Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, no. The first people to land in South Africa were not the Dutch. It was the Khoisan people. Bantu peoples had been arriving from the north since the 9th century. The Dutch arrived long after both groups had arrived. The Dutch initially bartered with the local peoples, but there was so much animosity. Wars broke out. The lands the Zulu held were eventually taken over and absorbed into South Africa. You make it seem like no one was there before the Dutch. I know better than that.
The lower sections (original settlements) were void of indigenous people, there was no one group that claimed ownership.
If you're talking about America pre-'65, (aside from racial and women's issues), yes, America was a better country. And yes, I am a WASP.
It was a better country if you were White. I can't say "aside from racial and women's issues" because I am Black. Anything pre-1960s, I would have not been treated fairly at all. Housing discrimination, job discrimination, Jim Crow laws, what happened to Emmitt Till,etc. I have to think about all of this because I'm Black.
The lower sections (original settlements) were void of indigenous people, there was no one group that claimed ownership.
Even if no one claimed ownership, the Khoisan were living in the Cape first. And the Dutch settlers who were living in the Cape expanded and took over the rest of South Africa.
You are looking at this from a power and control perspective.
The irony is that their ideology is toxic to them too: Two years ago, Jeff Hall's 10-year old son shot him with his own gun as he napped on the couch. A year ago, J.T. Ready's paranoia caught up with him, where he killed three other adults, and a beautiful baby girl. They were two of the most, uhhhmm, vocal. Thankfully no one seems to have filled their place.
That kind of ideology has a history of being toxic. Acting on the violence has cost many people as well. The KKK acting on violence, and it caught up with them. In the 1960s, the FBI infiltrated the KKK and brought them down. In the early 1980s, the United Klan of America was brought down when two members killed a Black man, and Morris Dees convinced the mother of the victim to sue the Klan. The murderers were sent to prison, and the United Klans of America went broke. Now the KKK is basically at small membership. What is worrisome is that the KKK will try and use certain issues to gain more influence.
The Aryan Nations went down too after a vicious crime. Same happened with W.A.R. when Mulageta Seraw was killed. The killers went to prison and the organization got sued and went broke. Tom Metzger, the guy who complained about Blacks and foodstamps, ended up getting some foodstamps after he got sued.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,387,686 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
It was a better country if you were White. I can't say "aside from racial and women's issues" because I am Black. Anything pre-1960s, I would have not been treated fairly at all. Housing discrimination, job discrimination, Jim Crow laws, what happened to Emmitt Till,etc. I have to think about all of this because I'm Black.
Well "white" made up, what, 90 percent of the population? 95% of the population?
Excluding race for a second, can we just focus on social norms, culture, laws, etc for the overwhelming majority? Let's do that. In that case I would say that the middle-class was much stronger, there was a tighter overall national sense of civic duty and community.
You understand there were areas that were ALL white - such as MN (save for a percent of two, of which by many accounts the minority in that minority were treated far better in MN than most other places).
It's not like my great-grandparents here could really control areas south of the Mason-Dixon and so on.
Well "white" made up, what, 90 percent of the population? 95% of the population?
Excluding race for a second, can we just focus on social norms, culture, laws, etc for the overwhelming majority? Let's do that. In that case I would say that the middle-class was much stronger, there was a tighter overall national sense of civic duty and community.
You understand there were areas that were ALL white - such as MN (save for a percent of two, of which by many accounts the minority in that minority were treated far better in MN than most other places).
It's not like my great-grandparents here could really control areas south of the Mason-Dixon and so on.
How could the USA demographic change so much in the span of 50 years, even with Eastern European immigration before the 90s
What a huge un reversible blunder by those in power.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,387,686 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetroof
How could the USA demographic change so much in the span of 50 years, even with Eastern European immigration before the 90s
What a huge un reversible blunder by those in power.
The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act courtesy of the Kennedy boys:
Quote:
...The Families Factor
The influx of refugees and of millions of illegal immigrants over the last several decades have certainly contributed to the United States' profound demographic transformation. But the chief driver of this change remains the system of family-based immigration put in place in 1965. Over time, in a process critics call "chain migration," entire families have re-established themselves in the United States. Historian Otis Graham thinks the policy has been a terrible mistake.
"Family reunification puts the decision of who comes to America in the hands of foreigners," Graham says. "Those decisions are out of the hand of the Congress — they just set up a formula and its kinship. Frankly, it could be called nepotism."
Well "white" made up, what, 90 percent of the population? 95% of the population?
Excluding race for a second, can we just focus on social norms, culture, laws, etc for the overwhelming majority? Let's do that. In that case I would say that the middle-class was much stronger, there was a tighter overall national sense of civic duty and community.
You understand there were areas that were ALL white - such as MN (save for a percent of two, of which by many accounts the minority in that minority were treated far better in MN than most other places).
It's not like my great-grandparents here could really control areas south of the Mason-Dixon and so on.
You're great-grandparents had no control over what went on in the South. However, it is next to impossible to exclude race from this because your race determined how you would be treated, what kind of life you would have, and so many other things.
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,387,686 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
You're great-grandparents had no control over what went on in the South. However, it is next to impossible to exclude race from this because your race determined how you would be treated, what kind of life you would have, and so many other things.
Whites didn't treat other whites great all the time either, I hope you know. You should look at the early labor mine strikes that went on in Northern MN for an example of how elite whites treated their lesser white counterparts. They were basically "slaves," more or less with the way they were treated. Start with this article:
Also look up "strikebreaking" in Minnesota and other Northern states as well; many Southern blacks were recruited to the North by elite white businessmen to damage white labor rights. I mean, we can split hairs here all day (Irish were treated like garbage by a native European population in the 19th and 20th Centuries, for example), so my premise that we are looking at the majority of the country in the early-20th Century remains.
Whites didn't treat other whites great all the time either, I hope you know. You should look at the early labor mine strikes that went on in Northern MN for an example of how elite whites treated their lesser white counterparts. They were basically "slaves," more or less with the way they were treated. Start with this article:
Also look up "strikebreaking" in Minnesota and other Northern states as well; many Southern blacks were recruited to the North by elite white businessmen to damage white labor rights. I mean, we can split hairs here all day (Irish were treated like garbage by a native European population in the 19th and 20th Centuries, for example), so my premise that we are looking at the majority of the country in the early-20th Century remains.
I know about the strikebreaker stuff. I know about how elite Whites looked down on poor Whites. However, that had to do with economics.
Blacks were hired as strikebreakers because they were considered cheap labor. Last time I checked, Blacks were often last hired, and the first to be fired. Blacks were often excluded from alot of labor unions. If you want to look at the majority of this country, look at it like this. Blacks were poor all over this nation. The Black middle class today is much larger than it was back in the 1950s. If I want to buy a house, no one can say "no Blacks allowed". Back in the old days, Blacks were prohibited from living in certain places. Poor Whites might have been looked down on, but their rights were respected much more than the rights of Blacks.
Now please answer this for me. How was the time period pre-1960s good for Blacks considering the kinds of discrimination they went through? Last time I checked, when suburbia happened in the 1950s, Blacks were often excluded from buying houses in certain areas. It happened in Chicago.
Again, my question is this: How was it good for Blacks? I have to ask because I am looking at this from the perspective of if I was living back then.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
