schools must allow for minority students to speak in ebonics

a reply to: TzarChasm

I don't know my son has had white math teachers in SC I can't understand because of their accent and collequelisms. You may be correct in terms of the psychological accent.

I know that bebop jazz was made to be black music because they were sick of doing the song and dance routine with swing for the white folks. Turns out is one of the most intellectually challenging forms of music to learn and play.

Something happened where that turned to Kanye.

One thing is for sure, American politics really messed up the assimilation process where as other countries have succeeded.

a reply to: luthier

Luthier,

All any of us have to our names, in truth, is control over our own conduct. Where mine is concerned, I know that my only concern, is that everyone being educated by a system, gets the same information, information which will stand them in good stead to either continue to learn, or innovate, or get into the world of work, with all the communication capacity necessary to make the process smooth.

It is vital, absolutely vital, that students approaching working age, be able to function in society without undue stress. The stress of misfiled tax returns, incorrectly filled out forms for other government services, failure to properly read documents from companies, contracts with employers, these things cause HUGE problems to young people, and therefore, learning to read, to write, and to correctly speak the language that these things are conducted in, is an absolute necessity.

Removing the stress of not being able to communicate effectively with a wide variety of people and entities, is a key element in removing the drivers of anger, frustration, and blind rage that these things can cause. We all know government is not there for the people, that the law is not there to promote justice, but to protect power. In that scenario, it is necessary to be able to understand the law, so that you can work around it. It is necessary to understand the government and the games it plays, both of which require a high degree of aptitude with the language being used in those spheres. Guess what? That is not going to be locally derived street talk. That is going to be precise, impenetrably difficult, high caliber English, precisely because those in power understand that it can be hard for those who speak the language to understand it to that level.

The answer? Well, it certainly is not to ignore the education on offer. It is rather, to ensure to apply oneself with rigour, to the task of learning the language being used, how it operates, where it comes from and how to apply it to your own ends, and it cannot be overstated, that without this vital ability, one is cutting oneself down, damaging ones own future. That cannot be permitted, for any reason, cultural or otherwise. There are enough stumbling blocks in the way of a peaceful, adequate outcome in a given life, without the person living it shooting themselves in the foot.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Your reply is to an area we are in agreement with.

My point is was this pointed out here as a reminder of how silly it's become allowing students to dictate what they feel like learning, or was this op to point out its unique to blacks?

I can tell you 100 percent more white people (simply by numbers) are using incorrect english. It's a problem across the board. Particularly in the south where pockets of different dialects continued, and Spanish is taught in school as a first language.

I am in total disagreement having different standards myself. The goal should be to give students a formal and informal language to understand like nearly everywhere else in the world does. English imperial language became a hybrid itself and much less proper than its old English.

Kids should know this is proper, this is how you talk to friends, not your grandmother.

The south does have the memory of that respect
More so than the north but it only goes as far as Sur names and curtesy.

Schools are now encouraging street slang instead of English? Get me off this planet already, ugh..

Translated from Eubonics...

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm



One thing is for sure, American politics really messed up the assimilation process where as other countries have succeeded.

That is a good point. I wonder what the other countries have done that worked, while the USA's approach has failed.

I don't think they let kids speak ebonics French in France, or ebonics German in Germany though.

The fact that ebonics even exists in the first place is one of America's failures.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: sapien82

Im not sure about other parts of the US, but in Texas people seem to really anguish over where they live due to school districts. My county has 4 ISD's. THe biggest one sucks terribly. The 3 smaller ones have less opportunity but improved teaching and far improved classmates. Its all socio economic, as the bigger ISD also has the poorest from a more urban area, while the other 3 are rural with a different kind of poor person.

Anyway, people put a lot of effort and spend a lot of money to be in a good school district. I have family that struggles to pay their rent in Richardson so their kids can go to Richland Hills.

In Oregon you have the option to put your kid in neighboring school districts if you want. One of my younger brothers chose a smaller nearby school so he could be with his friends there.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I agree.

The word on the street is that Berkeley is opening a new college of Ebonics. I for one, would like to be one of the first to get a PhD. in this field. I think this degree might make me a hot ticket on the employment market. What do you guys think of my idea?

originally posted by: Ophiuchus 13

originally posted by: Jiggly
so they are saying minorities arent smart enough to learn english? lol

Minorities are not the only people speaking Ebonics...

This video skit was made decades ago:



We actually have Scottish governments that are converting national policy documents into Doric and Old Scots:

"web.archive.org/web/20110923091835/www.scottish.parliament.uk..."

originally posted by: TrueBrit

That is utter rubbish. To which people are you referring? Individuals he knew, or the great mass of people of colour in the United States? Because his immediate family and friends were not slaughtered en mass, and people of colour still live now, not in slavery, not barred from working, not barred from education, not barred from playing professional sports, or from taking part in political endeavours both at street, and executive level. His people are not destroyed. They yet live, so what, exactly are you talking about?

I'm referring to the "squalor" that Black Americans live in, which your White brethren are fond of pointing out. When you talk about Black people not being slaughtered en mass... I think about every ill-trained murderer in the police force who has been let off for their crimes. When you talk about Black people not being enslaved... I think about the 13th Amendment which says that slavery is not abolished in the case of criminals. Then I think of the disproportionate amount of Blacks that have been imprisoned and the laws which have targeted Black communities, in effect, enslaving Blacks under a different name. When you talk about "affirmative action"... I think about the barring of felons from the workplace and am again reminded that Blacks are targeted by the law, disproportionately targeted by the police, and then barred from employment through this process. When you talk about Black people not being barred from playing professional sports... I think of the similarities between slave auctions and the NFL draft. I think of the slave owners- I mean- the coaches, who are 98% White. The players who are not paid by their plantations- I mean- colleges, who take in huge profits from the games. I think of the genetic breeding of Black people to be physically dominant. And when you talk about the right to vote... I think about the politicians who never hold to their promises, who refuse to even address Black issues most of the time, even when they are Black.

Did he now? Did he start talking like a six year old with a hatred for vowels? No, no he did not. Did he start talking like a gansta rapper with a speech impediment? No, no he did not do that.

You are obviously ignorant of Dr. King's life. Maybe you should study people's lives before you go around quoting them.

It was not a message but a method, and as it happens, it stands today as one of the single greatest monuments to good sense, that any person opposing the status quo, has ever managed to erect. Acting in a paramilitary fashion, toward the US government, the law, and the fascist factions amongst the population of the country at the time, would have seen those acting in that fashion terminated with extreme prejudice, and with the full support of even the most equality loving individuals you could hope to have bumped into at the time.

The only reason nonviolent revolution worked in India is because Indians outnumbered the British by a massive margin. We assimilated.

Regular people, not under the sway of the haters at the time, were able to engage with the message of peaceful resistance, because it made no monsters, created no demons, and by engaging people of that sort, saw support for civil rights grow, outside communities traditionally affected by a lack of civil rights.

So you would say that it is abnormal for a group of people to react violently towards another group of people who have violently oppressed them? Because as far as I can tell, these "regular people" you speak of are very fond of violence when they think they are being attacked or oppressed by Muslims, Jews, Koreans, or anybody else that doesn't fall in line.

If you think you know what it was like to be in MLKs shoes, or anyone elses during that time, regardless of your particular skin colour, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you literally know nothing about it. The level of danger people of colour were in during that period, has no modern equivalent, unless you happen to be both Arabic and homosexual, as well as living in Saudi Arabia, or Chechnya, for example. THOSE people know EXACTLY what it felt like for people of colour in the sixties and previous. You? Not so much, regardless of what your skin tone, origins or beliefs are. First world problems, thats what people have today in developed nations. First world, non-problems which when compared to anything actually worthy of note, mean nothing what so ever.

Why do people like you feel you need to make people's struggles into a pissing contest? This is not a competition of who's struggle has been harder, it is about justice. It is about knowing that the past affects the present and the current situation for Black people is dire by all indicators.

With respect, you are getting things around your neck here. YOU were not denuded of a language. Your ancestors, of hundreds and hundreds of years ago were, but you were not, your mother was not, your mothers mother was not, and neither was her mother. We are talking HUNDREDS of years ago, and you bare about as much relation to the individual in your line who actually WAS stripped of their language, as I do. Thats just how it is.

Flowery language. If we held up a picture of my ancestors to both yourself and I, a different story would show itself. I heavily relate to the slave narratives I read right now. But once again, you are missing the point or maybe you are purposefully obfuscating it. Imagine you are a child... some thief comes along and robs your parents as well as your grandparents, then kills them. You now have NO parental guidance and to boot, all of the inheritance money you were supposed to receive is gone. Now the robber comes back and raises you, educates you. Tell me that you wouldn't think your about how your life would have turned out differently. Tell me you wouldn't get violent, and plot on that robber.

I mean, if we are going to get all historical about this, the Romans can go do something erotic to themselves with a cactus, because they murdered all our druids, forced Latin on as many of us as they could tie a rope around, and generally messed up our collective will as a people, turning us from relatively peaceful, self sustaining island dwellers, into an empire building powerhouse, to my shame and the shame of all True Brits.

That's how you REALLY feel.

Look at NOW, what the English language is NOW. It is a language which provides bridges between other languages, is the language used to discuss and publish scientific papers, the language in which a huge percentage of the worlds business is conducted in. It literally keeps information flowing between more territories, more minds, than any other language on the planet.

I am always astonished at the arrogance of White people. You collectively think that your language- no- your general MINDSET is superior to that of every other people on the globe, ever, and you justify the devastation that mindset has caused the same way your ancestors did. Those people you claim to be so far and different from, you share their hubris. As long as my DNA remains, I will never allow the success of the idea that your ancestors wanted and your modern contemporaries are working toward- global domination via One World Government.

a reply to: luthier

I don't know you personally, luthier, but people like you restore my faith. Thank you for doing due diligence before making judgements.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TrueBrit

This is an incredibly racist thread.

I live in the deep south and sometimes can't understand people at all. Sometimes they are white. My son had a teacher I couldn't understand she was white. She taught math.

Most people teach within the collequelisms they grow up in. Proper English is not taught in regards to conversational English that takes place in class. Teachers themselves of any color use regional collequelisms.

If this was about teaching the entire country to speak English. Including everyone that says y'all, and fixing to, then it would have a point. It's however is pointing out a sub dialect that belongs to specifically blacks.

I imagine you have no idea how this started since you appear ignorant of history here. Maybe it's because you were raised in the UK?

So in black culture during segregation, and from the mass of illiteracy during slavery and then the second class education, was created a vernacular. As they faught in their own platoons, sat in their own sections, danced in their own clubs, the vernacular solitified over decades. The history of jazz is an interesting one to observe the story of segregarion, it's well documented because of ties to academics.

Black banking and wealth management were met with massive pushback. Black bussinesses burned and forced to stay segregated.

Do you have any idea what that does for building wealth? Now, plenty of people with nothing have built empires. The segregation aspect is the difference. If your Irish, you can work your but off to loose your accent, if your gay you can stay in the closet, if your black you can't really hide your skin color. The building of wealth for blacks was immoraly hampered by segregation, and ithe had a significant effect on the ability to create wealth that can pass to heirs. So cornerstones and helping hands higher up were not nearly as available.

Then throw in Johnson's "war on poverty" once segregation is brought down.

And shazam..hand outs for votes. At this point the race riots, lynchings, beatings etc had nearly reached their climax. A perfect time to start throwing bread as the saviour.

If you don't think the US government is responsible for mishandling the transition from slavery, segregation, to full freedom you just aren't thinking this through.

Now do I think everyone should learn to pronounce words in School. Absolutely. But the white kids I can't understand too. Even though they don't have a name for the funny way they speak.

Thank you! I love you, not for the color of your skin or merely because you're human, but because you are a CRITICAL THINKER.

I wish everybody in this whole racist freaking thread was forced to memorize this by government mandate, like the Pledge of Allegiance.

The situation in America is much more complicated than a lot of these guys understand and you are perfectly right, the government REALLY mishandled every transition in this country regarding Black people which has led to many of the problems we face today. I almost feel like it was done on purpose, it was so bad. According to CNN, the average American inheritance is $177,000 while the average worth of a Black family is only $1,700 when you take out the family car. Wealth is becoming consolidated and more and more, we're seeing that inheritance makes up more of the country's wealth than income from labor. So while everybody talks about "Lift yourself up by your bootstraps," they're ignoring the reality of the situation because it makes them look bad.

originally posted by: prepared4truth
When you talk about Black people not being enslaved... I think about the 13th Amendment which says that slavery is not abolished in the case of criminals. Then I think of the disproportionate amount of Blacks that have been imprisoned and the laws which have targeted Black communities, in effect, enslaving Blacks under a different name.

Are they really disproportionately targeted, though? I know they were at one time. But still now? Is there any evidence of it?

If anything, so many white people have "face blindness" when it comes to identifying a black criminal, that I would think quite a lot of crimes are never successfully prosecuted.

If you think you know what it was like to be in MLKs shoes, or anyone elses during that time, regardless of your particular skin colour, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you literally know nothing about it. The level of danger people of colour were in during that period, has no modern equivalent, unless you happen to be both Arabic and homosexual, as well as living in Saudi Arabia, or Chechnya, for example. THOSE people know EXACTLY what it felt like for people of colour in the sixties and previous. You? Not so much, regardless of what your skin tone, origins or beliefs are. First world problems, thats what people have today in developed nations. First world, non-problems which when compared to anything actually worthy of note, mean nothing what so ever.

Why do people like you feel you need to make people's struggles into a pissing contest? This is not a competition of who's struggle has been harder, it is about justice. It is about knowing that the past affects the present and the current situation for Black people is dire by all indicators.

How much real effect does inheritance have? College? There are quite a lot of black scholarships. If I were black, I would have fewer college loans to pay now. The aid available is, in most cases, sufficient for a person to live on while attending a local state college. Which is good enough to get a good job.

If you study the right thing, you are pretty much guaranteed a good living in the USA. If you don't, then well.... that's your choice.

With respect, you are getting things around your neck here. YOU were not denuded of a language. Your ancestors, of hundreds and hundreds of years ago were, but you were not, your mother was not, your mothers mother was not, and neither was her mother. We are talking HUNDREDS of years ago, and you bare about as much relation to the individual in your line who actually WAS stripped of their language, as I do. Thats just how it is.

Flowery language. If we held up a picture of my ancestors to both yourself and I, a different story would show itself. I heavily relate to the slave narratives I read right now. But once again, you are missing the point or maybe you are purposefully obfuscating it. Imagine you are a child... some thief comes along and robs your parents as well as your grandparents, then kills them. You now have NO parental guidance and to boot, all of the inheritance money you were supposed to receive is gone. Now the robber comes back and raises you, educates you. Tell me that you wouldn't think your about how your life would have turned out differently. Tell me you wouldn't get violent, and plot on that robber.

Now you're just making yourself sound stupid.

A thief robbed somebody you've never met. Somebody you would only know about if you do research. Without a book to tell you, you wouldn't even know it had happened. For all you know without a book, you might be like president Obama, the son of a first generation immigrant from Kenya.

Inheritance you are supposed to have??!?!? I gotta call BS on that. A high "average" inheritance among white people doesn't mean the majority of them are getting any inheritance at all. It just means the few who do are getting huge inheritances.

And you don't usually inherit until your parents die. I'm in my late 30's and my parents are both still alive.

Look at NOW, what the English language is NOW. It is a language which provides bridges between other languages, is the language used to discuss and publish scientific papers, the language in which a huge percentage of the worlds business is conducted in. It literally keeps information flowing between more territories, more minds, than any other language on the planet.

I am always astonished at the arrogance of White people. You collectively think that your language- no- your general MINDSET is superior to that of every other people on the globe, ever, and you justify the devastation that mindset has caused the same way your ancestors did. Those people you claim to be so far and different from, you share their hubris. As long as my DNA remains, I will never allow the success of the idea that your ancestors wanted and your modern contemporaries are working toward- global domination via One World Government.

You're right.

Instead you'll build a failed legacy based on doing "anything but" what has been shown to work.

You're looking at a system that is flawed, but on the whole delivers a higher quality of life than the majority of systems out there. You don't like one thing about it, and rejecting the whole thing over just that one thing. In fact, it is one thing that has CHANGED, and is no longer the way it was.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

But you don't have a better idea, do you?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Are they really disproportionately targeted, though? I know they were at one time. But still now? Is there any evidence of it?

If anything, so many white people have "face blindness" when it comes to identifying a black criminal, that I would think quite a lot of crimes are never successfully prosecuted.

The "face blindness" you mentioned leads to a disproportionate amount of innocent Black people being convicted of crimes they didn't commit... but we'll get to that in a second. There are plenty of articles, studies, and other data proving that Blacks are disproportionately targeted in almost every avenue, so I'll give you a few places to start:

I don't know if you've heard of the School to Prison Pipeline but the fact that Black students are 4x as likely to be suspended as White students, or in other words be targeted by the school system, leads to a lot of kids that aren't in school - this contributes to a disproportionate Prison Population. Blacks are incarcerated at an average rate of 5x that of white americans, although the white population is 8x larger. This huge disparity is partially because of disproportionate Racial Profiling (stop-and-frisk). Nationwide, more than 50% of the people being stopped by police are Black while 89% of the people cops stop are innocent. But when some kind of arrest is made, regardless of whether the person is guilty or not (2/3 of the people exonerated from wrongful convictions in 2015 were Black), this leads to disproportionate Unemployment (felon work complications) via disproportionate Drug Sentencing (the War on Drugs). That means, drug crimes that are typical of Black communities get much longer sentencing than drug crimes that are typical of White neighborhoods.

Let's not even get into Redlining (the refusal of loans to Black people because of the area they live in) and subsequently, Gentrification (white people receiving loans for the areas Blacks live in and eventually pricing them out). You should understand that the words white and black aren't openly used to make the Black community's situation worse but these structures are effectively targeting Blacks through other means.

How much real effect does inheritance have? College? There are quite a lot of black scholarships. If I were black, I would have fewer college loans to pay now. The aid available is, in most cases, sufficient for a person to live on while attending a local state college. Which is good enough to get a good job.

If you study the right thing, you are pretty much guaranteed a good living in the USA. If you don't, then well.... that's your choice.

Inheritance makes a huge impact. The current President, Donald Trump, owes his fortune to his father as a matter of fact. Inherited money actually accounts for more of the country's wealth than the LIFETIME INCOME of over 50% of the nation's population.

Your point is well taken. However, "the right subjects" are usually determined by their benefit to White society. If somebody learns chemical engineering, which is good for industrial factories and really not applicable to Black communities, that is one of the top 10 highest paying degrees. What you're talking about is networking and since White communities hold the wealth, this means it's less about learning the "right subjects" for each community's unique problems and more about appealing to whichever community has the most money.

Now you're just making yourself sound stupid.

A thief robbed somebody you've never met. Somebody you would only know about if you do research. Without a book to tell you, you wouldn't even know it had happened. For all you know without a book, you might be like president Obama, the son of a first generation immigrant from Kenya.

Inheritance you are supposed to have??!?!? I gotta call BS on that. A high "average" inheritance among white people doesn't mean the majority of them are getting any inheritance at all. It just means the few who do are getting huge inheritances.

And you don't usually inherit until your parents die. I'm in my late 30's and my parents are both still alive.

You're introducing new data to my metaphor in order to make it about me personally. I didn't say whether I met the person in the story or not and in all actuality, my personal position outside of the story had no bearing on the story itself. The point I was making is that the thief symbolizes White American society at large.

But since you want to make it personal, I'll go there with you as well. For all I know, every Black person in this country could be the sons and daughters of Kenyan immigrants. Lol. But the reason we don't know is because this society has systematically destroyed our connection to the past, as if that wouldn't create animosity.

As far as the inheritance thing, you are once again making an assumption. You are assuming what the average inheritance of White people means. And in doing so, you are muddying the bigger point being made. Which is that there is an INSANE gap between Black and White familial wealth.

You're right.

Instead you'll build a failed legacy based on doing "anything but" what has been shown to work.

You're looking at a system that is flawed, but on the whole delivers a higher quality of life than the majority of systems out there.

You don't like one thing about it, and rejecting the whole thing over just that one thing. In fact, it is one thing that has CHANGED, and is no longer the way it was.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

But you don't have a better idea, do you?

You're right. America, and in general White nations, enjoy a higher quality of life than other "less developed" nations. But I realize why that is, whereas most White people take it for granted. The quality of life is so great in White nations because they are stealing the wealth out of non-White nations. They are "developing" these nations and putting them into massive debt which in turn, fuels the lifestyles of these wealthy nations. It's quite a clever system.

I don't like it at it's core so yes, I do think the whole thing should be thrown out. I think that some ideas are good but the CORE of it all is rotten. For example, I love the idea of democracy but only if the population is educated enough to pick proper representatives (or else you get what we have in America which is NOT a democracy).

The idea that I, and others who came before me, have wouldn't work well with the inherent violent and masochistic nature of White society. My idea doesn't base society around war and conquest, which seems to be the way that most White nations function.

originally posted by: prepared4truth

I don't know if you've heard of the School to Prison Pipeline but the fact that Black students are 4x as likely to be suspended as White students, or in other words be targeted by the school system, leads to a lot of kids that aren't in school - this contributes to a disproportionate Prison Population. Blacks are incarcerated at an average rate of 5x that of white americans, although the white population is 8x larger. This huge disparity is partially because of disproportionate Racial Profiling (stop-and-frisk). Nationwide, more than 50% of the people being stopped by police are Black while 89% of the people cops stop are innocent. But when some kind of arrest is made, regardless of whether the person is guilty or not (2/3 of the people exonerated from wrongful convictions in 2015 were Black), this leads to disproportionate Unemployment (felon work complications) via disproportionate Drug Sentencing (the War on Drugs). That means, drug crimes that are typical of Black communities get much longer sentencing than drug crimes that are typical of White neighborhoods.

The problem with these statistics is you are not putting them in the context of the actual relative crime rates. White people on average actually commit fewer crimes.

All the statistics above would tend to reflect that.

Even if you found two groups of white people, but one committed more crimes on average than the other, you would find more got stopped, more got arrested, and possibly also that more go on to be exonerated (because exonoration doesn't mean you are innocent. It just means there wasn't enough evidence, or a crucial bit of evidence was wrong.)

How much real effect does inheritance have? College? There are quite a lot of black scholarships. If I were black, I would have fewer college loans to pay now. The aid available is, in most cases, sufficient for a person to live on while attending a local state college. Which is good enough to get a good job.

If you study the right thing, you are pretty much guaranteed a good living in the USA. If you don't, then well.... that's your choice.

Inheritance makes a huge impact. The current President, Donald Trump, owes his fortune to his father as a matter of fact. Inherited money actually accounts for more of the country's wealth than the LIFETIME INCOME of over 50% of the nation's population.

Your point is well taken. However, "the right subjects" are usually determined by their benefit to White society. If somebody learns chemical engineering, which is good for industrial factories and really not applicable to Black communities, that is one of the top 10 highest paying degrees. What you're talking about is networking and since White communities hold the wealth, this means it's less about learning the "right subjects" for each community's unique problems and more about appealing to whichever community has the most money.

No. The "right subject is determined by the needs of industry.

All economic wealth comes from industry.

"Right subject" means subject that contributes to the pool of collective wealth. It is impossible to pay someone a high salary if there is no money to pay them with.

Chemical Engineering pays a lot because it is a difficult subject and not many people are willing to study it. Chemistry is the core of almost all modern technology.

If black people were in charge of industry, it is absolutely impossible that they would not arrive at exactly the same conclusion and make that the highest paid profession also.

Why? Because the conclusion is inescapable. No human being who was intelligent enough to understand the technologies they are working with would ever disagree or find chemical engineers not to be a highly valued contributor to their goals.

If you suggest that black people would disagree, you are actually suggesting that black people are stupid. There is no other thing you could mean by that. (And so I like to think they WOULD agree.)

Now you're just making yourself sound stupid.

A thief robbed somebody you've never met. Somebody you would only know about if you do research. Without a book to tell you, you wouldn't even know it had happened. For all you know without a book, you might be like president Obama, the son of a first generation immigrant from Kenya.

Inheritance you are supposed to have??!?!? I gotta call BS on that. A high "average" inheritance among white people doesn't mean the majority of them are getting any inheritance at all. It just means the few who do are getting huge inheritances.

And you don't usually inherit until your parents die. I'm in my late 30's and my parents are both still alive.

You're introducing new data to my metaphor in order to make it about me personally. I didn't say whether I met the person in the story or not and in all actuality, my personal position outside of the story had no bearing on the story itself. The point I was making is that the thief symbolizes White American society at large.

But since you want to make it personal, I'll go there with you as well. For all I know, every Black person in this country could be the sons and daughters of Kenyan immigrants. Lol. But the reason we don't know is because this society has systematically destroyed our connection to the past, as if that wouldn't create animosity.

Except that only a tiny percentage of white people know their ancestors that far back either....

As far as the inheritance thing, you are once again making an assumption. You are assuming what the average inheritance of White people means. And in doing so, you are muddying the bigger point being made. Which is that there is an INSANE gap between Black and White familial wealth.

If you want to look at it on a personal level, my own father grew up way below the poverty line on a subsistence farm. The youngest of 10 kids.

Because he was the youngest, the family was able to afford to help him get into college. He studied computer programming at a time when the industry was in its infancy.

He want on to make a six figure income for most of his career.

I might inherit something, but he most certainly didn't. At most, maybe he took over some of his parents debts to help them when they got older.

You're right.

Instead you'll build a failed legacy based on doing "anything but" what has been shown to work.

You're looking at a system that is flawed, but on the whole delivers a higher quality of life than the majority of systems out there.

You don't like one thing about it, and rejecting the whole thing over just that one thing. In fact, it is one thing that has CHANGED, and is no longer the way it was.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

But you don't have a better idea, do you?

You're right. America, and in general White nations, enjoy a higher quality of life than other "less developed" nations. But I realize why that is, whereas most White people take it for granted. The quality of life is so great in White nations because they are stealing the wealth out of non-White nations. They are "developing" these nations and putting them into massive debt which in turn, fuels the lifestyles of these wealthy nations. It's quite a clever system.

Yeah....except we had it long before we started doing that.

And actually, since we started "globalization" and exporting manufacturing jobs, our quality of life has only gotten worse.

We'd actually be better off if we stopped.

I don't like it at it's core so yes, I do think the whole thing should be thrown out. I think that some ideas are good but the CORE of it all is rotten. For example, I love the idea of democracy but only if the population is educated enough to pick proper representatives (or else you get what we have in America which is NOT a democracy).

The idea that I, and others who came before me, have wouldn't work well with the inherent violent and masochistic nature of White society. My idea doesn't base society around war and conquest, which seems to be the way that most White nations function.

You're right that it should not be about war and conquest. It should be about building and making things. Productivity.

America got great during its productive phase when it was mostly isolationist. The wars have mostly just hurt it.

Russia is just as warlike, and they don't have a good economy.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The problem with these statistics is you are not putting them in the context of the actual relative crime rates. White people on average actually commit fewer crimes.

All the statistics above would tend to reflect that.

Even if you found two groups of white people, but one committed more crimes on average than the other, you would find more got stopped, more got arrested, and possibly also that more go on to be exonerated (because exonoration doesn't mean you are innocent. It just means there wasn't enough evidence, or a crucial bit of evidence was wrong.)

The missing context of the statement "White people on average actually commit fewer crimes" is that the system is not targeting White people the same way it targets Black people, such as with stop-and-frisk. In majority White cities, Black people are getting stopped more. Explain that.

I know that most people in America, White or otherwise, have been brainwashed to believe that Blacks are just inherently criminal, so there's probably no hope of me getting you to open your eyes on these types of injustices. I will however ask whether you think it's a coincidence that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery except in the case of criminals and ever since slavery ended, Blacks have been disproportionately targeted by law enforcement, disproportionately propagandized as criminals by the media, and disproportionately sentenced in the criminal justice system.

No. The "right subject is determined by the needs of industry.

All economic wealth comes from industry.

"Right subject" means subject that contributes to the pool of collective wealth. It is impossible to pay someone a high salary if there is no money to pay them with.

Chemical Engineering pays a lot because it is a difficult subject and not many people are willing to study it. Chemistry is the core of almost all modern technology.

If black people were in charge of industry, it is absolutely impossible that they would not arrive at exactly the same conclusion and make that the highest paid profession also.

Why? Because the conclusion is inescapable. No human being who was intelligent enough to understand the technologies they are working with would ever disagree or find chemical engineers not to be a highly valued contributor to their goals.

If you suggest that black people would disagree, you are actually suggesting that black people are stupid. There is no other thing you could mean by that. (And so I like to think they WOULD agree.)

Right. And who has held the reigns of industry in America? You said it yourself. Who has systematically blocked Blacks from industry, in America?

The collective wealth you are talking about has rarely ever "trickled down" to Black communities. If we're going to talk about collective wealth, we should also address the segregation of residential areas, church communities, public/private schools, and workplaces. What we're dealing with here is a system that was structured with a certain social hierarchy in mind and the people at the top are not giving their power up. The whole "equality for everyone" schtick was nothing more than a marketing scheme to help set a foundation for the disparities we see today.

On a surface level I can agree that chemical engineers get paid for the difficulty of their work. However, viewing American society as a whole I've got to disagree. Do celebrities get paid more than most for the difficulty of their work? Do garbage men get paid as much as chemical engineers because not many people are willing to do it? These jobs are paid highly, not because of some ideal about hard work, but because they represent the interests of the wealthy White men who run this country. Any other conclusion, I think, is naive.

And as far as the value or contribution of chemical engineers to society, I think that some very smart people would disagree. Their angle would not be about using technology to push profit, or global competition. I'd imagine their agenda would include retaining a balance between humanity's progress and the planet's well-being. The reason that our world faces such dangers as it does today (global warming, massive famines, world wars) is because the people who horde the world's resources hold these kind of values and interests as high priority.

originally posted by: prepared4truth
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The problem with these statistics is you are not putting them in the context of the actual relative crime rates. White people on average actually commit fewer crimes.

All the statistics above would tend to reflect that.

Even if you found two groups of white people, but one committed more crimes on average than the other, you would find more got stopped, more got arrested, and possibly also that more go on to be exonerated (because exonoration doesn't mean you are innocent. It just means there wasn't enough evidence, or a crucial bit of evidence was wrong.)

The missing context of the statement "White people on average actually commit fewer crimes" is that the system is not targeting White people the same way it targets Black people, such as with stop-and-frisk. In majority White cities, Black people are getting stopped more. Explain that.

It's because profiling gets more arrests. It's an overwhelming statistical fact that black people on average commit far, far, far more crimes than white people.

When officers target black people disproportionately, they get more arrests because there is more criminal activity to find.

However.... this is clearly unfair to the black people who don't commit crimes. That is why it is discouraged. Not because it is ineffective. It is HIGHLY effective.

I know that most people in America, White or otherwise, have been brainwashed to believe that Blacks are just inherently criminal, so there's probably no hope of me getting you to open your eyes on these types of injustices. I will however ask whether you think it's a coincidence that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery except in the case of criminals and ever since slavery ended, Blacks have been disproportionately targeted by law enforcement, disproportionately propagandized as criminals by the media, and disproportionately sentenced in the criminal justice system.

The fact black people commit more crime on average does not imply they are inherently criminal.

It implies they are being taught different ideals in their communities.

It's one reason ebonics needs to be abolished. It's one more barrier to the free exchange of ideas between cultural groups that have previously been isolated from each other.

Without that barrier, more black people would have white friends. White friends who could help them get jobs in higher paid professions.

Then, after a while, once black people are statistically more well represented in those high paid jobs, they can help other black people get those same jobs.

Networking has to start somewhere.

No. The "right subject is determined by the needs of industry.

All economic wealth comes from industry.

"Right subject" means subject that contributes to the pool of collective wealth. It is impossible to pay someone a high salary if there is no money to pay them with.

Chemical Engineering pays a lot because it is a difficult subject and not many people are willing to study it. Chemistry is the core of almost all modern technology.

If black people were in charge of industry, it is absolutely impossible that they would not arrive at exactly the same conclusion and make that the highest paid profession also.

Why? Because the conclusion is inescapable. No human being who was intelligent enough to understand the technologies they are working with would ever disagree or find chemical engineers not to be a highly valued contributor to their goals.

If you suggest that black people would disagree, you are actually suggesting that black people are stupid. There is no other thing you could mean by that. (And so I like to think they WOULD agree.)

Right. And who has held the reigns of industry in America? You said it yourself. Who has systematically blocked Blacks from industry, in America?

No matter who is in charge, chemical engineers will always be highly paid. You're chasing a red herring.

The collective wealth you are talking about has rarely ever "trickled down" to Black communities. If we're going to talk about collective wealth, we should also address the segregation of residential areas, church communities, public/private schools, and workplaces. What we're dealing with here is a system that was structured with a certain social hierarchy in mind and the people at the top are not giving their power up. The whole "equality for everyone" schtick was nothing more than a marketing scheme to help set a foundation for the disparities we see today.

On a surface level I can agree that chemical engineers get paid for the difficulty of their work. However, viewing American society as a whole I've got to disagree. Do celebrities get paid more than most for the difficulty of their work? Do garbage men get paid as much as chemical engineers because not many people are willing to do it? These jobs are paid highly, not because of some ideal about hard work, but because they represent the interests of the wealthy White men who run this country. Any other conclusion, I think, is naive.

They get paid because of the value of their work. Even athletes get paid because people appreciate the entertainment they provide.

But in the case of chemical engineers, please try to understand what they do is not just fluff. It's not just creating a nicer smelling champoo.

Think about food production world wide. 2 major technologies have enabled world wide farming to keep up with the now 7 billion mouths that must be fed world wide every day.

1 - The "Haber Process", which is a chemical process that synthesizes fertilizer using Nitrogen from the air, and Hydrogen from water. Applies electricity to create those little yellow pellets you may see getting sprinkled on lawns.

Because there is a virtually unlimited supply of air and water to get those chemicals from, there is basically no limit on how much synthetic fertilizer can be manufactured this way. Unlike cow manure, which has limits.

2 - Genetic engineering of plants. Makes them grow bigger, and more pest resistant.

Ok..... both of those require chemical engineers.

Billions would starve, if not for the efforts of those chemical engineers.


Another use for them that comes to mind is Fracking, which enable the USA to harvest more natural gas. We need the electricity to produce synthetic fertilizer.

Ukraine's whole housing infrastructure is based on natural gas. If they don't get enough of it every year they'll die of the cold in their homes.

But maybe you don't care about that...

[

And as far as the value or contribution of chemical engineers to society, I think that some very smart people would disagree. Their angle would not be about using technology to push profit, or global competition. I'd imagine their agenda would include retaining a balance between humanity's progress and the planet's well-being. The reason that our world faces such dangers as it does today (global warming, massive famines, world wars) is because the people who horde the world's resources hold these kind of values and interests as high priority.

No. I'm pretty sure there is not one smart person on the list who would disagree.

There's not a whole lot of hoarding going on. That's just a myth.

In a world with 7 billion people in it, you will inevitably end up with a genuine resource shortage. There is not a huge percentage of farm land being kept off the market. Some is, sure. But not enough to make the global food supply change dramatically. It's not profitable to keep it off the market anyway. So even an infinity greedy person, would still not hoard it.

In war torn areas a lot of it is wasted, but that's not hoarding. That's just chaos.

We face stuff like global warming because people simply will not accept the finite nature of our world. They keep trying to cram a (borderline) infinite amount of people into it.

Human vanity is the problem.



Anyway.......... chemical engineers are the ones working to extend those resources. That's their biggest job.

NOBODY IN ANY FIELD does more than they do to extend resources.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It's because profiling gets more arrests. It's an overwhelming statistical fact that black people on average commit far, far, far more crimes than white people.

When officers target black people disproportionately, they get more arrests because there is more criminal activity to find.

However.... this is clearly unfair to the black people who don't commit crimes. That is why it is discouraged. Not because it is ineffective. It is HIGHLY effective.

How did I know you'd say that? Many people defend this unjust system with blanket statistics without factoring in other evidence obtained by controlled experimentation on multiple communities (e.g. the effect of poverty on motive). I argue that Black people have always been targeted, not just by law enforcement but by the law itself, resulting in high criminal numbers among the Black population.

The fact black people commit more crime on average does not imply they are inherently criminal.

It implies they are being taught different ideals in their communities.

It's one reason ebonics needs to be abolished. It's one more barrier to the free exchange of ideas between cultural groups that have previously been isolated from each other.

Without that barrier, more black people would have white friends. White friends who could help them get jobs in higher paid professions.

Then, after a while, once black people are statistically more well represented in those high paid jobs, they can help other black people get those same jobs.

Networking has to start somewhere.

The belief that Blacks are inherently criminal is not a result of crime statistics. That belief has been held since before Blacks were even considered human. The communities that hold this belief are teaching ideals that lead to ignorant statements like the one you've made. Ebonics cannot and will not be abolished. It is a Black stain on a White language, it is the blood of Black ancestors and it shows the past transgressions of White pioneers. Ebonics as a dialect exposes a system that was built on the backs of taking a people's language from them, preventing them from learning, controlling their breeding FOR GENERATIONS (not just one at a time) and ultimately benefitting from those practices.

These elements of Black culture that you and others consider barriers are made from some self-fashioned pedestal you stand on, in the middle of a still segregated country. A pedestal that represents how you and your peers are more educated than these inferior, ebonics speaking, criminally cultured people... yet ignores that your perceived superiority comes from suppressing those people. As White society advances, every other society it comes into contact with crumbles and I believe that eventually White society will have no more backs to stand on.

Your position about networking with White people as the SALVATION of Black people is a very arrogant one at its core. The people you are referring to really want to manipulate Black society in their own image - people such as yourself who may mean well, but won't allow Blacks to have their own culture or system. They must be led and watched over by the White "friends" that those "cultured" Blacks have.

No matter who is in charge, chemical engineers will always be highly paid. You're chasing a red herring.

And you're making a lot of assumptions. Depending on who's in charge, NOBODY could get "paid". Depending on who's in charge, an industry which greedily creates lavish lifestyles for the rich and famous at the expense of the all other people, would never be given credence.

They get paid because of the value of their work. Even athletes get paid because people appreciate the entertainment they provide.

But in the case of chemical engineers, please try to understand what they do is not just fluff. It's not just creating a nicer smelling champoo.

Think about food production world wide. 2 major technologies have enabled world wide farming to keep up with the now 7 billion mouths that must be fed world wide every day.

1 - The "Haber Process", which is a chemical process that synthesizes fertilizer using Nitrogen from the air, and Hydrogen from water. Applies electricity to create those little yellow pellets you may see getting sprinkled on lawns.

Because there is a virtually unlimited supply of air and water to get those chemicals from, there is basically no limit on how much synthetic fertilizer can be manufactured this way. Unlike cow manure, which has limits.

2 - Genetic engineering of plants. Makes them grow bigger, and more pest resistant.

Ok..... both of those require chemical engineers.

Billions would starve, if not for the efforts of those chemical engineers.

As I stated earlier, if your whole "people get paid simply because of hard work" theory was correct we wouldn't have all these systemic problems like corrupt politicians and college athletes that DON'T GET PAID (even though they are appreciated as much as any other athlete, look at college campuses' coffers for proof).

The technologies that you speak of have also risen amidst record numbers of famine and starvation, so maybe there are other factors about these processes that cause unforeseen problems. You can point toward the benefits of genetic engineering and chemical engineering because those benefits are used to justify the industries that use this technology. But on the other end of it, there are studies showing that synthetic fertilizers actually damage the soil in the long run. Huge amounts of money are thrown toward studies that show the benefits of genetically engineering plants (studies done by organizations that are industry-linked, go figure) while lesser known, lesser funded entities show harmful results and warn of stricter regulation but are labeled "anti-GMO"

Another use for them that comes to mind is Fracking, which enable the USA to harvest more natural gas. We need the electricity to produce synthetic fertilizer.

Ukraine's whole housing infrastructure is based on natural gas. If they don't get enough of it every year they'll die of the cold in their homes.

But maybe you don't care about that...

Are you actually citing FRACKING as a good development that comes from chemical engineering? Seriously? There's so much corruption involved with that practice that I really should make a new thread about it.

I don't want people in the Ukraine to die and that's a various ingenuous attempt at demonizing me.

Regardless, natural gas is an antiquated fuel source so why do we still rely on it? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with hard work, humanitarianism, and other feel good ideals about humanity.