America is OBSESSED with race! Why?

a reply to: OptimusCrime

'm beginning to think you just hate America and Americans with the way you word some of your responses.

That's odd, because I don't hate Americans and am quite supportive of the political idea of America, if somewhat revolted — as I suspect you are, too — by the present reality.

But if that is your perception, would you be kind enough to answer a question? Are you beginning to think I hate all Americans, or just Americans of a particular ethnic group?

What are you really here to talk about?

America's obsession with race, just as it says in the OP.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

You shouldn't stereotype everybody, even if they disagree with you.

I'm not stereotyping anybody. I didn't say all Americans, or all white Americans, are racists. I don't think America is a 'racist country'; it isn't like the Maldives or Malaysia, where racism is built into the national constitution. I am simply agreeing with the OP that America is obsessed with race. And — although you may have missed it in all the excitement — I think it right and proper that America and Americans should be obsessed, or rather deeply concerned, with race. Ignoring or trivializing a problem is not the way to go about solving it.

I have no idea who you are, where you're from or what color you are.. But that doesn't change my opinion about you. I just view you as a fellow human being and we disagree on this issue.

I am from South Asia, and of mixed (very mixed) race. As you suggest, it has no bearing on the discussion.

I'm not so sure we disagree with each other. Examine your own opinions more closely and compare them with the ones I have expressed on this thread. You will find we are not so far apart as you think.

I'm not the one exhibiting racial sensitivities here, though.

a reply to: ParanoidAmerican

Ah yes, but in South Africa the war is over. In America it continues.

Here is the difference: blacks in South Africa were an oppressed majority, not a minority. So when the fur at last ceased to fly, simple democracy ensured that they got their hands on the levers of power, etc. Yes, there's a very rich white minority in South Africa, whose members like to believe that their economic contribution is essential to the future of the country and that they are therefore indispensable. I have white South African friends who think like that, and for all I know they may be right. But the disparities in numbers and economic attainment between whites and blacks in South Africa tend to cancel one another out, with the result that the country is putting its racist past behind it and moving ahead.

originally posted by: finitedualities
Why do people claim the Civil War was fought over slavery? So funny how deep the propaganda and re-writing of history goes...

Yeah technically it was fought over states right..including the right of states to own slaves,the incident at Harper's Ferry and the John Brown's trial was a key factor one cannot separate one from the other.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: James1982

And I guess modern day people who are upset with an overreaching federal government are all just racist wannabe-slave owners too.

There is no need to take what I say personally, though if the cap fits, by all means put it on.

If it was about slavery why didn't slavery get abolished in the North until after the fact?

Hang on a tick. Can I answer that along with this?

Yeahkeepwatchingme: America's first slave owner was a black man if I'm not mistaken. So why aren't most black people upset about that?

Do you both realize that, simply by knowing and stating these obscure and actually quite irrelevant facts, you are simply providing more evidence that the OP's contention is correct?

This is the tactic that I cannot respect.

You make a statement, that the civil war was about ending slavery, with the north wanting to abolish it and the south wanting to retain it.

I challenge that claim, by asking why the north (if they truly wanted to abolish slavery) wouldn't actually abolish slavery until after the fact.

Then you simply deflect the question by implying I'm a racist in several clever ways.

How is it irrelevant, that a group of people supposedly against slavery, wouldn't immediately abolish it?

If I claim to be fighting for animal rights, yet I have kill-shelters and run abusive dairy farms, that would absolutely be relevant and it shows that I am not what I claim to be.

The fact is also obscure, why do you think that is? Since when is a fact's value determined by how commonly known it is?

You have refused time and time again to actually discuss anything. You just make statements, and then disparage anyone that disagrees with you.

Can I ask you a few straight questions? Actually, I'm really wondering, will you give me a straight answer if I do?

Do you think white people are more racist than other races?

Do you think black people have no control whatsoever over their situation in this country?

I will gladly answer anything you ask me, in the spirit of discussion I'd kindly ask you to at least answer a few of mine.

a reply to: ParanoidAmerican

OP I would say it is because TPTB and MSM feed the racial divide, most Americans could care less what color you are. But you wouldn't know that with the way MSM paints the scene.

Including FOX, come now the media is partially to blame but even before then we had massive problems,and I do not want to live in a" color blind society",I want us to celebrate who we are equally and with out guilt or angst, I should be able to feel quite comfortable walking into a dive bar off-the beaten path anywhere south of the Mason Dixon line without feeling I am in the wrong place enjoy a conversation and a few beers wih the natives,just like I would like to believe some one from down south wearing his native gear would not get a steer down in a bar in certain parts of Brooklyn.

a reply to: James1982

And finally, this:

America is not unique in it's class/race issues.

Every nation has such issues. I have already cited numerous examples. However, in few countries is there as pervasive a consciousness of racial issues, or so much violence and tension generated from them, as there is in America.

The evidence is everywhere, from prison population statistics to song lyrics. In what other country could somebody have written — could somebody have needed to write — 'Strange Fruit'?

You keep trying to make it an issue of "whites have a problem and they need to stop being racist"

Not at all. You are reading my posts through the filter of your own prejudices. My view on this is not one you will hear often in the media, on the internet or even in casual conversation. I believe people — whites and blacks alike — are victims of history and biology, and that there is only a limited amount we can do to help ourselves. I do not judge the living for the crimes of the dead. I do, however, believe that we should do whatever little we can to make the world a little place, no matter how small a change we can make — or even if we cannot make a change at all.

When it's really an issue of "Humans are xenophobic and irrational with a tribal mentality" and whites are no different than other races in that regard.

Sure, although that doesn't have to be the case always and for everybody. Why do you feel I'm beating on whites? I'm not; but because of your (American) obsession with race, my frank exploration of an incendiary subject makes you uncomfortable, even though I have been entirely neutral and non-judgemental about the whole business.

ALL humans have a race problem. Until you are honest and admit that, how do you expect any progress?

I agree one hundred percent, although I probably have a good deal less faith in 'progress' than you do.

a reply to: James1982

Then you simply deflect the question by implying I'm a racist in several clever ways.

Oh, for god's sake. 'Implying' you're racist? If I thought you were racist I'd say so. If you disbelieve me, check out my posting record on ATS; I'm a boy who calls a spade a spade. Instead of trying to read insinuations against yourself in my posts, just read for the facts, can't you?

Right. Now:

How is it irrelevant, that a group of people supposedly against slavery, wouldn't immediately abolish it?

Slavery was abolished in all the northern states of the USA by 1800. The Civil War began in 1861.

Since when is a fact's value determined by how commonly known it is?

Since it isn't a fact, the point is irrelevant, but if it had been a fact, your knowledge of it suggests a particular sensitivity to a related issue. Since it isn't a fact but a falsehood, your bringing it up suggests something rather different, doesn't it?

You have refused time and time again to actually discuss anything. You just make statements, and then disparage anyone that disagrees with you.

You want to bog the conversation down in irrelevant details familiar to you from debates about race on the internet, etc. I shan't be falling for that tactic any time soon.

Can I ask you a few straight questions? Actually, I'm really wondering, will you give me a straight answer if I do?

Ask away, and we shall see.

Do you think white people are more racist than other races?

No, I think, as you do, that everyone is a 'racist' by nature and that whites are no different from others in this. However, it is a fact that white people have oppressed, expropriated and slaughtered people of other ethnicities in such numbers and in so many different atrocious ways over the last 500 years or so that they constitute something of a special case.

If it wasn't whites, it would probably have been somebody else; but it was whites, wasn't it?

Do you think black people have no control whatsoever over their situation in this country?

That is not a very specific question. Let me answer it like this: I believe black people in America have far less power to bring about positive outcomes for themselves as individuals and as a community than they should have, for reasons largely outside their control.

I will gladly answer anything you ask me, in the spirit of discussion I'd kindly ask you to at least answer a few of mine.

I really don't have anything to ask you, but if I think of something, I will.

a reply to: Astyanax

The apartheid government ended in 1994 and land 'redistribution' has been occurring ever since....genocide watch even calls it a White Genocide

I apologize, Astyanax, It seems I was wildly misinterpreting your posts, thanks for being patient with me.

I was attributing things to you that you never said and that wasn't right.

"Why do you feel I'm beating on whites? I'm not; but because of your (American) obsession with race, my frank exploration of an incendiary subject makes you uncomfortable, even though I have been entirely neutral and non-judgemental about the whole business. "

Honestly? Because almost every single time race is brought up, here in America, it's a bash-whitey fest. It's just people rattling on negative stereotype after negative stereotype about whites and making them out to be some scourge of the planet. I'm just automatically defensive whenever race is brought up precisely because it's such a common theme. You didn't do any of that, but because I misinterpreted your posts I mentally grouped you in with them and responded accordingly. Rest assured I'm embarrassed for doing so.

That's the best answer I can give you, introspection only goes so far.

a reply to: ParanoidAmerican

Are you a white South African? If so, collect a bonus from the bank on your next trip round the board. If you really are American, however, then you are, like James1982 and a few others, helping prove the OP's point.

a reply to: ParanoidAmerican

Ferchrisksakes there is no white genocide pls language should used with care,no not saying that people in South Africa don't get killed including white people but "GENOCIDE" is a specific term that have specific meaning and consequences,the attempt by the Nazi's against other minorities was genocide,Hutu vs Tutsi was an attempt and the German attempt at wiping the Herero is genocidal..so pls.. CUT IT OUT!

a reply to: Spider879

Yes including FOX.....? I wouldn't go as far as 'color blind' but the average American could care less about your color. Now that is not to say certain people are not out of place when visiting certain areas of the country. I have been in fights for being in the wrong area by different races (Blacks, Whites, Natives, and Latinos) and types (cowboys and wannabe thugs), I am sure some were racially motivated others were related to where we lived in comparison to the others.....People pick on and single out the different.

It keeps us fragmented, along with other faux divisions. At least that could be a reason.

a reply to: Astyanax

Right....

a reply to: James1982

Not to worry. I reckon we both gained something out of the exchange.

a reply to: Spider879

I didn't call it that....if you read the post. Great video btw....

originally posted by: Astyanax

How is it irrelevant, that a group of people supposedly against slavery, wouldn't immediately abolish it?

Slavery was abolished in all the northern states of the USA by 1800. The Civil War began in 1861.

Since when is a fact's value determined by how commonly known it is?

Since it isn't a fact, the point is irrelevant, but if it had been a fact, your knowledge of it suggests a particular sensitivity to a related issue. Since it isn't a fact but a falsehood, your bringing it up suggests something rather different, doesn't it?

I was curious if this would get challenged, I guess it comes down to semantics.

The northern states abolished slavery themselves, as a state's internal decision. You seem well informed so I'm sure you're aware of the difference in a state passing an internal law vs federal decrees and what that difference means.

No, there wasn't a need to "free northern slaves" as it was abolished on a state level. The point being made is that whether or not southern slaves were freed didn't matter to the north, it was a simple economic action. The southern states would have been allowed to keep slaves if they stopped their rebellion, so it's clear the motive was to maintain federal authority and the union, and slavery was a tool to hurt the south, not a cause to help the slaves.

I'm not trying to start a new argument or anything, just trying to clarify my previous point.

a reply to: James1982

You also need to consider the constitutionality of any Federal law passed while the Southern states were in secession. It was not possible legally to amend the Constitution without a confirming vote by the states that had seceded (and therefore weren't voting). No constitutional amendments were made during the Civil War.

A federal law abolishing slavery could have come under constitutional challenge. That is why a constitutional amemndment had to be made; I believe this was the reasoning behind the Thirteenth Amendment. That could not have happened while the war was still in progress.

I shan't argue this point any more, though; it's off topic.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

I can imagine that Africa and other parts of the world had white v black issues for longer periods of time.

I can imagine it, too, but it was never the case. Before 1857, when David Livingstone published the book that started what has been called 'the scramble for Africa', only a few people on the west coast of the continent had ever seen a white man, saving a few Mungo Park types and Catholic missionaries.

Those few were slave-dealers; the human wolves who went out to hunt and capture their fellow Africans for the white slavers.

All of this was confined to a small portion of West Africa, by the way: basically, the littoral region adjacent to the Bight of Benin, in the 'crook' of the continent. There was another, much older slave trade still flourishing on the east coast of Africa, but that was run by Arabs, not whites.

Africa did not have 'white v black issues' until the late nineteenth century. No, the USA is a very special case in that sense.

Something you said earlier:

If I was a racist, I personally would not share my bed with a half Pakistani woman which is what I'm currently doing.

I certainly don't think you're a racist. Your posts in this thread suggest, if anything, a person unusually relaxed about racial issues and attitudes. But I have to disagree with you on this, because the world is full of people — I am one — who owe their existence to ancestors who despised one another's races, but loved each other — or at least slept with each other — in spite of that. Native mistress, country wife, sleeping dictionary...