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.
"Rock: Owning their actions. Not even their actions. The actions of your dad. Yeah, it’s unfair that you can get judged by something you didn’t do, but it’s also unfair that you can inherit money that you didn’t work for"
Yep, own your actions. Own your low test scores. Own your low college success rates. Own fatherless babies. Own committing half the violent crimes in this country while only being 13% of the total population. Own it yourself.
I did not get that impression from this quote at all. Rock is judging whites on their past actions. He is often judging whites in some way or another and i don't see this quote is much different.
1) This happens across the board. The entire basis of the comment 'black people have come so far' is predominately a judgment of their history. After all, no black person currently alive was a slave and some live through Jim Crow laws, and plenty lived to see those laws removed.
2) Few people truly pass this judgment onto individuals. Never once in my life has a black person (or any person) held be personally accountable for slavery, not do I view individual black people that I meet as being strong survivors of slavery or Jim Crow (unless of course they did live through Jim Crow, but most of those people are older than the usual age of people I meet). The judgement of whites is not passed onto you or me or any one specific person; it's historical analysis. It's a fact that white people used to be crazy, and that is now less so. Few if any individual white people actually reflect this change. Racism is more or less terminal. If you are born into a racist family and you aren't capable of self thinking, then you will most likely die a racist. So I feel claiming he is 'judging' white people is taking his comment too personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
So.....two questions I have for you.
1.) Did white racism end 50 years ago
2.) What percentage of whites need to be racist to have an impact on black people, if it did not end?
1) Not for everyone, but I'd argue most.
1.5) White racism is not the only kind of racism that did or does exist.
2) Depends. In a truly representative government, a minimum of 51% would be needed to have a decent shot to implement laws and social construct to divide a nation racially. In our corrupted system, .001% of the population can be racist in order to affect change, so long as those .001% are in a position that either gives them power or the money to influence those who do have power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indentured Servant
I often use the analogy of crime. What percentage of people in a city need to be engaged in violent crime to negatively impact the quality of life and safety in a city? Crime is and has been against the law, like the civil rights era eventually made discrimination against the law. However, just because something is against the law does not mean that it prevents those things from happening.....and crime is a perfect example of that....which is why we have police and courts and such. Racism is the same.....people still discriminate despite the laws....and that is why you have people who police for racism.....which people like you call "the race carders".
Within a city? Depends on a lot of factors. I'd say 51% is a decent overall estimate if the change is more systematic, but it can be less. A perfect example is Ferguson. To say that most white people (or cops as the case may be) in Ferguson are racist and most black people are criminal would be insanity. A perhaps better example would be the KKK. The KKK can make up less that 5% of a cities population and still cause damage. However, they will be criminalized UNLESS there is a 51% racist (and white) population that will allow this action to occur. Without that, the majority will overrule the KKK and they will be penalized for their actions.
This is what makes the Ferguson case so bizarre. We have riots (criminals) and law enforcement/racists fighting two fights (understand the the police and racists are on the same side, but may not be on the same side for the same reasons), both claiming the other happened first. We either have racial profiling that triggered the riot, or a riot that occurred form misinformation about racial profiling. This is why I don't view Ferguson as a racial issue; it's a law enforcement and media deception issue. It seems to me the media is more or less acting as an incendiary to exagerating an issue that might only affect a handful of police officers and turning it into a systematically justified policy that is hurting minorities.
The point of all of this is to illustrate the racism isn't as simple as how many racists there are. It's a incredibly complex issue that should be taken seriously and left as logical as possible.
Forgot to add own your high abortion rates, high teen pregancy rates and abnormally high sexually transmitted disease rates.
Most of these problems can be traced back to the policies of the Democratic party that go all the way back to the 1960's. All of these issues go back to the destruction of the Black family. Not only did bad democratic policies hurt the Black families but also White Flight and the flooding of drugs in the Black community at an astronomical rate. All of that has certainly taken a toll on the Black community. It also doesn't help that the so called "Black leaders" do very little to try and improve the issues in the Black community. People like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Micheal Eric Dyson are more concerned with getting even or revenge against White people instead of focusing and dealing with the problems in the Black community. Combining all of these factors would be disastrous for any community if that has experienced this.
Chris Rock does make a good point. When you really think about and look at the history of America, it has always been about trying to get White people to become less racist through their systematic oppression. If Whites weren't so racist throughout American history than the civil rights movement wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,175,298 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by doc1
What a load of BS. So
So who does get the money? Somebody else that didn't work for it?
You're misquoting me--those are Chris Rock's words.
Though, I do agree with them. The point he's trying to make is that it is tainted money, built on the backs of oppression. In a perfect world, no one should have access to it. In a more realistic one, it should be rightfully redistributed.
You're misquoting me--those are Chris Rock's words.
Though, I do agree with them. The point he's trying to make is that it is tainted money, built on the backs of oppression. In a perfect world, no one should have access to it. In a more realistic one, it should be rightfully redistributed.
if, for instance, my dad started a business from the ground up and left the inheritance to me..
how was that money 'tainted' and 'built on the backs of oppression,' whatever the eff that means
how should it be 'rightfully distributed'? who exactly has the 'right' to it?
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.
