Is reverse racism a problem?
Yes
69.2% (81)
69.2% (81)
No
21.4% (25)
21.4% (25)
Undecided
9.4% (11)
9.4% (11)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Does "reverse racism" bother you?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

AstroSmash:

Lil devils x:

No, I do not feel that is the same comparison at all. You see, no where did I state that " all whites are more entitled" I simply stated that "less whites are sleeping in dirt holes", so if you do not want others to view you as " more entitled" help them become "less of them sleeping in dirt holes" as well and you won't be more entitled than they are.

You extend a helping hand is all, because sometimes it is needed.

Now, you know as well as I do, I do not hold you responsible for their situation, I am just saying, as a matter of perspective, if you do not want to be viewed as " more entitled" help them be " more entitled too" and you won't be.

While I have lived in the states, up until '89 it was practically impossible for me to have any interaction with them. I'm white as a brand new pair of air force ones, so is my aunt, yet she has an university degree, is a principal of a school, but earns 500 euros/month (FYI, to have comparable living standards to western europe, she would need to earn 1500euros) and the state then takes half of that and gives her back horseshit for her money's worth, despite having 30 years experience etc. The rest who were not so lucky either have shitty factory jobs and live with no heating, or they live in garages, a minor step up from dirt holes.

Maybe someone should help these white people too? After all, it's just a matter of perspective.

If you were to meet me, I would be completely 100% unrecognizable from any other white US citizen. I was practically born in the US and didn't move back till I was around 12, so even my accent would be that of an average American.

My point being: 'White' is too much of a blanket generalization based purely on color, while there are just as many different 'white' people, as there are 'black' and 'asian', yet people just assume every white person has it better off, because they're selectively choosing a very small percentage of actual white people.

Look at a globe...from Russia to the eastern borders of Germany/Austria. It's practically all 'white', but not exactly future Warren Buffets, eh?

Yes, as I stated earlier in this thread that assistance should be based on "need", rather than on race, because ultimately the goal should be to have NO people sleeping in dirt holes, there just happens to be more of other races than there are of the white race that are currently being forced to. Yes, the existing wealth distribution of the world is responsible for this, as more money is funneled into less hands more frequently than ever due to the systems that are already in place, making it extremely difficult for everyone else. Unless these issues are addressed and changed, the number of people who have less will increase in numbers making this issue and the problems that come with it, worse, not better.

AstroSmash:

Look at a globe...from Russia to the eastern borders of Germany/Austria. It's practically all 'white', but not exactly future Warren Buffets, eh?

Surely you know there are uber-rich people in the eastern bloc, especially Russia. But yes, in general this region is less well-off than West of the former holy roman empire's eastern border. But do you think this has anything to do with race/racism? (Honest question, not rhetorical or presumptive)

I think one thing people forget to take into account is that life is just not fair. The universe is a random, cold, uncaring maelstrom of life and death. There are winners and losers. There are smart people and not-so-smart people. (not races, people) There will never, ever, ever be a completely 100% fair life, where every human being's outcome is identical to one another. Frankly, unless we learn how to harness quasi-unlimited resources and energy a la Star Trek's universe, this 100% fair life does not sound very appealing. Even in the utopia that is Star Trek, civilization is still tiered and hierarchical.

Lil devils x:
No, I do not feel that is the same comparison at all. You see, no where did I state that " all whites are more entitled" I simply stated that "less whites are sleeping in dirt holes", so if you do not want others to view you as " more entitled" help them become "less of them sleeping in dirt holes" as well and you won't be more entitled than they are.

You extend a helping hand is all, because sometimes it is needed.

Except in this case, that's impossible, because it would require racist measures. The only path open is the regular equal treatment. This has shown to reduce any correlation between ethnicity and social status, and it's the only fair way of going about it.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
No, I do not feel that is the same comparison at all. You see, no where did I state that " all whites are more entitled" I simply stated that "less whites are sleeping in dirt holes", so if you do not want others to view you as " more entitled" help them become "less of them sleeping in dirt holes" as well and you won't be more entitled than they are.

You extend a helping hand is all, because sometimes it is needed.

Except in this case, that's impossible, because it would require racist measures. The only path open is the regular equal treatment. This has shown to reduce any correlation between ethnicity and social status, and it's the only fair way of going about it.

What is " regular treatment"? If that includes basing assistance on "needs" and "risk factors", I agree. " Regular treatment" is a broad statement. When there are other factors besides race that also factor into this equation, whether it be physical, mental, economic disadvantage these also must be considered when factoring in who is assisted first. Just as in the Hospitals ER, we do not take patients on a "first come first serve" basis, no instead, we take most serious cases first. The same should apply to assistance.

And yes, depending on the local areas being affected, race can also be considered a "risk factor" due to race related issues that need to be addressed in that area. I do not believe a "one size fits all" policy should apply when it comes to people. Their physical, mental and their environmental factors all play a role in their ability to survive.

harmonic:

AstroSmash:

Look at a globe...from Russia to the eastern borders of Germany/Austria. It's practically all 'white', but not exactly future Warren Buffets, eh?

Surely you know there are uber-rich people in the eastern bloc, especially Russia. But yes, in general this region is less well-off than West of the former holy roman empire's eastern border. But do you think this has anything to do with race/racism? (Honest question, not rhetorical or presumptive)

I think one thing people forget to take into account is that life is just not fair. The universe is a random, cold, uncaring maelstrom of life and death. There are winners and losers. There are smart people and not-so-smart people. (not races, people) There will never, ever, ever be a completely 100% fair life, where every human being's outcome is identical to one another. Frankly, unless we learn how to harness quasi-unlimited resources and energy a la Star Trek's universe, this 100% fair life does not sound very appealing. Even in the utopia that is Star Trek, civilization is still tiered and hierarchical.

That's actually exactly my point! :)

Very few people are entitled or even rich because of race.
That's why I scowl when someone calls white people 'entitled'.

AstroSmash:

harmonic:

AstroSmash:

Look at a globe...from Russia to the eastern borders of Germany/Austria. It's practically all 'white', but not exactly future Warren Buffets, eh?

Surely you know there are uber-rich people in the eastern bloc, especially Russia. But yes, in general this region is less well-off than West of the former holy roman empire's eastern border. But do you think this has anything to do with race/racism? (Honest question, not rhetorical or presumptive)

I think one thing people forget to take into account is that life is just not fair. The universe is a random, cold, uncaring maelstrom of life and death. There are winners and losers. There are smart people and not-so-smart people. (not races, people) There will never, ever, ever be a completely 100% fair life, where every human being's outcome is identical to one another. Frankly, unless we learn how to harness quasi-unlimited resources and energy a la Star Trek's universe, this 100% fair life does not sound very appealing. Even in the utopia that is Star Trek, civilization is still tiered and hierarchical.

That's actually exactly my point! :)

Very few people are entitled or even rich because of race.
That's why I scowl when someone calls white people 'entitled'.

If we are to really start to set things "right" and level the playing field, we would give all the wealth from the companies and families that profited from slavery and abuse of others to the families of those who were enslaved and abused. I do not think you realize how many people are actually wealthy due to race.

For example:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0329-06.htm
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm
That should be a start to level the playing field and set things " right". Apologies and such really do not help the people that have been harmed by these actions much. I think that type of policy would make someone think twice before wronging others.

I wonder how many people Debeers would have to give their wealth to in Africa over diamond operations there?

"The England"? Yeah, I'm calling Poe or stupid on that article.
As to the question at hand: Sure, it can be a problem. I'm just very skeptical that it's a bigger problem than racism.
Furthermore, "reverse racism" is just racism anyway. If you apply "reverse", that's actually kind of racist as it implies only white people are racist and racism against whites is specifically "reverse". Kind of shooting yourself in the foot there.
All that said, just because I think this type of racism a smaller problem than racism against non-white minorities, doesn't mean it doesn't warrant fixing. We can adress more than one problem at a time. It just shouldn't be trumped up so much as to overshadow various other problems we face in our societies.

Lil devils x:

If we are to really start to set things "right" and level the playing field, we would give all the wealth from the companies and families that profited from slavery and abuse of others to the families of those who were enslaved and abused. I do not think you realize how many people are actually wealthy due to race.

For example:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0329-06.htm
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm
That should be a start to level the playing field and set things " right". Apologies and such really do not help the people that have been harmed by these actions much. I think that type of policy would make someone think twice before wronging others.

I wonder how many people Debeers would have to give their wealth to in Africa over diamond operations there?

So you want people, who have nothing to do with slavery, to pay people, who never were slaves, based on...what? The color of their skin(since not everyone can prove their ancestors were slaves)? You essentially want children to pay for the sins of their fathers.

Reparations only work when the people responsible pay the victims.

AstroSmash:

Lil devils x:

If we are to really start to set things "right" and level the playing field, we would give all the wealth from the companies and families that profited from slavery and abuse of others to the families of those who were enslaved and abused. I do not think you realize how many people are actually wealthy due to race.

For example:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0329-06.htm
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm
That should be a start to level the playing field and set things " right". Apologies and such really do not help the people that have been harmed by these actions much. I think that type of policy would make someone think twice before wronging others.

I wonder how many people Debeers would have to give their wealth to in Africa over diamond operations there?

So you want people, who have nothing to do with slavery, to pay people, who never were slaves, based on...what? The color of their skin(since not everyone can prove their ancestors were slaves)? You essentially want children to pay for the sins of their fathers.

Reparations only work when the people responsible pay the victims.

They can return what was taken. It is like this, someone breaks into someones home and robs them, then that person later gets killed but the loot is still at their house. Their family has the loot, and should rightfully return it, even though they themselves did not take it. They can't return all of the exact loot that was taken because they spent part of it, so they then have to pay them new loot to make up for what they used. This is the only way to right the wrongs inflicted, otherwise you are not attempting to right them, only saying, " yea I know this screwed up your lives, and the lives of your grandchildren for generations to come, but we really do not care because we are still enjoying your stuff, and you guys are screwed"

Lil devils x:
What is " regular treatment"?

You know, equality before the law. Adhering to the principle of non-discrimination. Not having huge swathes of land subject to racist regulations that ban people from entering based on race... Fair treatment, that sort of thing.

What would you say if someone chose to live somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but he complains that there's no hospital next door? Wouldn't you be a little surprised; didn't that person chose to live in the middle of nowhere, accepting services are far away and maybe not up to scratch?

Lil devils x:
If we are to really start to set things "right" and level the playing field, we would give all the wealth from the companies and families that profited from slavery and abuse of others to the families of those who were enslaved and abused.

So basically we're going to steal billions of dollars from innocent people, and give it to people who don't deserve that in any way?

Sorry, I don't buy that.

You aren't even logically consistent in your own argument: I've heard nothing about punishing present-day indians for all the people that were killed by indians.

Don't you think you deserve some punishment yourself by the way? You go on and on about the Hopi, but they demanded that the Navajo indians be subjugated. Not just that, but Hopi intolerance resulted in stripping 3000 Navajo of their lands late in the 20th century, something they apparently refer to as the 'second long walk'.

Surely considering your earlier argument, you feel that you should be punished for the maltreatment of the Navajo at the hands of your people?

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
What is " regular treatment"?

You know, equality before the law. Adhering to the principle of non-discrimination. Not having huge swathes of land subject to racist regulations that ban people from entering based on race... Fair treatment, that sort of thing.

What would you say if someone chose to live somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but he complains that there's no hospital next door? Wouldn't you be a little surprised; didn't that person chose to live in the middle of nowhere, accepting services are far away and maybe not up to scratch?

Lil devils x:
If we are to really start to set things "right" and level the playing field, we would give all the wealth from the companies and families that profited from slavery and abuse of others to the families of those who were enslaved and abused.

So basically we're going to steal billions of dollars from innocent people, and give it to people who don't deserve that in any way?

Sorry, I don't buy that.

You aren't even logically consistent in your own argument: I've heard nothing about punishing present-day indians for all the people that were killed by indians.

Don't you think you deserve some punishment yourself by the way? You go on and on about the Hopi, but they demanded that the Navajo indians be subjugated. Not just that, but Hopi intolerance resulted in stripping 3000 Navajo of their lands late in the 20th century, something they apparently refer to as the 'second long walk'.

Surely considering your earlier argument, you feel that you should be punished for the maltreatment of the Navajo at the hands of your people?

There is a huge difference between being kidnapped and forced to live somewhere or be murdered as a "renegade" and a " choice". No choice was ever given. Do you think the people who were kidnapped and made slaves ever had a choice? their families torn apart and put at a disadvantage to this day due to these actuions ever had a choice in the matter? The people who were removed from their homes by force, had their children given away to others, and then placed somewhere else ever had a choice? where is the choice there Blah? I would relly like to know where a choice ever existed for these families who are still trying to heal from such things.

The stolen goods have never been returned Blah, you are suggesting that the families of those who profited from the theft should be " given" the loot they did not earn, but their relatives stole rather than giving it back to the families of the people who did earn it.

HAHAHAHA! You think the "Hopi" stole the Navajo's land? Not even the Navajo here believe that. This was the governments doing, not the tribes. The Hopi have resided in the single longest occupied settlement in North America, but when they set up the reservations they forcefully moved other tribes on top of them without ever allocating a reservation to the Hopis. Both Navajo and Hopi hold the US government responsible for this, because they were at fault here. Mind you the name " navajo" meaning newcomers, accepted by the "navajo" was given to the navajo BY the HOPI when they came across the bering strait. They shared this land with Navajo long before Europeans even arrived, that was not the issue here.

The Hopis wished to remove the extremist Christian inavaders that were kidnapping their children, not the Navajo. This had nothing to do with race, but survival. Do a bit more homeowkr and you will find the real answers as to why this happened, and how both the Hopi and Navajo have suffered terribly due to the actions of the US government. Both Hopi and Navajo still reside in that area to this day. To you, this is just something you read about and think is " past" and distant, for us, this is the reality of what the tribes are forced to deal with.
http://www.senaaarchives.bravehost.com/HopiView.html

Oh and just so you know, the Hopi never approved of the US government appointed tribal council that has been making decisions on their behalf, The tribal council itself is forced upon them by the US government, and the tribes themselves do not respect or honor it's wishes, as it does not speak for them. Basically the US government put these people in charge that did not have the support of the community against their will, and the people pretty much ignore them. The tribal council was responsible for these things, as well as forcing the UN inspectors and human rights organizations off the reservations after the elders tried to bring them in. They have prevented any help from being given and attempt to interefe with inspections of any kind. This was the US government, and their corrupt BIA responsible for this, not the "Hopi people".

The way this basically worked was they kidnapped Hopis and Christian extremist forced converted them, then they brought these people back to the villages and put them in charge over them. The Hopis present just ignore them for the most part.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
If we are to really start to set things "right" and level the playing field, we would give all the wealth from the companies and families that profited from slavery and abuse of others to the families of those who were enslaved and abused.

So basically we're going to steal billions of dollars from innocent people, and give it to people who don't deserve that in any way?

Dear black people, here's a 300$ check. I hope we are all cool with each other now. Sorry for all the slavery and stuff.
Sincerely,
White People

AstroSmash:

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
If we are to really start to set things "right" and level the playing field, we would give all the wealth from the companies and families that profited from slavery and abuse of others to the families of those who were enslaved and abused.

So basically we're going to steal billions of dollars from innocent people, and give it to people who don't deserve that in any way?

Dear black people, here's a 300$ check. I hope we are all cool with each other now. Sorry for all the slavery and stuff.
Sincerely,
White People

I don't think $300 would cover the back pay owed to all slave families for their years of service, interest, inflation, and damages done should be calculated as well. Add some 0's to that and I am sure more of these families struggling now due to those actions would appreciate it more than an " apologies, and oh yea- we're keepin your stuff."

Lil devils x:
There is a huge difference between being kidnapped and forced to live somewhere or be murdered as a "renegade" and a " choice". No choice was ever given. Do you think the people who were kidnapped and made slaves ever had a choice? their families torn apart and put at a disadvantage to this day due to these actuions ever had a choice in the matter? The people who were removed from their homes by force, had their children given away to others, and then placed somewhere else ever had a choice? where is the choice there Blah? I would relly like to know where a choice ever existed for these families who are still trying to heal from such things.

I don't get why you post this. It doesn't respond to my post in any way. I noted how you can't just go stealing billions of dollars from innocent people, and give it to people who don't deserve it, out of a motivation of racism, citing some form of ancient history.

Lil devils x:
HAHAHAHA! You think the "Hopi" stole the Navajo's land? Not even the Navajo here believe that. This was the governments doing, not the tribes.

The Hopi demanded it, and did a fair bit of it themselves. Now answer the question: Do you think you should be punishment for the maltreatment of the Navajo at the hands of the Hopi? For instance should your possessions be confiscated by force, and given to random people who descend from the Navajo?

It doesn't matter what you think, you're part of that ethnic group, and therefore by your own argument, part of the offending side, the agressive side. Now, do you believe your belongings should be seized by force and given to random people of Navajo descent or not? A simple yes or not will suffice.

Lil devils x:

AstroSmash:

Blablahb:

So basically we're going to steal billions of dollars from innocent people, and give it to people who don't deserve that in any way?

Dear black people, here's a 300$ check. I hope we are all cool with each other now. Sorry for all the slavery and stuff.
Sincerely,
White People

I don't think $300 would cover the back pay owed to all slave families for their years of service, interest, inflation, and damages done should be calculated as well. Add some 0's to that and I am sure more of these families struggling now due to those actions would appreciate it more than an " apology, and oh yea- we're keepin your stuff."

Edit: "Here's 300.00$..." Happy now?
You exxagerate and you are inconsistent with your analogy. If I have a stolen item in my house, I should give it back, but I shouldn't have to give you things I rightfully own (i.e., interest-what the fuck? interest on reparations? are you just randomly typing words?, damages, inflation).

Black people are outspoken AGAINST reparations and the ones who are for them are in the minority. Check the Penn & Teller episode for facts.

Life's not fair, inequality always has, and always will exist. It definitely won't go away by assuming collective guilt.

Edit: Just so my point is clear: You can't demand money from some whore's daughter, just because your great grandfather died from the syphilis she gave him.

Lil devils x:
*snip*

You have a really strange romanticized view of Native American cultures. I realize that they suffered greatly at the hands of European colonists and later Americans, but you make it sound like everybody is one big family.
I noticed that, too, when you spoke of the Maya in the various 2012 threads a while back, as though your people had significant dealings with them and as if you were all part of the same group.
It seems very odd to me, considering how vastly the cultures differed and considering the fact that Native Americans had plenty of conflicts among themselves, before and after the colonisation began. Hell, the various Native American groups chose different sides in the American Revolution, some sticking with the British. And the Maya in particular led many bloody wars to establish their dominance over other city states, not to mention the various trial conflicts in North America. And so on.
I can't help but feel that your anger towards the American colonists causes you to whitewash Native Americans in their entirety and to portray them as some sort of unified, peaceful and never conflicting whole, which is just absurd.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
There is a huge difference between being kidnapped and forced to live somewhere or be murdered as a "renegade" and a " choice". No choice was ever given. Do you think the people who were kidnapped and made slaves ever had a choice? their families torn apart and put at a disadvantage to this day due to these actuions ever had a choice in the matter? The people who were removed from their homes by force, had their children given away to others, and then placed somewhere else ever had a choice? where is the choice there Blah? I would relly like to know where a choice ever existed for these families who are still trying to heal from such things.

I don't get why you post this. It doesn't respond to my post in any way. I noted how you can't just go stealing billions of dollars from innocent people, and give it to people who don't deserve it, out of a motivation of racism, citing some form of ancient history.

Lil devils x:
HAHAHAHA! You think the "Hopi" stole the Navajo's land? Not even the Navajo here believe that. This was the governments doing, not the tribes.

The Hopi demanded it, and did a fair bit of it themselves. Now answer the question: Do you think you should be punishment for the maltreatment of the Navajo at the hands of the Hopi? For instance should your possessions be confiscated by force, and given to random people who descend from the Navajo?

It doesn't matter what you think, you're part of that ethnic group, and therefore by your own argument, part of the offending side, the agressive side. Now, do you believe your belongings should be seized by force and given to random people of Navajo descent or not? A simple yes or not will suffice.

First quote was in response to this:
"What would you say if someone chose to live somewhere in the middle of nowhere, but he complains that there's no hospital next door? Wouldn't you be a little surprised; didn't that person chose to live in the middle of nowhere, accepting services are far away and maybe not up to scratch?"
and yes, it was addressing your post.

The Hopi- navajo land dispute was because the government had failed to give the Hopi a reservation at all, when they were the ones who invited the Navajo to share the land with them in the first place. The Hopi were trying to remove the Christian extremist missionaries who were kidnapping both their tribes children, but the US government went and botched it up on purpose to make a resource grab with their overpaid cronies. You are mistaken on the entire situation, in fact, many of those families affected in the Land dispute are friends to this day from both tribes and have been quite vocal on this subject.

The Hopi never used force, and joined with navajo in protest against the use of force that was used.
The US wanted the resources and didn;t care how they had to go about it to accomplish that:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/hoganview/Geopol.htm
Of course blaming both tribes for the problem is an easy way to attempt to " divide and conquer" too bad the people they were dividing knew better, and remain friends to this day.

Skeleon:

Lil devils x:
*snip*

You have a really strange romanticized view of Native American cultures. I realize that they suffered greatly at the hands of European colonists and later Americans, but you make it sound like everybody is one big family.
I noticed that, too, when you spoke of the Maya in the various 2012 threads a while back, as though your people had significant dealings with them and as if you were all part of the same group.
It seems very odd to me, considering how vastly the cultures differed and considering the fact that Native Americans had plenty of conflicts among themselves, before and after the colonisation began. Hell, the various Native American groups chose different sides in the American Revolution, some sticking with the British. And the Maya in particular led many bloody wars to establish their dominance over other city states, not to mention the various trial conflicts in North America. And so on.
I can't help but feel that your anger towards the American colonists causes you to whitewash Native Americans in their entirety and to portray them as some sort of unified, peaceful and never conflicting whole, which is just absurd.

Significant dealins is true, not "one group of people". That is different. Each tribe had their own customs, traditions, religions, histories kept, but we conducted business and relations among the many tribes here, just as you conduct business and relations with other nations. For some strange reason, people have this idea that the " tribes were all isolated and separated", and that can't be farther from the truth. Just as people " marry" and have relations with people in other nations now, they did so as well back then. Yes of course tribes had conflicts, just as nations do today. Greece and Turkey are constantly going at each other, that does not mean that that should be considered the " norm". It was not the "norm" here as well.

This is only a small sample of the trade routes that existed prior to the invasion:
image
Notice that big star in the area of the Hopi is a major trading area? We have a kept history of dealings with many tribes, and are still carrying out agreements from hundreds of years ago, against the odds and US government interference, this has not ceased.

Now as far as " romanticizing them" I think Columbus pretty much summed up how many Natives lived in his own words:
"Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log:

They ... brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned... . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... . They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.

These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traits did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilization and its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus.

Columbus wrote:

As soon as I arrived in the Indies, on the first Island which I found, I took some of the natives by force in order that they might learn and might give me information of whatever there is in these parts. "
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncol1.html

Then of course there were the accounts of Bartolome de las Casas, a slave owner himself and missionary:
In September 1510, a group of Dominican friars arrived in Santo Domingo led by Pedro de Córdoba; appalled by the injustices they saw committed by the slaveowners against the Indians, they decided to deny slave owners the right to confession. Las Casas was among those denied confession for this reason.[14] In December 1511, a Dominican preacher Father Fray Antonio de Montesinos preached a fiery sermon that implicated the colonists in the genocide of the native peoples. He is said to have preached, "Tell me by what right of justice do you hold these Indians in such a cruel and horrible servitude? On what authority have you waged such detestable wars against these people who dealt quietly and peacefully on their own lands?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas

Yes, contrary to popular belief in the " savage beasts" that were portrayed by those wishing permission to exterminate them, the natives, for the most part, were peaceful and worked together and traded among one another without the need of war. This is also why so many tribes were not prepared for war, they never needed to be prior to that. Much that has been portrayed as " slavery and sacrifice" is just plain wrong. Just as you have punishment and imprisonment for criminals in your society, many of the tribes did so here as well. of course ALL the tribes were not peaceful, that would be silly, but to think that the fighting was a common occurance like a war zone is terribly misconstruing the reality.

Lil devils x:
The Hopi never used force, and joined with navajo in protest against the use of force that was used.

That's not true. The Hopi requested the Navajo be moved by force, and there were many legal battles as well.

Now are you going to answer the question if you should be punished for the maltreatment of the Navajo at the hands of the Hopi or not? Because it looks a lot like you're applying a double standard here.

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
The Hopi never used force, and joined with navajo in protest against the use of force that was used.

That's not true. The Hopi requested the Navajo be moved by force, and there were many legal battles as well.

Now are you going to answer the question if you should be punished for the maltreatment of the Navajo at the hands of the Hopi or not? Because it looks a lot like you're applying a double standard here.

Get your history straight. The US government appointed the so called " tribal council" to give contracts to the companies trying to take their resources, and to force assimilate the people into Christianity. The " hopi people" do not support the tribal council that was placed over them WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. The Hopi people have never consented to be ruled by the tribal council, nor do they support the decisions made for them. The "Tribal council" does not speak for the hopi, and the hopi ignore them. If you are going to try and place blame on someone, you might do the research of the organization you are suggesting made these decisions.

To attempt to blame the hopi people for the actions of the US government placed tribal council would be like me taking someone from your culture as a child, brainwashing them to my beliefs, then placing them in charge of you and your neighbors without your consent. then claiming all decisions they make are endorsed by you. The tribal council is exactly that, and is viewed as such by the hopi people. This has been a very serious issue and even brought up to the United Nations when we tried to get their help. The tribal council tried to get the UN banned from the reservations to prevent them from helping the people.

The Hopi and Navajo people, however, both protested the abuse taking place.
read the links I have provided in my previous posts. They will help you get the history straight.
Here they are again, just in case you are not sure which we are discussing:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/hoganview/Geopol.htm
http://www.senaaarchives.bravehost.com/HopiView.html
That should better explain it for you.

AstroSmash:
Very few people are entitled or even rich because of race.
That's why I scowl when someone calls white people 'entitled'.

That's not how it works. An individual PoC absolutely can have any number of advantages over an individual white person. Being white doesn't automatically make you rich. You can argue wealth distribution between various groups and the causes of this, but I'm going to leave that aside for a moment.

In most western societies, being white gives you an overall advantage over PoC, totally separate from wealth or other factors. Now, that does not mean that those other factors can't be very important, but likewise they do not erase this. A wealthy black person absolutely has class privilege over a poor white person, who has race privilege. Both of those people, if straight, share that privilege over gay people. If they are both disabled, able bodied people have privilege over both of them.

Or, to put it another way, a poor white person have legitimate grievances with the system. A poor black person has the same, plus racial issues to contend with. A rich black person might be well off, but an otherwise identical rich white person has that much less to put up with.

Now, admittedly, an awful lot of people concern themselves only with the privileges that work against them, and ignore or happily support those in their favour. A rich black man is much more likely to be concerned with race issues than wealth issues than a poor white man, and it's a serious problem. Many activists seem to spend half their time fighting each other, because lots of them quite rightfully try to fix problems affecting them, but will make things worse for others in the process.

Lil devils x:
[ignores everything again]

So after the fourth time of dodging the question without answering, I'm just going to have to assume you don't want to be punished for what was done to the Navajo by your people.

Which raises an interesting question: How come you support collectively punishing white people for ancient history, but aren't willing to undergo the very same thing yourself for what your people have done?

It's invalidating your support for stealing possessions from whites and giving them to groups you think may have been victims at some point in the past. Of course collective punishment is already ridiculous, and doing so over ancient history even more so, but that you're not even willing to apply your own argument to yourself speaks volumes.

You can't continue to support the idea of stealing 'reparations' from people; you don't even support it yourself. You can't just go "Yes, reparations over ancient history are good, but only if the money is stolen from white people". That would be downright racist, so you'll have to drop support for that idea.

Lil devils x:
They can return what was taken. It is like this, someone breaks into someones home and robs them, then that person later gets killed but the loot is still at their house. Their family has the loot, and should rightfully return it, even though they themselves did not take it. They can't return all of the exact loot that was taken because they spent part of it, so they then have to pay them new loot to make up for what they used. This is the only way to right the wrongs inflicted, otherwise you are not attempting to right them, only saying, " yea I know this screwed up your lives, and the lives of your grandchildren for generations to come, but we really do not care because we are still enjoying your stuff, and you guys are screwed"

The analogy doesn't hold up. Also, are you aware that if taken literally, this would be an endorsement of "repatriating" black Americans to Africa?

Blablahb:

Lil devils x:
[ignores everything again]

So after the fourth time of dodging the question without answering, I'm just going to have to assume you don't want to be punished for what was done to the Navajo by your people.

Which raises an interesting question: How come you support collectively punishing white people for ancient history, but aren't willing to undergo the very same thing yourself for what your people have done?

It's invalidating your support for stealing possessions from whites and giving them to groups you think may have been victims at some point in the past. Of course collective punishment is already ridiculous, and doing so over ancient history even more so, but that you're not even willing to apply your own argument to yourself speaks volumes.

You can't continue to support the idea of stealing 'reparations' from people; you don't even support it yourself. You can't just go "Yes, reparations over ancient history are good, but only if the money is stolen from white people". That would be downright racist, so you'll have to drop support for that idea.

I did answer your question with the actual FACTS of the situation, your version is WRONG. Read the first link. The Navajo and Hopi are united against the abuses that took place against both tribes to steal the resources from both tribes. Both tribes still have members that refused to leave the region and have been there this entire time, as friends. Read the information provided to you on the subject, this was a move by the US government, and companies wishing to take the resources from both the Navajo and the Hopi, neither the Hopi or the Navajo were responsible for this, the US government was. What part of that do you not understand? The people involved understand this, but you do not. Read what actually happened here and you can know the truth of this.

If the Hopi were actually responsible, which would be impossible since they invited the Navajo to live alongside them in the first place as family, Yes, the Hopi should then take care of all those affected by such actions. Yes, I would fully support that if that were the case. I have no idea why you refuse to understand the facts on the subject and realize that this was forced on both tribes by the outside, and not from within either tribe. It would not be considered " punishment" to right the wrongs, it would be considered giving them back what should not have been taken in the first place. That is not punishment, that is trying to put things in their proper place. The idea that caring for others is somehow " punishment" is also confusing to me, it is the responsiblility of mankind to take care of others, not a punishment. Your distorted view of how people should be treated, and how people should treat others is strange to say the least.

The sad part is, if this were happening to your race, If they had kidnapped your people, forced converted them and then brought them back to rule over you without your consent, you would fight it and stand up for yourself and others, yet because it is happening to natives, you find the forced religion and abuse as acceptable treatment. Your choice of view on how your people deserve better treatment than natives here IS racist and you should know this as well. Every time I give you a resource, you ignore it, because somehow you think you know better than the people involved. You do not accept the truth on the subject because anything natives tell you can't possibly be true in your mind. We have had these conversations before, why do you refuse to address the material you are given? As you said before.. " I stopped reading at "Indian..." That in itself is Racism Blah.

Batou667:

Lil devils x:
They can return what was taken. It is like this, someone breaks into someones home and robs them, then that person later gets killed but the loot is still at their house. Their family has the loot, and should rightfully return it, even though they themselves did not take it. They can't return all of the exact loot that was taken because they spent part of it, so they then have to pay them new loot to make up for what they used. This is the only way to right the wrongs inflicted, otherwise you are not attempting to right them, only saying, " yea I know this screwed up your lives, and the lives of your grandchildren for generations to come, but we really do not care because we are still enjoying your stuff, and you guys are screwed"

The analogy doesn't hold up. Also, are you aware that if taken literally, this would be an endorsement of "repatriating" black Americans to Africa?

Honestly, if they wanted to go back to Africa, they should be able to, but of course, you would give them the choice. This is about choice here, they didn;t give them a choice in the beginning, that is the problem here. To show respct for other races as your equivelent, you ask them what they want to do, and have confidence in their own ability to make these decisions rather than make the decisions " for them". Decisions being made for others without their consent is what started the problems in the first place.

Lil devils x:
If the Hopi were actually responsible, which would be impossible since they invited the Navajo to live alongside them in the first place as family, Yes, the Hopi should then take care of all those affected by such actions. Yes, I would fully support that if that were the case. I have no idea why you refuse to understand the facts on the subject and realize that this was forced on both tribes by the outside, and not from within either tribe. It would not be considered " punishment" to right the wrongs, it would be consideered giving them back what should not have been taken in the first place. That is not punishment, that is trying to put things in their proper place. The idea that caring for others is somehow " punishment" is also confusing to me, it is the responsiblility of mankind to take care of others, not a punishment. Your distorted view of how people should be treated, and how people should treat others is strange to say the least.

While I agree that it should be the responsibility of people to take care of others, are you saying that a group has a special responsibility to care for another group, if the ancestors of their group harmed the ancestors of another? Or, perhaps, if that group is benefiting from the results of their ancestors harming the ancestors of another, who are still harmed by it?

thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
If the Hopi were actually responsible, which would be impossible since they invited the Navajo to live alongside them in the first place as family, Yes, the Hopi should then take care of all those affected by such actions. Yes, I would fully support that if that were the case. I have no idea why you refuse to understand the facts on the subject and realize that this was forced on both tribes by the outside, and not from within either tribe. It would not be considered " punishment" to right the wrongs, it would be consideered giving them back what should not have been taken in the first place. That is not punishment, that is trying to put things in their proper place. The idea that caring for others is somehow " punishment" is also confusing to me, it is the responsiblility of mankind to take care of others, not a punishment. Your distorted view of how people should be treated, and how people should treat others is strange to say the least.

While I agree that it should be the responsibility of people to take care of others, are you saying that a group has a special responsibility to care for another group, if the ancestors of their group harmed the ancestors of another? Or, perhaps, if that group is benefiting from the results of their ancestors harming the ancestors of another, who are still harmed by it?

Yes, if a group inflicted harm upon others, they should try to put things " right". No, they may not be able to truly put it " right" but they should at least do what they can to remedy the problems caused by that groups actions, yes.

For example, trying to return what was taken. If the family already spent the money that was stolen from another family, they should then either give the family what they bought with the money that did not belong to them, or they should sell the items that were bought and give that money to them instead. I do not think they should just " keep the money" that is rewarding the bad treatment in the first place, and still allowing those families that were affected to be without what was taken from them. What many fail to understand is that the rewards from the abuse are still not being returned to those that were harmed by the abuse. Those who profited from the abuse are still enjoying the benefits from that abuse. Those that profited from slavery, for example, ammassed a great wealth for doing so, and they still have that wealth. That wealth should be returned to the families of those who were forced to work without pay and endure torture and death of family members due to their actions. I do not feel that is right and Yes, I do think that should be resolved in some way.

Otherwise you are just rewarding people for abusing others. If you remove the ability to be rewarded by such actions, less people would be abusing each other in the first place, as it would no longer have a purpose.

Lil devils x:
Yes, if a group inflicted harm upon others, they should try to put things " right". No, they may not be able to truly put it " right" but they should at least do what they can to remedy the problems caused by that groups actions, yes.

For example, trying to return what was taken. If the family already spent the money that was stolen from another family, they should then either give the family what they bought with the money that did not belong to them, or they should sell the items that were bought and give that money to them instead. I do not think they should just " keep the money" that is rewarding the bad treatment in the first place, and still allowing those families that were affected to be without what was taken from them. What many fail to understand is that the rewards from the abuse are still not being returned to those that were harmed by the abuse. Those who profited from the abuse are still enjoying the benefits from that abuse. Those that profited from slavery, for example, ammassed a great wealth for doing so, and they still have that wealth. That wealth should be returned to the families of those who were forced to work without pay and endure torture and death of family members due to their actions. I do not feel that is right and Yes, I do think that should be resolved in some way.

Otherwise you are just rewarding people for abusing others. If you remove the ability to be rewarded by such actions, less people would be abusing each other in the first place, as it would no longer have a purpose.

While I agree with that, it doesn't seem to be quite what I meant.

Specifically, I don't mean for one group to set right things that they have done, I mean for the group to set right things that previous members of that group have done in the past that they had nothing to do with. In other words, that they should be held responsible for the actions of their forbears as well as their own.

AstroSmash:

Lil devils x:

If we are to really start to set things "right" and level the playing field, we would give all the wealth from the companies and families that profited from slavery and abuse of others to the families of those who were enslaved and abused. I do not think you realize how many people are actually wealthy due to race.

For example:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0329-06.htm
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/02/21/slave-reparations.htm
That should be a start to level the playing field and set things " right". Apologies and such really do not help the people that have been harmed by these actions much. I think that type of policy would make someone think twice before wronging others.

I wonder how many people Debeers would have to give their wealth to in Africa over diamond operations there?

So you want people, who have nothing to do with slavery, to pay people, who never were slaves, based on...what? The color of their skin(since not everyone can prove their ancestors were slaves)? You essentially want children to pay for the sins of their fathers.

Reparations only work when the people responsible pay the victims.

No more like people who's families were slave owners have to pay up. The people who's families came here dirt poor from places like Ireland, Italy, Germany, ect. don't have to pay a dime. Or to compare it to your comment about kids, its like your grandfather stole a sports car and passed it on to you when he died and now the original owner is asking for you to give it back.

thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
Yes, if a group inflicted harm upon others, they should try to put things " right". No, they may not be able to truly put it " right" but they should at least do what they can to remedy the problems caused by that groups actions, yes.

For example, trying to return what was taken. If the family already spent the money that was stolen from another family, they should then either give the family what they bought with the money that did not belong to them, or they should sell the items that were bought and give that money to them instead. I do not think they should just " keep the money" that is rewarding the bad treatment in the first place, and still allowing those families that were affected to be without what was taken from them. What many fail to understand is that the rewards from the abuse are still not being returned to those that were harmed by the abuse. Those who profited from the abuse are still enjoying the benefits from that abuse. Those that profited from slavery, for example, ammassed a great wealth for doing so, and they still have that wealth. That wealth should be returned to the families of those who were forced to work without pay and endure torture and death of family members due to their actions. I do not feel that is right and Yes, I do think that should be resolved in some way.

Otherwise you are just rewarding people for abusing others. If you remove the ability to be rewarded by such actions, less people would be abusing each other in the first place, as it would no longer have a purpose.

While I agree with that, it doesn't seem to be quite what I meant.

Specifically, I don't mean for one group to set right things that they have done, I mean for the group to set right things that previous members of that group have done in the past that they had nothing to do with. In other words, that they should be held responsible for the actions of their forbears as well as their own.

"Held responsible" would be condemnation for their own actions, I do not see that as " being held responsible". Rather, I view it as " returning what was not theirs in the first place". For example, if you, as a child came home one day to your families home to find your fathers car had been stolen, your TV, your grandfathers watch that had been given to you. That your father lost even more money due to the fact he lost his job because he did not have transportation to and from work, you then lost your home and were forced to move over these actions. Not only due to the chain of events that were set off did you lose your home, but your family did not have the ability to pay for your college, and now as an adult, you are struggling to support your family due to the lack of education because of what had happened to you. Now imagine if this were my brother who stole these things from you, and I became aware of this after my brother had died. Rather than keep the wealth accumulated by my brother for his terrible actions, I instead, showed up at your door and apologized for my brothers actions and gave you that money instead to help you.

No, it would not change what had happened to you because of my brothers actions, but at least it would help you try to change that situation now. I do not feel it is punishment on me to not keep the ill gotten gains, but rather giving it to the people who it truly belonged is it's "rightful" place. I would not feel that as punishment on me, It was not " mine" to begin with, even if it was " left" to me.

Lil devils x:
"Held responsible" would be condemnation for their own actions, I do not see that as " being held responsible". Rather, I view it as " returning what was not theirs in the first place". For example, if you, as a child came home one day to your families home to find your fathers car had been stolen, your TV, your grandfathers watch that had been given to you. That your father lost even more money due to the fact he lost his job because he did not have transportation to and from work, you then lost your home and were forced to move over these actions. Not only due to the chain of events that were set off did you lose your home, but your family did not have the ability to pay for your college, and now as an adult, you are struggling to support your family due to the lack of education because of what had happened to you. Now imagine if this were my brother who stole these things from you, and I became aware of this after my brother had died. Rather than keep the wealth accumulated by my brother for his terrible actions, I instead, showed up at your door and apologized for my brothers actions and gave you that money instead to help you.

No, it would not change what had happened to you because of my brothers actions, but at least it would help you try to change that situation now. I do not feel it is punishment on me to not keep the ill gotten gains, but rather giving it to the people who it truly belonged is it's "rightful" place.

While I take your point, your analogy has all this going on within a single generation. What I was interested in were injustices that have taken place some time in the past, that the current generation of people who may either give or receive compensation have grown up without first-hand knowledge of.

thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
"Held responsible" would be condemnation for their own actions, I do not see that as " being held responsible". Rather, I view it as " returning what was not theirs in the first place". For example, if you, as a child came home one day to your families home to find your fathers car had been stolen, your TV, your grandfathers watch that had been given to you. That your father lost even more money due to the fact he lost his job because he did not have transportation to and from work, you then lost your home and were forced to move over these actions. Not only due to the chain of events that were set off did you lose your home, but your family did not have the ability to pay for your college, and now as an adult, you are struggling to support your family due to the lack of education because of what had happened to you. Now imagine if this were my brother who stole these things from you, and I became aware of this after my brother had died. Rather than keep the wealth accumulated by my brother for his terrible actions, I instead, showed up at your door and apologized for my brothers actions and gave you that money instead to help you.

No, it would not change what had happened to you because of my brothers actions, but at least it would help you try to change that situation now. I do not feel it is punishment on me to not keep the ill gotten gains, but rather giving it to the people who it truly belonged is it's "rightful" place.

While I take your point, your analogy has all this going on within a single generation. What I was interested in were injustices that have taken place some time in the past, that the current generation of people who may either give or receive compensation have grown up without first-hand knowledge of.

I know many people like to think this is ancient history, but it really is not, The US civil war didn't end until 1865, and there was a great deal of harm done for quite some time after that. Think about it, only 148 years since the civil war, my Grandmother is 92. I remember my great grandmother telling me of what it was like before cars, she was born in the late 1800's. It really is not that long ago if you think about it, and yes, the wealth is still present to this day. Of course the longer you wait to return it, the longer they have time to spend it, so yes, this should happen sooner, rather than later. Not having " first hand knowledge" really doesn't matter. I don't have to know at the time my brother did something to be able to "find out later" and try to return something. I do not feel it is ever " too late" to do that unless all the people who have suffered from these actions descendants have all ceased to exist.

Lil devils x:
I know many people like to think this is ancient history, but it really is not, The US civil war didn't end until 1865, and there was a great deal of harm done for quite some time after that. Think about it, only 148 years since the civil war, my Grandmother is 92. I remember my great grandmother telling me of what it was like before cars, she was born in the late 1800's. It really is not that long ago if you think about it, and yes, the wealth is still present to this day. Of course the longer you wait to return it, the longer they have time to spend it, so yes, this should happen sooner, rather than later. Not having " first hand knowledge" really doesn't matter. I don't have to know at the time my brother did something to be able to "find out later" and try to return something. I do not feel it is ever " too late" to do that unless all the people who have suffered from these actions descendants have all ceased to exist.

I disagree there. IMHO, there is a time where it becomes too late, or rather the obligation for fixing the problem becomes general, rather than the responsibility of the descendants of the people who caused it. As a consequences, delaying justice comes very close to denying it, things should not be put off. Everyone, if they can trace the bloodlines far back enough, is able to find some injustice perpetrated against an ancestor they could seek redress for.

thaluikhain:

Lil devils x:
I know many people like to think this is ancient history, but it really is not, The US civil war didn't end until 1865, and there was a great deal of harm done for quite some time after that. Think about it, only 148 years since the civil war, my Grandmother is 92. I remember my great grandmother telling me of what it was like before cars, she was born in the late 1800's. It really is not that long ago if you think about it, and yes, the wealth is still present to this day. Of course the longer you wait to return it, the longer they have time to spend it, so yes, this should happen sooner, rather than later. Not having " first hand knowledge" really doesn't matter. I don't have to know at the time my brother did something to be able to "find out later" and try to return something. I do not feel it is ever " too late" to do that unless all the people who have suffered from these actions descendants have all ceased to exist.

I disagree there. IMHO, there is a time where it becomes too late, or rather the obligation for fixing the problem becomes general, rather than the responsibility of the descendants of the people who caused it. As a consequences, delaying justice comes very close to denying it, things should not be put off. Everyone, if they can trace the bloodlines far back enough, is able to find some injustice perpetrated against an ancestor they could seek redress for.

I think you have a point there. Not only does time harm the ability to " right the wrongs" but also lack of documentation and witnesses available to be able to prove such things. Many of the people who were kidnapped, enslaved and murdered were not even documented, due to the lack of respect given to them by those carrying out these things on them, making it difficult to even " prove" who was harmed and who was not. Yes, it does come to a point where Justice has been denied, and I feel that is the current situation we have now. We have many people who Justice has been denied, and they are still suffering due to this, yet we have others who feel they deserve no Justice at the same time. I agree, that the problem can then become general, but also agree that for those wounds that are still fresh, and the horrible atrocities that can be proven that we are aware of, we should seek to remedy that imbalance in some way as well.

Take DeBeers for example, the PBS video footage of the children with their hands chopped off due to the actions taken by Debeers, I do feel DeBeers should be held financially and criminally responsible, the wound is still quite fresh, and compensation to those people very much alive today should be given to say the least. These companies who are still in operation that have benefitted from abusing others within our lifetime, should be held accountable. As for the wide scale economic issues caused by past " policy" it should be handled as a " general" responsibility. I agree, and feel you are correct, the question is how do we address these issues adequately, so that Justice is not denied?.

The descendants of a wrongdoer do not have any responsibility for the wrongdoing of their ancestor, but that does not mean they remain entitled to advantages (financial or otherwise) stolen by their ancestors.

But it doesn't work as simply as this, because we're talking about entire ethnic groups, tribes etc, rather than just somebody who still owns the loot his racist grandfather stole. The British people can't just "return" what they stole from their former colonial holdings, because the material wealth has long been absorbed into our economy, the people we took as slaves have all long been worked to death or eventually freed... and even so, the legacy of colonialism is far more damaging than just what we took.

So we do have a responsibility to redress the lasting damage to poorer nations. 'Responsibility to help' is distinct from 'responsibility for what was done wrong in the first place'.

And other wealthy nations share in the responsibility to help, whether those nations had a part in the crime or not, because it's just morally right regardless.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here