.

Sorry for offending you.

But my opinion on this is every bit as valid as yours.

Moving on. There really is no debate about it. I'd like to carry on my discussion without you being so hung up on the date of "circa. 1965" as the precise time that the patriarchal system was completely eradicated from the American way of life.

ETA: BTW, I don't think the word 'continual' means what you think it means -- it doesn't mean 'circa 1965.'


I am not American and nothing you said offended me. My responses to you have been measured and in no way knee-jerk as is plain to anyone who cares to read them objectively wil see. Read my reply to you again with your comprehension fully engaged and you will see that I did not say circa means continual.

It was not my intention to confuse you so completely and I apologise for not using more rudimentary English terms.


No reason to apologize, my vocabulary includes all the words you have used thus far (and all the words I used, too)...even though I am just a mere woman.

For someone who isn't even an American, I find it derisory that you would suggest that the patriarchal American way of life was absolutely eradicated circa 1965.



It is not necessary to live in a country to understand the processes and transitions that it has undergone. Visits to, and from resident relatives and friends provide insight. There is also of course a very rich historical and contemporary literary resource available to all. Not to mention the medium of which this site is a part of, and through which we are currently interacting. There is also social media. Taken as whole all these enable any reasoned individual to reach broad ranging and informed conclusions, regarding nations, and that which makes those nations what they are.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join