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.
I hever claimed that most people who immigrated were escaping religious persecution, it was simply part of the problems in Europe and that is why the founding fathers thought is so important to set up this new nation to have freedom of religion. The point I am trying to stress is that whites had their "all white world" and when they existed in that world, things were not so good. Notice how you provide what I could label "Excuses" for the inability of Europeans to better their lives while in Europe. The jury is still out? Why did Europeans have to leave all white Europe to have a better life? Why could you do not pull yourselves up by your bootstraps in Europe?
I think that Europe has faired pretty well. The emigration from Europe took place during times of famine and war or post-war. But it recovered from those brief periods. People could have stayed, but they chose to come to America because they heard that there were jobs available here. Same thing for blacks emigrating from the south to Detroit. They could have waited around in the south for the southern economy to improve, but they chose to come to Detroit where they heard there were jobs available.
I never said that white suburbanites are benefitting from black poverty....but in trut they are. You see, the economic laws of supply and demand controls price points. In other words, the more demand outsrips supply the higher the price point. When supply greatly exceeds demand the lowere the price point. Hence, by blacks not having the skill sets and education of whites, in general, the demand for skills are undersupplied in a non-recession economy. Hence, whites get more for their skilled labor from the premium created from the shortage of the skills (historically). The more people who are educated means the less the educated can demand for their labor....because they can be easily replaced. Thus, whites do indirectly benefit from the status of blacks.
The same applies to blacks as well, i.e. if a black attains more education, they have more opportunities. So I don't think you can attribute this to race. Most of the jobs in Detroit did not and do not involve a great level of education. Blacks have equal educational opportunities. It appears the problem is that education is not as valued in black culture.
That having been said, let me also not the the Agrarian era gave birth to the industrial era. Let me repeat that. The agrarian era gave birth to the industrial era. This nation started off as an Agrarian based economy and that argriculture based economy was built off the back of slavery. What did the planters do with their profits? They put it in Banks. What do banks do? Banks lend out money that is used to start other business. What about Insurance. Slaves and land had to be insured so it fueled the Insurance INdustry. What about ship building? Ships had to be built to export the agricultural products back to Europe. It goes on and on. True, the vase majority of people did dnot own slaves, but the vast majority of people were indirectly impacted from slavery, just like there are thousands of jobs that are created as spin off jobs from the auto industry.
True, the slaves contributed to the advancement and prosperity of America. And blacks today are the benefactors of that contribution.
All Immigrants had an initiation into this America that put them in at the bottom of the labor pool, just above blacks, however, it only lasted a generation usually and color allowed them to advance in the system while keeping blacks from advancing. I know a lot about the History of white America because I had to take it as part of the cirriculm. So nothing you are telling me has be absent from my rationalizations and conclusions. I know all of that.
But many blacks have advanced and today have an equal chance of advancing with whites. So why perpetuate the belief that because of 300 years of oppression, blacks today have less of an opportunity to advance?
Yes.....Land Labor and Capital are the primary components of economic growth. What allowed whites to prosper is the constant aquisition of new lands. As land opened up, it was GIVEN to white settlers (often taken from the Native Americans....or Mexico). Land is wealth and it always had been, which is why the masses of whites was locked out of wealth in Europe because all the land was owned by the aristocracy and the were not giving it up so that the masses could gain wealth.
Other than the exception of the south where slave labor allowed profits, land was never the key to wealth in America like it was in Europe during the days of serfdom. Northern farmers never became very prosperous or powerful. Also, after the Civil War, many blacks were given land in the south. But because they couldn't use slaves to work the land, those farms became unprofitable.
Demonstrate the truth of that statement. You act as if Europeans still do not colonize the econoimcs of Africa. The Europeans simply gave up political control.....not economic control over resources. Who owned the diamond minds of South Africa?
If not for the Europeans, the native Africans would not have been able to mine all those diamonds and gold, so it really is of no loss to them. To demonstrate how horrible the condition is in Black Africa post-colonialism one only needs to read the newspaper: Darfur, Angola, Hutus vs. Tutsis, Congo, Liberia, Ivory Coast, etc.
You might have more insight into what white people THINK, but I have more access to insights on how whites treats blacks. Have you ever heard of mothers talking of their kids as "good kids" who just murdered someone? Have you ever seen neighbors say that they never would of expected the guy next door of being some time of criminal? Yet, the people who they come in contact with have a different story.
That's true. If you've been discriminated against by white people, I offer you an apology (if I am in a position to do so). Unfortunately, there are still people of both races who harbor racists attitudes and I condemn them. But just because you have been a victim of discrimination does not mean that it is prevalent. That would be like a victim of crime in Detroit saying the city is unsafe.
I think that Europe has faired pretty well. The emigration from Europe took place during times of famine and war or post-war. But it recovered from those brief periods. People could have stayed, but they chose to come to America because they heard that there were jobs available here. Same thing for blacks emigrating from the south to Detroit. They could have waited around in the south for the southern economy to improve, but they chose to come to Detroit where they heard there were jobs available.
Europe has always been plagued by wars.....that was nothing new. Yes, there was the potatoe famine, but more than anything else European economy simply stagnated. It stagnated because the monopoly board was static and the few had ownership of all the prime realestate and every time the masses landed they owed the aristocracy. Think about it. Have you ever played the game of Monopoly? Once people get control of all the main properties.....new comers to the game don't stand a chance at moving to the top....they simply become means of increasing the wealth of those who hold all the resources. Hence, Europeans HAD to leave Europe to find new realestate for their Monopoly game and when the new real estate was aquired THEN, and ONLY THEN, did opportunities open up for the masses.
The bottom line is that it is unfair for people to rationalize that Europeans had justification or reason for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, but blacks in America have no "exuses" for our condition. Europeans HAD to leave to reduce the pressure in Europe....or they could not have survived. It started to recovery when it got ride of millions of poor people that it had no opportunity for....that were a threat to the stability of the aritocracy as they would have been sure to revolt and create instability.
My point with Europe is simply to demonstrat that whites spent CENTURIES in the dark ages and centuries where the masses of people were poor.....and you did not pull yourselves up like people tell and expect blacks to do.....while in the land of YOUR oppression. No matter how you might rationalize what they COULD have done in Europe, the bottom line is that while there....THEY COULD NOT RISE and did not RISE. It was the Industrial revolution that catipulted Western Europe out of its misery.
The same applies to blacks as well, i.e. if a black attains more education, they have more opportunities. So I don't think you can attribute this to race. Most of the jobs in Detroit did not and do not involve a great level of education. Blacks have equal educational opportunities. It appears the problem is that education is not as valued in black culture.
That answer in no way addressed the economic laws of supply and demand that I mentioned. I simply pointed out that the AFTERMATH and consquece of years of racial oppression is that it has left blacks less competitive. If blacks don't value education its certainly a consquence of history because AFRICANS certainly value education. As a result, wages are higher for whites. I can guarentee you that if you flood the market with Nurses or Engineers to the degree that there are far more than the economy has demand for, there real wages will decline over time. However, as long as there remain shortages, it will boost their rates of pay because employers will have to pay more when they demand it....or they will simply find another employer because of demand. So if blacks were educated and skill on par with whites, the increase supply would lower the wages for white workers over time, unless demand increased to offset the increase in supply.
True, the slaves contributed to the advancement and prosperity of America. And blacks today are the benefactors of that contribution.
That does not make any sense. Blacks are not "America". In other words, all Americans are not black. If blacks contributed to the advancement and prosperity of America, it certainly was not exclusive to blacks. Like I pointed out....the FIRE ( Finance, Insurance and RealEstate) industry benefitted stremendously from slavery. Let me stress it again. The industrial revolution was financed by the profits from the Agrarian era and the agrarian era in the West was built off the back of African Slave labor, the last few centuries of its existance. Its like the Kennedy's. The Kennedys became a well respected wealthy family. The family did many great things and had many great political leaders. However, the Kennedy's fortune came from illegal activity during prohibition. If not for that illegal activity none of the latter generation accomplishments of the family would have materialized. The same is true of slavery. This country later did many great things in economics, one could argue was morally legitamit. However, if not for slavery, the means to do much of that would not have existed.
But many blacks have advanced and today have an equal chance of advancing with whites. So why perpetuate the belief that because of 300 years of oppression, blacks today have less of an opportunity to advance?
No they don't. You define equal chance as the absense of laws to keep blacks down like what existed in the past. The typical black child in Southeastern Michigan lives in the City of Detroit and attends Detroit public school and a high percentage of them live in poverty. There white youth counterpart in SE Michigan lives in suburban Detroit and attends Suburban public and private schools and far less are poor. You mean that both the child in Detroit and the Child in West Bloomfield have an equal chance in America? You are loosing credibility points by making statements like that.
Other than the exception of the south where slave labor allowed profits, land was never the key to wealth in America like it was in Europe during the days of serfdom. Northern farmers never became very prosperous or powerful. Also, after the Civil War, many blacks were given land in the south. But because they couldn't use slaves to work the land, those farms became unprofitable.
The only true wealth in the world is land and resources. Everything else is artificial. Land is and will always be the the foundation of wealth EVERYWHERE.
If not for the Europeans, the native Africans would not have been able to mine all those diamonds and gold, so it really is of no loss to them. To demonstrate how horrible the condition is in Black Africa post-colonialism one only needs to read the newspaper: Darfur, Angola, Hutus vs. Tutsis, Congo, Liberia, Ivory Coast, etc.
Look I have visted West Africa several times and the people in the places that I have visited seem much happier than people in America despite being much poorer. There are over 50 countries on the continent and yes some have big problems, but you all should stop talking of Africa as a monolith because there is much variation in Africa. That said, Africans have been surviving for thousands of years.....what makes you think they needed Europeans? If the European did not dig the Diamonds...big deal. The point is that the resources under the land belongs to the people of the land, like the Oil in the Middle East belongs to the people in those countries and have made them rich.
That's true. If you've been discriminated against by white people, I offer you an apology (if I am in a position to do so). Unfortunately, there are still people of both races who harbor racists attitudes and I condemn them. But just because you have been a victim of discrimination does not mean that it is prevalent. That would be like a victim of crime in Detroit saying the city is unsafe.
It does not mean that it is prevelent and it does not mean that it is not prevelent. The thing is this. The country has a long, long history of racism and racist attitudes and one has to give a compelling argument on why that would just dissapear in a few decades, after over 300 years of existance.
If you want to look at Hamtramck, you should first look at it's history first before making any wrong comments about it. At one point in recent history Hamtramck was the only true Polish city in America. This added a unique richness to the metropolitan area. Polish culture. Check out the history before posting something about Hamtramck that isn't correct
...European economy simply stagnated. It stagnated because the monopoly board was static and the few had ownership of all the prime realestate and every time the masses landed they owed the aristocracy... Not true. Stagnations in the European economy, that can not be attributed to famine and war, can be attributed to cycles that every economy experiences. If anything has oppressed the masses, it was/is the socialistic tendencies and not any aristocracy. ...Europeans HAD to leave Europe to find new realestate for their Monopoly game and when the new real estate was aquired THEN, and ONLY THEN, did opportunities open up for the masses... Not true. They didn't "have to" do anything. They left for economic opportunities. They could have stayed. Some of the most prosperous areas in Europe are also the areas with the highest density and relatively low emigration to the U.S.
...The bottom line is that it is unfair for people to rationalize that Europeans had justification or reason for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, but blacks in America have no "exuses" for our condition... I don't think it's a matter of the people, per se, as it is the economic system that they have adopted. The free market capitalist system always rebounds from stagnation. Welfare state socialism is always doomed to failure. ...Europeans HAD to leave to reduce the pressure in Europe....or they could not have survived. It started to recovery when it got ride of millions of poor people that it had no opportunity for....that were a threat to the stability of the aristocracy as they would have been sure to revolt and create instability... Not true. Most emigrants were hard working and talented. They would have contributed as much to Europe as they have to the U.S. The only "threat to aristocracy" has occurred after the failed lies of socialism have led the people there to pose a threat against the "aristocratic" socialists.
...My point with Europe is simply to demonstrat that whites spent CENTURIES in the dark ages and centuries where the masses of people were poor... I don't know what you are talking about. True, the standard of living back then was not what it is now, but Europeans had a higher standard of living than any other continent. ...and you did not pull yourselves up like people tell and expect blacks to do... We didn't? They who did? You seem to be implying that the only way people can succeed in life is by exploiting others. ...while in the land of YOUR oppression. No matter how you might rationalize what they COULD have done in Europe, the bottom line is that while there....THEY COULD NOT RISE and did not RISE. It was the Industrial revolution that catipulted Western Europe out of its misery... And how is the Industrial Revolution incompatible with the belief that people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps?
That answer in no way addressed the economic laws of supply and demand that I mentioned. I simply pointed out that the AFTERMATH and consquece of years of racial oppression is that it has left blacks less competitive... That may have been true at one time, but blacks today are no less competitive. ...If blacks don't value education its certainly a consquence of history because AFRICANS certainly value education... No, it's a consequence of people thinking they can go through life demanding reparations instead of living responsibly and independently. Africans had to make do the best they could, and didn't have the boogey man white people to blame their problems on. ...As a result, wages are higher for whites. I can guarentee you that if you flood the market with Nurses or Engineers to the degree that there are far more than the economy has demand for, there real wages will decline over time... Then why is it that their wages have risen as our population has? However, as long as there remain shortages, it will boost their rates of pay because employers will have to pay more when they demand it....or they will simply find another employer because of demand. So if blacks were educated and skill on par with whites, the increase supply would lower the wages for white workers over time, unless demand increased to offset the increase in supply... Not true. The more people that rise into the higher income groups, the more demand there is for those occupations that sustain those incomes.
That does not make any sense. Blacks are not "America". In other words, all Americans are not black. If blacks contributed to the advancement and prosperity of America, it certainly was not exclusive to blacks... America is black and white and the contributions of blacks and whites have benefited blacks and whites. ...Like I pointed out....the FIRE ( Finance, Insurance and RealEstate) industry benefitted stremendously from slavery... And they would have benefited if slavery had never existed. The fields would have been worked by poorly paid white indentured servants. A little less profitable for the slave owning plantation owners, but no less profitable for others. A certain amount of cotton would have required a certain amount of insurance, regardless of who picked it. In fact, an argument could be made that those FIRE industries could have been more profitable without slavery, because the higher labor costs would have made for higher agriculture prices. ...Let me stress it again. The industrial revolution was financed by the profits from the Agrarian era and the agrarian era in the West was built off the back of African Slave labor, the last few centuries of its existance... Mostly untrue. Agrarian profits did contribute to the overall American economy, but most of the capital for the industrial revolution came from the industrial pre-revolution, i.e. it came from earlier industrial ventures. Capital built up over time to finance ever larger enterprises. It wasn't like we switched from all-agrarian to all-industrial in a matter of a few years. ...Its like the Kennedy's. The Kennedys became a well respected wealthy family. The family did many great things and had many great political leaders. However, the Kennedy's fortune came from illegal activity during prohibition. If not for that illegal activity none of the latter generation accomplishments of the family would have materialized. The same is true of slavery. This country later did many great things in economics, one could argue was morally legitamit. However, if not for slavery, the means to do much of that would not have existed... It's true that profits from illegal activity can profit legitimate activities, but that does not prove that legitimate activities would not be profitable had the illegitimate activities not existed. If people were not spending their money on something illegal/immoral, they would be spending their money on something else.
No they don't. You define equal chance as the absense of laws to keep blacks down like what existed in the past. The typical black child in Southeastern Michigan lives in the City of Detroit and attends Detroit public school and a high percentage of them live in poverty. There white youth counterpart in SE Michigan lives in suburban Detroit and attends Suburban public and private schools and far less are poor. You mean that both the child in Detroit and the Child in West Bloomfield have an equal chance in America? You are loosing credibility points by making statements like that. Education and wealth/poverty levels certainly do affect a child's chance in life, but I fail to see how race does. You mean that a poor, undereducated white child in Detroit has a better chance in life than a wealthy, highly educated black child in West Bloomfield?
The only true wealth in the world is land and resources. Everything else is artificial. Land is and will always be the the foundation of wealth EVERYWHERE. Not true. Land and resources are certainly two means of wealth, but not everything else is "artificial" (whatever "artificial" means?). How much land and resources does Bill Gates or Warren Buffet posses? Tell all the farmers out there that they are automatically wealthy because they own land.
Look I have visted West Africa several times and the people in the places that I have visited seem much happier than people in America despite being much poorer... And you came back, didn't you? How many people migrate from the U.S. to Black Africa and how may migrate vice-versa? You can be happy or sad anywhere. Not sure what that has to do with our discussion. ...There are over 50 countries on the continent and yes some have big problems, but you all should stop talking of Africa as a monolith because there is much variation in Africa. That said, Africans have been surviving for thousands of years what makes you think they needed Europeans? I don't. I was just pointing out that black Africans were not worse off during colonialism than they were either before or after. If the European did not dig the Diamonds...big deal. The point is that the resources under the land belongs to the people of the land, like the Oil in the Middle East belongs to the people in those countries and have made them rich. And what would the Bedouin have done with that oil? Feed their camels? You seem to gloss over the fact that the world economy is based on the Western European model, and that if any sub-economy hopes to benefit, it is by conforming to that model. Just because Africa sits on gold and diamonds does not make it a wealthy continent.
It does not mean that it is prevelent and it does not mean that it is not prevelent. The thing is this. The country has a long, long history of racism and racist attitudes and one has to give a compelling argument on why that would just dissapear in a few decades, after over 300 years of existance. Well, I think that one has to give a compelling argument for it to not disappear. Let's take a pragmatic approach: will black children be better off being told that they should make the most of their life without being encumbered by the misguided practices of history, or should they be constantly reminded that they are just a descendant of slaves and therefore should not aspire to much because, after all, "the boogey man White Man" is still out to get them? Or, let's take a theoretical approach: should we let our thought process be dictated by the misunderstandings and evils of the past, or should we accept the fact that we are all equal and all have equal opportunities and responsibilities? Can we afford to dwell in the past when the future offers us so much? Should black people be wasting their time harboring resentment against how the Western, European, white capitalists treated their ancestors, or should they embrace the opportunities and privileges that Western, European, white capitalism has to offer?
Just to get it out the way, I have never been to Detroit, but as a sociology major, I am fascinated with issues surroundings cities and whatnot, like how places like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago are world-renowned global cities, while cities such as Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Buffalo have struggled with deindustrialization.
From what I have read on these forums, I really do not want to start a race-baited thread at all. But I do look at demographics at many cities (I will admit that I am a nerd when it comes to statistics) and when I went to city-data's page on Hamtramck, I noticed three things: Hamtramck is majority white, it is rather lower-income and it has a noticeably higher crime rate than, say Southfield. I just want to know if given Hamtramck's demographics (as well as looking at the town via google street view) if Hamtramck is considered a "white ghetto"?
Firstly, look up Ghetto. Textbook is generally urban area/concentration of a minority or ethnic group of low SES. Ghetto and blacks are colloquially linked only. Think Polish ghetto, Jewish ghetto, Irish ghetto.
Hamtramck is largely Polish/Black/Arab in equal numbers. Whites are hardly the majority.
It's not nearly as white anymore as its reputation. Lots of Albanians...hell, I would be surprised if there are many Poles there any more.
It's kind of a nasty place.
A real white ghetto and the only legit one I've ever heard of is South Boston but even that is increasingly Hispanic; I heard something like 40 percent Hispanic these days.
That's a massive change from just 10 years ago.
But at one time, 90s-early 2000s, there were more whites on welfare in south Boston than anywhere else in the country.
Hamtramck really isn't ghetto. It says that the population is mostly white because that is what arabs are considered. There is no question on the Census if they are arabic or not and if you came to Hamtramck you would notice a very large mix of all sorts of people. Honestly there are not many Hispanic, or Asian people here but there are so many other cultures.
Thank you sir for your views on the subject of racial inequality and the historical reasons for the state of things in the US; and Detroit in particular. Your conversation with Retroit shows an admirable sensitivity to human evolution, a great honesty and lack of emotional garbage that inhibits growth in the so-called narrow minds of the naysayers. The scope of your understanding is magisterial. While I enjoy Retroit's repartees, I cannot get over his inability to access empathy in his posts. There is a relentless attempt at negating the hypocritical as well as the more blatant mechanisms that has made african american progress slower (at best) and more painful in the civic arena after the civil rights movement. It is not possible to equate the difficulties encountered by black americans with that of Italian Americans, say. I have read Retroit say elsewhere that it was most important for his immigrant forebears from Italy to become American, to shed their european mantle as fast as possible. This irony is not lost on me, it is not lost on you either I suppose.
Thank you sir for your views on the subject of racial inequality and the historical reasons for the state of things in the US; and Detroit in particular. Your conversation with Retroit shows an admirable sensitivity to human evolution, a great honesty and lack of emotional garbage that inhibits growth in the so-called narrow minds of the naysayers. The scope of your understanding is magisterial. While I enjoy Retroit's repartees, I cannot get over his inability to access empathy in his posts. There is a relentless attempt at negating the hypocritical as well as the more blatant mechanisms that has made african american progress slower (at best) and more painful in the civic arena after the civil rights movement. It is not possible to equate the difficulties encountered by black americans with that of Italian Americans, say. I have read Retroit say elsewhere that it was most important for his immigrant forebears from Italy to become American, to shed their european mantle as fast as possible. This irony is not lost on me, it is not lost on you either I suppose.
How has "African-American progress been made slower"? What are they progressing to? A white man's way of life? You call that "progress"? My ancestors who came to America could have chosen to be peasants here just as they were forced into doing by the evil capitalistic European overlords. I wonder why they chose to accept the Anglo-Saxon way of life?
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.
