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.
Its not about guilt, its about our history and how we got to this point. The effort to destroy Black communities did not end 100 years ago.
Take for example Richmond VA. When a person drives on I-95/I-64 they see desolation on the north side of downtown. It wasn't always that way. When the interstates were put in, they were placed through Jackson Ward - a thriving Black community. The interstates destroyed businesses, churches, homes - 100 years of wealth built up since emancipation. As for the homes which weren't destroyed, who wants to live in a house which is next to an interstate by the rear door? It destroyed that wealth also.
Then a decade later when 146 and 195 were put in as an expressway, the original plan was to put it on the south side of the James River as a parkway. Instead, it was put in north of the James River and again destroying a middle class Black neighborhood that had been built up since the 1920's.
Richmond is still dealing with the fallout of these decisions made when Blacks could not serve on the planning commissions.
We have come a long way, but we have miles to go.
Agree, history matters. Truth telling matters.
THE CLOSING OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY'S SCHOOLS
Quote:
After Virginia's school-closing law was ruled unconstitutional in January 1959, the General Assembly repealed the compulsory school attendance law and gave the state's counties and cities the option of operating public schools—the “local option” allowed officials to choose to close public schools. Most localities, some after legal disputes, moved to integrate their school systems. That was not the case in Prince Edward County, however. Ordered by two courts on May 1, 1959, to integrate its schools, the county instead closed its entire public school system.
There was no gallantry to the old south. It was a criminal enterprise from day one based on theft, oppression, terror, and cruelty.
The Old South was only gallant and charming if you were White and had a decent amount of money. If you were Black, it was a dictatorship. From slavery to Jim Crow. The Old South way of life was based on theft, oppression, terror, and cruelty. It was based on a quasi-dictatorship.
The Old South was only gallant and charming if you were White and had a decent amount of money. If you were Black, it was a dictatorship. From slavery to Jim Crow. The Old South way of life was based on theft, oppression, terror, and cruelty. It was based on a quasi-dictatorship.
It was all propped up by pitting the large white underclass against black people. It's that classic trick where the domineer gives one of their subjects slightly better treatment in order to breed resentment and keep their subjects from teaming up.
The Old South way of doing things was based on "Know your place". "Silent Sam" speech is just one part of that. Alot of it was hatred. Another part it was a plantation-like attitude.
Bragging about whipping a Black woman until her skirt was in tatters (or whipping a woman of any race like that), that just showed the degree of savagery in those days. The gallant and graceful ways of the Old South were not afforded to Black women.
The Old South was only gallant and charming if you were White and had a decent amount of money. If you were Black, it was a dictatorship. From slavery to Jim Crow. The Old South way of life was based on theft, oppression, terror, and cruelty. It was based on a quasi-dictatorship.
It was all propped up by pitting the large white underclass against black people. It's that classic trick where the domineer gives one of their subjects slightly better treatment in order to breed resentment and keep their subjects from teaming up.
Some of this is definitely true. This move was tried as far back as antebellum times. The White underclass was poor, often uneducated, and living on the fringes. On the flip side, the aristocracy, who needed slavery, had to convince poor Whites that keeping Blacks enslaved was a good thing for them. The idea was "well, you're poor, but at least you're White".
Alot of this seems heavily ironic. Growing up in the late 1990s/early 2000s, the most racist individuals I ran into (the most overtly racist) individuals I ran into weren't dirt-poor White people. It tended to be working class/lower middle class individuals. It also tended to be the kids who were the slacker types, the kids who were going nowhere, didn't seem to care. These were often the kids who would do barely enough in school to get by.
On another note, many kids who treated me badly tended to be very pro-Confederate (I grew up in Georgia). I hardly ever saw rich White kids sporting Confederate flags. If I went into the newer subdivisions (late 1990s/early 2000s was a major growth spurt for metro Atlanta), the places where houses were worth $300,000 (in 2000 money), no Confederate flag. I go into the areas with older houses (like built in 1975 or earlier), I was more likely to see such Confederate nonsense.
Considering what the Confederate cause's goals were, it was mainly for the southern gentry of the Old South. And there were southern gentry who spoke of the north as if "the north debases its own race by having the work in the factories". As bad as many northern factory workers had it, there were more poverty among southern Whites than northern Whites. There was also a more stark contrast in the South. A few people had money, everyone else who was free was often poor or a few steps from being there.
If no one is murdered, there is no genocide....right?
But if we're changing the definition of genocide, then we'd have to agree that there is a genocide campaign against white people in the west, since their birth rates are declining, the media industrial complex has had a "hate whitey" campaign going in full force for the past decade, and minority criminals disproportionately target white victims for robbery, rape, and murder. Is that genocide too?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
2) Diversity is terrible, and you agree.
Of course it's terrible, I'm surprised to see you admit that fact.
I assumed you were a typical leftist, but maybe you're more complex?
Birds of a feather flock together, common sense.
Racial/ethnic groups need their own separate spaces and/or nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
3) They were seen as intellectually and morally inferior. That they were better off as slaves than free. That they could not live with whites without perpetual conflict. And that they couldn't be trusted to vote for the common interests.
And much of that is still true today.
All race problems are resolved when racial groups are separated and have their own spaces/nations.
Same with religious or ethnic conflicts.
Separate spaces and strong borders make for friendly neighborhoods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
4) You claimed the automobile was invented by Americans, it wasn't.
The mass manufactured automobile was an American phenomenon. I won't get into semantics about who invented what. One could say Leonardo Da Vinci was the first to design an automobile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
5) Technically the smallpox vaccine was developed by the British Doctor, Edward Jenner, in 1796.
I'm not sure if that would be considered a true vaccine in the modern sense.
They were simply introducing weaker versions of a disease or a similar less lethal disease to a person so they will be immune to potentially more virulent strains later on. It was pretty crude and the inoculations were not produced in a sterile environment or laboratory setting. During the Revolutionary War in America, they would find smallpox patients who had the fewest symptoms and would stick needles in their pox blisters and then take the needles out and stick them in healthy persons for their "vaccination".
George Washington was inoculating American troops for smallpox two decades before Jenner "invented" his vaccine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
So Napoleon would rather be living in a modern ghetto than his France? I hate this ignorant argument by conservatives because it presupposes that the only end to life is more stuff.
I was simply explaining that almost everyone in America today has access to the same resources.
The only difference between rich and poor is that rich folks can access the fancier, more gourmet versions of everything, but anyone in America can essentially access the same resources.
A poor person will fly coach, a rich man will fly in a private jet.
But anyone in America can fly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Americans could be twice as rich as they are now, and if anything they would be less happy, more drug-addicted, more suicidal, more lonely, etc.
And it's one of the reasons I can't look at the 1920s fondly, or the 1950s (I was born in the 1980s). I can't look at the antebellum South or the anything related to the Old South in a positive light.
All of that absurdity stems from the Lost Cause mythologies & nonsensical romanticism of ‘Gone with the Wind’ & the like.
The first time I ever saw Gone With the Wind, I was in high school. My U.S. History teacher played it in class. I've never watched it since. The Lost Cause mythology, in my view, served two purposes:
1) To pass off Jim Crow propaganda in inculcate kids with it.
2) To help the Old South assuage its self-esteem after being soundly beaten in the Civil War.
The late 19th century/early 20th century South couldn't deal with losing the war. It couldn't deal with people who were once slaves now being free. It was also poorer than the rest of the USA.
So many textbooks would tell lies about the war, all the way up to the 1970s.
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.
