Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:11 PM
 
1,203 posts, read 1,235,993 times
Reputation: 853

Advertisements

(Edited)

 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:11 PM
 
31,824 posts, read 14,800,770 times
Reputation: 13485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
The point is, they call it "Black history month" as if BLACK is an ethnicity. If white is not an ethnicity to be promoted and celebrated, why is black? Black and white are skin colors. You can chant "Black Power" and you're viewed as promoting your "race" but you cannot chant "White Power" without being called a racist. You're allowed to have a negro college fund for black students but not a white college fund for white students. That would be racist .

There is a double standard here.
Blacks make up roughly 14% of the population in the US. Whites almost 73%. Whites chanting "white power" would be reminiscent of the KKK. And there are many college funds available for all students.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:16 PM
 
1,203 posts, read 1,235,993 times
Reputation: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Guess who they sold them to and who the biggest customer was, yes indeed, Oops.
Flew over your head, oops!

Africans are still selling other Africans into slavery.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:18 PM
 
Location: Whoville....
25,386 posts, read 35,392,178 times
Reputation: 14692
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
Blacks make up roughly 14% of the population in the US. Whites almost 73%. Whites chanting "white power" would be reminiscent of the KKK. And there are many college funds available for all students.
As I said, there is a double standard.

So why do we have a Negro College fund???? A white college fund would be racist. Whites go into the pot with everyone but blacks are special...????
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:23 PM
 
31,824 posts, read 14,800,770 times
Reputation: 13485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
As I said, there is a double standard.

So why do we have a Negro College fund???? A white college fund would be racist.
What's wrong with having a college fund for minorities?
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:25 PM
 
1,203 posts, read 1,235,993 times
Reputation: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
What's wrong with having a college fund for minorities?
It is racist.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:37 PM
 
31,824 posts, read 14,800,770 times
Reputation: 13485
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattOTAlex View Post
It is racist.
You want blacks to do something with their lives and stop being thugs But how are they going to do that without help by way of college funds.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:37 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,601 posts, read 26,206,896 times
Reputation: 12627
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
Because for a very long time blacks and other minorities were treated with a double standard. In an effort to undo the effects of that double standard, 'events' like Black History Month were created to showcase the contributions to this country by black people. In other words, make visible the people who in the past were treated as invisible.

You could have a White History Month, too, if you were invisible. But considering the relative high profile that white people have enjoyed and continue to enjoy, albeit to a lesser extent today, I'd say a month devoted to white people would be redundant.

[do you feel invisible?]

I disagree that in the Internet era this is primarily about visibility.

What it is about, as always, is making reality (in this case history) fit a fanciful liberal narrative.

Continuing black dysfunction and underachievement after five decades of great society programs and state sponsored discrimination against white males challenges the claim that the reason blacks fill our prisons and welfare offices is past and present white racism.

Sure, in the days when segregation was the law of the land in the South, liberals could rightly claim that white racism prevented black achievement, but what reason exists today for the same underachievement?

How does white racism prevent a black person from obeying the law so as to not go to prison?

Obviously it doesn't and this is the reason why the left needs an entire month to fill the unquestioning minds of the nation's youth with fairy tales about subtle institutionalized racism (a.k.a. uniform standards, a.k.a. objective criteria).

I would support devoting a month to black history if we spent as much time discussing black single parent homes and violent acts committed by young black men as the invention of traffic control devices and peanut butter.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:42 PM
 
1,203 posts, read 1,235,993 times
Reputation: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469 View Post
You want blacks to do something with their lives and stop being thugs But how are they going to do that without help by way of college funds.
Your premise is patently fallacious. Attempting to put words in another's mouth is a sophomoric tactic, at best.
 
Old 08-24-2013, 11:46 PM
 
Location: Milwaukee
1,999 posts, read 2,457,078 times
Reputation: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by simetime View Post

To "discover" something that was never lost is still a play on history, since it has been proven that the Vikings have also set foot on American soil along with a few Africans and Indians from the Carribean
The rush to colonize the Americas did not result from Viking explorations, assuming they did in fact arrive in the Americas and then return to Europe.

The Americas became known to Europe at large through Christopher Columbus' serendipitous happening upon it. He discovered it for the European world in that sense. He did not discover it for the Amerindian civilizations already living in the Americas.

And there is no "proof" Africans sailed to the Americas. Personally, from having been stationed on huge, heavy, U.S. Navy battleship that sailed to Southwest Asia (Persian Gulf) and back to the United States, I find the whole idea preposterous.

On that huge ship I stood .50 cal watch at night, during storms out at sea, with the ship rocking from waves. West Africa had no ships that could cross the Atlantic. They had essentially row boats. You need shelter and adequate food supply. No row boat could survive the strength of the storms at sea. And if by whatever miracle they did land in the Americas I doubt they ever returned back to Africa. I don't think luck would smile on their journey twice.


Quote:
I think that because of the Italian/Vatican pr dept it was easier to give him credit for it
The credit given to Columbus can not be adequately dismissed as an Italian or Vatican press corps plot.

The Italians never colonized the Americas and Columbus was commissioned by the Spanish Crown. The Protestant Dutch and English had no reason to bestow such credit to Columbus out of an appreciation for either Italians or the Vatican, as they had no love for either.

The Americas are not even named after Christopher Columbus anyways. It's named after another Italian. Amerigo Vespucci. Amerigo Vespucci - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Amerigo Vespucci (Italian pronunciation: [ameˈriɡo vesˈputtʃi]) (March 9, 1454 – February 22, 1512) was an Italian explorer, financier, navigator and cartographer who first demonstrated that Brazil and the West Indies did not represent Asia's eastern outskirts as initially conjectured from Columbus' voyages, but instead constituted an entirely separate landmass hitherto unknown to Afro-Eurasians. Colloquially referred to as the New World, this second super continent came to be termed "America", probably deriving its name from the feminized Latin version of Vespucci's first name.[1][2]
Quote:
Actually, i was taught more Greek, Roman and European Monarchy than I was taught about the millions of Africans contribution to this country. As far as about other groups being taught about their respective histories in this country, well none of them were forced here and made to abandoned their language, culture and religion either. To top it off, the other groups who came later in the century on their own free free or at worst indentured servants and were allowed to blend in with the general population without any real struggles that lasted for generations. One other thing, American blacks are mentioned on CD more than any other group of people in a negative fashion, which means that there is a lack of knowledge regarding history and contributions to this country that is easily discounted and dismissed.
You must be a Baby Boomer because Black History Month is give a place in most public schools with significant black student bodies.

Quote:
There are people from europe and Japan that are more aware of the contributions of people of color in this country than the people who are born here. Now why is that? It just seems to me that by keeping a group of people ignorant of their self worth marginalizes them into believing that they are just here with no purpose
Eh... there are people from Europe, Asia, and Africa that no more U.S. history than many of the citizens of the U.S.

Quote:
Why should German history be emphasized in this country and they don't even include our own?
I was only pointing out that "white history" comprises a lot of ethnicities and nationalities outside of the united States. I mentioned that because you included the African continent in "black history."

I'm half black and half white. My white side is German-Americans. There are a lot of people of German ancestry living in the United States (they left a big cultural mark on the city of Milwaukee and its breweries and socialist past). German American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
German Americans (German: Deutschamerikaner) are citizens of the United States who were either born in Germany or are of German ancestry. They comprise about 50 million people,[1] making them the largest ancestry group ahead of Irish Americans, African Americans and English Americans.[4] They comprise about 1/3 of the German diaspora all over the world.[5][6][7]
Quote:
German Americans established the first kindergartens in the United States,[12] introduced the Christmas tree tradition,[13][14] and originated popular American foods such as hot dogs and hamburgers.[15]

German American celebrations are held throughout the country, one of the most well-known being the German-American Steuben Parade in New York City, held every third Saturday in September. There are also major annual events in Chicago, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and other cities. Like many other immigrants that came to the United States, an overwhelming number of people of German or partial German descent have essentially become Americanized.
Quote:
She may or may not be black, but one thing for sure she did not look like Elizabeth Taylor, she definitely was a woman of color. You see this is what I was talking about. do you see how easy it is to take the accomplishments of one group and claim it as your own? So those who seen her in the movies with no real education would be inclined to believe that she was a white woman with blue eyes. Which reminds me did'nt they do the same thing with Jesus and all of the characters in the Bible?
I don't think she looked as white as Elizabeth Taylor either. But there is no real way of knowing for sure.

There will be white people that look to as many "great" white figures in history as they can to define who they are. You'll find people of other races doing the same thing. White people have enjoyed the privilege of dominating the great media sources, so, for many decades, if not a century or more, the stories and biographies the glorified were Eurocentric, their own.

But really... while we can draw inspiration from biographies of people that share our sex, our height, our nationality, our sexual orientation, our ethnicity, our religion, or our race... ultimately we have our own life's history to fulfill.

As for Jesus and the Apostles or other biblical characters. One, a few, many, most, all, or none may have been white in phenotype. We really can't know. We know Hebrews, Romans, and persons from Ethiopia are mentioned in the bible. So, assuming the ancient Hebrews were darkish olive or brown skinned, then it would be fair to surmise that whites, browns, and blacks are in the bible.

There are white Jews and Arab Jews today. There are black Jews from Ethiopia too (ancient converts to Judaism).

People in the Middle East can vary in racial phenotype to some extent. But you have many in the Middle East that have facial features we would associate with "Caucasian." Some have white skin (though tanned) along with those facial features. Others have much naturally darker skin. Most have darker hair.

Quote:
Huh, it meant that she was not white as the driven snow
Maybe, maybe not.


Quote:
Sure you can, Edison, Graham-Bell, Eli Whitney, Benjamin Franklin, George Westinghouse, George Eastman, Nikola Tesla, the Wright brothers, George Goodyear and Samuel Morse. These were taught in many high schools across the country
I wouldn't have named 10 white inventors off the top of my head. I think the only name that came to my mind when I read your other post that posed the question was... "Ben Franklin."

I can't remember the names of most people I meet face-to-face in life.

And although I knew of Daniel O'Connell from reading a book or two on the history of Ireland, some years ago, I still did not recall his name, so, I had to google search for his name by looking for freedom fighters in Ireland.


Quote:
It also was used to disenfranchise others into believing that their ancestory is not that important and marginalizes their accomplishments
The thing is that around 1400s most of West Africa was still at the "tribal" level of advancement, when Europeans began to really come to that continent.

Europe had already advanced to the level of "civilization" at that point.

In the Americas the Mexica or who became known as the Aztecs had a "civilization" and the Incas had a city-state "civilization." In contrast most of South and North America were populated by Amerindians living in "tribal" societies and/or "chiefdoms."

Not all social scientists subscribe to societal models of: tribe; chiefdom; kingdoms of civilizations; city-state; nation-state. With the latter three constituting "civilizations."

That model has its limitations but I like to use it because it provides me with a simple mental framework to work with.

All Europeans originally, if you go back far enough, lived in tribal and chiefdom societies. During the Roman empire my Germanic ancestors lived in the tribal or chiefdom societies. So did the Anglo-Saxons that became the refined British.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top