Race Relations..

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I was cognizant in the 50's in Newark, NJ and while communities were at least partially segregated, we all interacted really well and without the racial problems that exist today. It was not until the late 60's in places like Plainfield, NJ (the next town over to where we moved0, that scumbags like Al Sharpton realized that they could cash in of stirring hatred between the races. Like Mohammed Ali said, there is no reason that we all have o intermarry or live integrated communities, because we can all live together in peace if that is what we strive to do:

www.youtube.com...

Well most of my family tree was alive in Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi in the 50s & 60s, and their accounts are much different from yours.

And saying that it was "scumbags like Al Sharpton" who "stirred hatred between the races" is a flat out lie. Perhaps you should look into the Jim Crow Laws/Segrgation laws, then tell me what people like Al Sharpton had to do with that. And look into "lynching postcards" and tell me how there weren't racial problems. Here's a google image search to get you started.

My own grandfather fought in WWII in a segregated unit under Patton, was a fairly high ranked Freemason locally, and still was treated as just another "n-word" when he got back in America. It was almost 20 years after he came back from overseas before he was even allowed to vote here. And 2 of my great uncles were murdered by Klansmen in Alabama because they were sharecroppers with desirable plots of land. Both were chopped up in their ditch & there were no charges pressed against anyone. What did Civil rights leaders have to do with that?

I'll leave it at that, because I get pretty angry when people try to rewrite history & say crap like that.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

But you were in the South while I grew up in the North and if you are saying that these were very, very different places and circumstances, well who am I to argue? You will get no beef from me, I never was in the South until the '80's, (much too hot for my northern European DNA), and I am by no means suggesting that you are not correct in what you say. All I am saying is that it was much different in Newark, NJ.

I am sorry, I read your reply quickly and after reading it again, I must add that of course the blacks in the South suffered these inequities, and in fact, I would not be surprised if a lot of issues still exist like this today. My ancestors came to America in the 1890's and suffered slavery as well at the hands of the Romans when they chained us in the galleys on the Triremes and the only escape was death from drowning. Yes, WE understand and that is why up here at least we have always been against such bully tactics whenever and wherever they appear.

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
a reply to: enlightenedservant

But you were in the South while I grew up in the North and if you are saying that these were very, very different places and circumstances, well who am I to argue? You will get no beef from me, I never was in the South until the '80's, (much too hot for my northern European DNA), and I am by no means suggesting that you are not correct in what you say. All I am saying is that it was much different in Newark, NJ.

I am sorry, I read your reply quickly and after reading it again, I must add that of course the blacks in the South suffered these inequities, and in fact, I would not be surprised if a lot of issues still exist like this today. My ancestors came to America in the 1890's and suffered slavery as well at the hands of the Romans when they chained us in the galleys on the Triremes and the only escape was death from drowning. Yes, WE understand and that is why up here at least we have always been against such bully tactics whenever and wherever they appear.

Fair enough. Though you do realize America's racial issues weren't just in the South, right? The KKK & other white supremacist groups were operating nationwide up to the 1920s, and that's decades before the Civil Rights Movement (and that doesn't include the KKK's revival in the 1950s). And Malcolm X & the Nation of Islam held the majority of their protests & operations in the Northeast, especially New York City & Chicago. They fought against the racial oppression they were facing in the Northeast, not the South. And the Black Panther Party was fighting for the education and protection of African American communities in California, and eventually spread nationwide.

In fact, the original Black Panthers were so "successful" with their push for equal 2nd Amendment gun rights for African Americans, that California's Governor Ronald Reagan & the NRA pushed gun restriction laws to stop their armed protests! [note: I say "successful" w/sarcasm to note how massive the racial issue was. Reagan would later become a conservative Republican hero and the NRA even pushes for guns in parks & on college campuses. But they panicked & reversed course when black people in California armed themselves legally & protested for our right to bare arms too.]

So I'm not discounting your personal story. But I also don't want you to think the Civil Rights leaders were the ones causing the racism or that your experience was the norm. The racism existed in the entire country & took almost 100 years after the Civil War ended just to allow us the simple rights to vote, run for office, marry someone of a different race, testify in court against a white person, sit on a jury with white people, eat & work with white people, etc. You can't blame that on the Americans who wanted to be treated like Americans. There were even race riots throughout the North & Midwest (and even in California!).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is, of course, assuming that they care all that much.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

We're talking now! No, I have known plenty of white guys that hate blacks, period, as well as blacks that feel the same way. Most that I have known care little of race here in NJ. I have spent 43 years working in places like Carlstadt, Hackensack, Edison, Hoboken and New Brunswick and in the warehouses that I was working in, a large number of the workers were black. They all worked for a living and raised their kids and did all the things that we white folk did, and I must admit that when it came time to hang out after work, I usually gravitated to my black friends because, to be honest, they were a lot more fun and a lot less neurotic than my white coworkers. The point is that we all got along famously, black and white. I know that there is a town north of where I live by about 8 miles where they used to still have KKK parades until they pretty much got run out of town. Any hate group or "superiority" group should be rounded up and put into the FEMA Camps if you ask me. I have always hated bullies and have had some fun in my day making their pathetic lives a little more pathetic.

I will always stand by my dislike of Al Sharpton, as I see him as a shill who manipulates his own for his own profit and little or no value to those he uses. I was born in '54 so I actually was able to hear MLK speak, (on a B/W TV). It was the first we heard of the way it was down South and I must say, that hearing it as it happened gave you a real sense of the goodness in his work and all of the people that I associated with were very sad to see what TPTB pulled off in that era by murdering both him, JFK and RFK.

However, what is most important for all of us to remember is that, just as we are doing here, right now, we Americans need to not listen to the voices of those who would prosper from our NOT getting along, and concentrate on GETTING along.

Peace.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

after the civil war, most southerners started farming the land with the emancipated slaves that stayed and prejudices started melting away. the northern elite, we'll call them racists (because they actually believed the propaganda), came down south and saw this and saw that black people where going republican and proceeded to create and widen the racial divide.

Quite a success considering america's actions since reconstruction.

originally posted by: Night Star
a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Embedded for you.

This is a truly inspiring movie scene one rarely sees in American movies.

A great TV movie Gettysburg

Shows the great sacrifice of the men and woman who fought and died in the civil war to free black people

May they all enter heaven in peace


Thy were great Americans….the greatest

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey
To expect the Native population to come back to their former glory after what we did to them is naive.

Who ever said anything about them coming back to their former glory? All I said is that they've had plenty of time to better themselves from what happened to them by our government in the many years past--I was implying that any issues within their own tribes at this point in time are of their own doing, not the federal government or evil "Whitey."

And you're right, you're probably enlightening some people with your links, but as for me, I know what happened--every time Columbus Day comes around my family gets yet another earful about how he shouldn't be celebrated, especially based on the claim that he discovered something unkown or never found by any Europeans. So, I'm with you on that.

But, please, take your Redskins babble to a different thread--there is nothing "racist" about that name, and, in fact, there are many N.A. peoples who take it as a compliment that a team would be named after them. Whining about Dan Snyder is adhering to political correctness, and political correctness is what's causing our history books to gloss over the truths about our histories.

If we don't stop kowtowing to every peoples' hurt feelings, we're going to destroy ourself as a nation, as well as on the individual level, because what we're breeding is intolerance of ourselves, not more tolerance overall.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No Eurocentricism and American Execeptionalism are causing us to gloss over things in our history books. Political correctness is providing new angles to explore history instead of just through the eyes of the white man.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

No Eurocentricism and American Execeptionalism are causing us to gloss over things in our history books. Political correctness is providing new angles to explore history instead of just through the eyes of the white man.

No, Political correctness is completely erasing history through the eyes of the "White man". Tell me, did you learn about the Ottoman Slave Trade in high school? Where Muslims went as far north as God damn IRELAND and took slaves and raided coastal villages? Where they enslaved over 1 and a quarter MILLION Europeans? I didn't. What about the fact that of the tens of millions of slaves that were traded in the Atlantic slave trade that over its THREE HUNDRED YEAR history that only around 300 thousand made it to the Colonies that became America? When I learned of the slave trade, it basically implied that all of them came to America. What about the fact that importing slaves was abolished less than 20 years after America became a nation? You'd think it was happening right up until the end of the Civil war which I might mention once again we fought and cost more American lives than every conflict we've had to date combined. This country tore itself apart to end slavery. I also didn't learn that the first slave owner in America was a black man who enslaved another black man. Who literally fought a court battle to make it happen and won. Is that glossing over history too? I'd call it learning the facts. I don't know the last time you opened a high school text book, but this # is contorted beyond recognition.

a reply to: chuck258

Actually of all the things that my history class was lacking those weren't it. I learned all of those things in high school. And I graduated high school in 2003.

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey
This country tore itself apart to end slavery.

Spot on and a star for you . Thanks for posting the true history .But the US did not tear itself apart due to slavery but due to the succession of the south from the union.The north at that time was almost pure industry . They needed the south's foodstuff and cotton . The south was going to succeed due to a heavy tariff placed on all goods shipped to the north . It didnt work that way in reverse. Thats why (at least in the beginning) the war was called the "War of Succession" and not the "Civil War"

edit on 18-5-2015 by Gothmog because: alter a bit

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SlapMonkey

No Eurocentricism and American Execeptionalism are causing us to gloss over things in our history books. Political correctness is providing new angles to explore history instead of just through the eyes of the white man.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Political Correctness is providing new angles, but in doing so, it often circumvents the meat of the issue. I'm not arguing that the white-man history is 100% correct at all, but I absolutely will argue against your claim that political correctness is aiding in getting the whole truth exposed in the world.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I never said the whole truth of history was being taught. I said new angles to view things were being taught. To be honest, I don't think there will ever be a time where history classes are 100% honest about history.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed...it's like 'they' say, history is generally written by the victor. We've been victors for a few centuries around here, so who can really know the best picture of history possible unless they pretend to be history scholars and do a bunch of research.

Speaking of, one of the biggest compliments I received in college was my history professor pulling me aside after class and trying very hard for me to switch my major to American History--it's because I never settled for accepting only what was in the books, and neither did he. He was one of a few good professors that I had in college, although I don't think he bathed often nor put down the bottle before class, either.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The study of history is just as complex and involved as any science. Actually maybe even more so since you are relying on witness testimony and have to gauge the legitimacy of various claims by reviewing different primary and secondary sources. What I like about the political correctness movement is that it has allowed us to review the history of the "losers" in conjunction with the "winners". White history is great and all (and I understand that there are many great accomplishments from that demographic), but to pretend like white people were the only people to drastically effect the world after the Roman Empire collapsed is short sighted and naive.

I was always mad at how World History classes are taught post-Roman Empire, it just becomes European History. Now it is true that European powers were the dominate powers during that length of time, but to neglect the many (bloody) wars in China or that the Muslim world continued to thrive when Europe fell into the Dark Ages is wrong. Why aren't the cultures of the Americas pre-Columbus more thoroughly explored? These are viewpoints that are neglected in history classes across the country, and there are more that I didn't mention.

Another viewpoint that STILL isn't talked about in history classes is the history of poor living. Sure, during notoriously bad times to be poor, it is discussed (like the early 1900's or feudal Europe), but other than that history never expands on the divide between the rich and the poor. History classes also tend to be a history of the upper classes and how they behaved. Class struggles didn't exist for just two periods in history though. They are an ongoing struggle that persist to this day. For instance, it is possibly mentioned in passing that not all white's in slave holding South owned slaved and that in fact many whites didn't own slaves, but this concept is never thoroughly explored so that the student really comes away with knowledge here.

I considered minoring in history while I was in college.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree that teaching history is incredibly complex. It's literally the story of everything that happened in the past. So it's subject to the knowledge of the presenter, their aim in telling that story, and numerous other factors (like personal biases, religious/ideological norms, who they cannot offend with their writings, etc). And it would be impossible to tell everything.

One example that always gets me angry is when people mention the first African slaves in America being in the early 1600s (some will say 1619 while others will say 1640-ish). But that's simply not true. Christopher Columbus brought African slaves with him to the Caribbean in the 1490s and set up African slave colonies throughout the Caribbean. The French had slaves in their Louisiana & Haiti territories, and the Spanish had African slaves in their North American territories. But "American" history only focuses on the British colonies at the time, hence the 1600s dates.

And my example still leaves out the Native American slaves & slaveholders, and the Irish slaves sent to Barbados by Cromwell.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yea, it's quite odd that history is taught like that. It's usually, "Ok Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492" (not really correct, more like found some land and enslaved the natives) then we skip to the Pilgrims. There may be a mention of Jamestown, but since that town disappeared, it just gets glossed over. But the history of the other European countries' exploits in the Americas is barely mentioned if that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yea, it's quite odd that history is taught like that. It's usually, "Ok Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492" (not really correct, more like found some land and enslaved the natives) then we skip to the Pilgrims. There may be a mention of Jamestown, but since that town disappeared, it just gets glossed over. But the history of the other European countries' exploits in the Americas is barely mentioned if that.

Very true. I think it's because there's just too much information to explain everything. So historians filter out everything that doesn't fit their specific narrative. I don't always have a problem with that because it reduces "information overload". But I think it creates a problem when people only hear one side of the story & believe it to be the only side of the story.

I think that's where this phrase comes from: "He who controls the present, controls the past. And he who controls the past, controls the future". I interpret it as saying whoever is in power determines what history is taught. And this doctored past determines how future generations behave & how future policies are crafted.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I see it as lying to the students. There is cutting information out and then there is painting a narrative that didn't happen. The latter is what high school history classes usually do. I never realized how bad it was until I took a college level history class and saw the STARK difference in the way things are taught. Sure the myth of American Exceptionalism still partly permeates college level history classes (at least the entry level ones), but the content is WAY more complete and not to mention TRUE.