(OT) Jim Crow and Black Economic Progress After Slavery

[Pelle Svanslös]

This paper studies the long-run effects of slavery and Jim Crow on Black
Americans’ economic outcomes.

We trace each Black family’s linked census and administrative records
between 1850 and 2000 to measure how long they were enslaved and where
they lived during Jim Crow. We show that Black families who were
enslaved until the Civil War have considerably lower education, income,
and wealth today than Black families who were free before the Civil War.

The disparities between the two groups have persisted because most
families enslaved until the Civil War lived in states with strict Jim
Crow regimes after slavery.

We show that states’ Jim Crow regimes sharply reduced Black families’
economic progress in the long run, largely by limiting their access to
education. We show that gaining school access closed 80 percent of the
gap in human capital caused by exposure to strict Jim Crow regimes.

https://lukasalthoff.github.io/jmp/althoff_jmp.pdf

(Apparently, not yet peer-reviewed)

"The dependence of Black economic progress on institutional factors is
consistent with the seminal work of Du Bois (1935), Woodward (1955),
Ransom and Sutch (2001), and Wright (2013) who highlight that when and
where their environment allowed for it, Black families did make rapid
progress— such as in the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). Consistent with
that, our evidence from the Rosenwald schools suggests that it was not a
lack of demand for education among Black children in the Jim Crow South
but a lack of access to education that slowed their human capital
accumulation".

Bring on the CRT classes.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

[*skriptis]

Pelle Svanslös <pe...@svans.los> Wrote in message:r
> This paper studies the long-run effects of slavery and Jim Crow on Black Americans’ economic outcomes.We trace each Black family’s linked census and administrative records between 1850 and 2000 to measure how long they were enslaved and where they lived during Jim Crow. We show that Black families who were enslaved until the Civil War have considerably lower education, income, and wealth today than Black families who were free before the Civil War.The disparities between the two groups have persisted because most families enslaved until the Civil War lived in states with strict Jim Crow regimes after slavery.We show that states’ Jim Crow regimes sharply reduced Black families’ economic progress in the long run, largely by limiting their access to education. We show that gaining school access closed 80 percent of the gap in human capital caused by exposure to strict Jim Crow regimes.https://lukasalthoff.github.io/jmp/althoff_jmp.pdf(Apparently, not yet peer-reviewed)"The dependence of Black economic progress on institutional factors is consistent with the seminal work of Du Bois (1935), Woodward (1955), Ransom and Sutch (2001), and Wright (2013) who highlight that when and where their environment allowed for it, Black families did make rapid progress— such as in the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). Consistent with that, our evidence from the Rosenwald schools suggests that it was not a lack of demand for education among Black children in the Jim Crow South but a lack of access to education that slowed their human capital accumulation".Bring on the CRT classes.-- "And off they went, from here to there,The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"-- Traditional



Who cares.

Would you give us free money?

We were opressed by Ottomans
--




----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

[joh]

validated

[The Iceberg]

Why do you hate white people and the West so much? CRT is evil, it's 100% Marxist. For anyone who doesn't know all it does is classify everyone as either "an oppressor" or "an oppressed" and you cannot argue that you are in-between. Yes bmoore, no matter what you say you are an oppressor because you are a privileged white engineer and there's zero excuses, you've downtrodden endless innocent folks to get where you are, it's literally a black/white thing. As usual Pelle is advocating evil Marxism, all part of his plan to try to take over and get power.

[The Iceberg]

joh desperately wants reparations cos he was oppressed in the sex museum LOL

[bmoore]

Just add CRT to the long list of things that our resident whiner Iceberg doesn't understand, but can't stop mouthing off about.

[joh]

Mouthing off? I consider Icey to be a flatulist. Not much point in looking for meaning at all.

[The Iceberg]

well you're the sockpuppet sisters joh & bmoore, did you read this in your NYT & The Atlantic subscription?! cos please please do tell us about how the evil invented CRT isn't solely about being a (white) "oppressor" and (non-white)"oppressed"? go on lefitst liars, dare you.

[The Iceberg]

there's nothing to understand it's an invented BS fantasy, it definitely not a theory cos it's baseless and worthless, it reduces everyone down to a "oppressor" or "an oppressed" with no middle ground.

[joh]

pffrtt...

[bmoore]

Good point. CRT is something that can be discussed, pros and cons, but like any topic, can't be discussed rationally with loud mouth (loud fart?) whiners like the twins.

[The Iceberg]

only someone as dumb as you two could say there are any "pros" to the Marxist evil that is CRT, guessing they'd be same "pros" you say there are in sexualising kids and taking them to drag shows, another leftist fave at the moment, right, comrade sicko. Still can't complain, really shows the group you two have no morals at all, amazing!

[bmoore]

And *that*, folks, is why conversation with our whining twins is so meaningful.

[Sawfish]

Just an observation here, no personal attack. This being RST, the
disclaimer is necessary...

When I first heard about CRT I laughed it off as a superficial
reaction--really, a lot like the concepts of transgenderism: made up out
of whole cloth to explain an emergent phenomenon that is not yet fully
understood, or even persistent beyond the intermediate term. I kept
hearing about CRT more, so I began to read a bit more.

If you've heard of Marxist history theory and understand the
historiography aspect of it, CRT looks a lot like Marxist history, with
white culture in place of "capitalist class" and minority groups, but
predominantly people of African descent, substituting in for "workers".

There is nothing inherently duplicitous in this, but it is up to the
individual to evaluate whether there is validity in both of these
approaches, if so, to what degree, and beyond that, whether it is
constructive over the long run.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

--H. L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[bmoore]

Yes.

But it's obvious to me that there exists in America and the world systemic and institutional racism. And there is such a thing as white privilege. That is the basis of CRT.

That obviously isn't the same thing as "all white people are oppressors". To claim it is is just more twisting by dishonest people with an obvious agenda.

[*skriptis]

bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:r
> On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 10:38:53 AM UTC-8, sawfish wrote:> On 11/24/22 3:59 AM, bmoore wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:13:15 AM UTC-8, iceber...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 19:47:52 UTC, Pelle Svanslös wrote: > >>> This paper studies the long-run effects of slavery and Jim Crow on Black > >>> Americans’ economic outcomes. > >>> > >>> We trace each Black family’s linked census and administrative records > >>> between 1850 and 2000 to measure how long they were enslaved and where > >>> they lived during Jim Crow. We show that Black families who were > >>> enslaved until the Civil War have considerably lower education, income, > >>> and wealth today than Black families who were free before the Civil War. > >>> > >>> The disparities between the two groups have persisted because most > >>> families enslaved until the Civil War lived in states with strict Jim > >>> Crow regimes after slavery. > >>> > >>> We show that states’ Jim Crow regimes sharply reduced Black families’ > >>> economic progress in the long run, largely by limiting their access to > >>> education. We show that gaining school access closed 80 percent of the > >>> gap in human capital caused by exposure to strict Jim Crow regimes. > >>> > >>> https://lukasalthoff.github.io/jmp/althoff_jmp.pdf > >>> > >>> (Apparently, not yet peer-reviewed) > >>> > >>> "The dependence of Black economic progress on institutional factors is > >>> consistent with the seminal work of Du Bois (1935), Woodward (1955), > >>> Ransom and Sutch (2001), and Wright (2013) who highlight that when and > >>> where their environment allowed for it, Black families did make rapid > >>> progress— such as in the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). Consistent with > >>> that, our evidence from the Rosenwald schools suggests that it was not a > >>> lack of demand for education among Black children in the Jim Crow South > >>> but a lack of access to education that slowed their human capital > >>> accumulation". > >>> > >>> Bring on the CRT classes. > >> Why do you hate white people and the West so much? CRT is evil, it's 100% Marxist. For anyone who doesn't know all it does is classify everyone as either "an oppressor" or "an oppressed" and you cannot argue that you are in-between. Yes bmoore, no matter what you say you are an oppressor because you are a privileged white engineer and there's zero excuses, you've downtrodden endless innocent folks to get where you are, it's literally a black/white thing. As usual Pelle is advocating evil Marxism, all part of his plan to try to take over and get power. > > Just add CRT to the long list of things that our resident whiner Iceberg doesn't understand, but can't stop mouthing off about.> Just an observation here, no personal attack. This being RST, the > disclaimer is necessary... > > When I first heard about CRT I laughed it off as a superficial > reaction--really, a lot like the concepts of transgenderism: made up out > of whole cloth to explain an emergent phenomenon that is not yet fully > understood, or even persistent beyond the intermediate term. I kept > hearing about CRT more, so I began to read a bit more. > > If you've heard of Marxist history theory and understand the > historiography aspect of it, CRT looks a lot like Marxist history, with > white culture in place of "capitalist class" and minority groups, but > predominantly people of African descent, substituting in for "workers". > > There is nothing inherently duplicitous in this, but it is up to the > individual to evaluate whether there is validity in both of these > approaches, if so, to what degree, and beyond that, whether it is > constructive over the long run. Yes.But it's obvious to me that there exists in America and the world systemic and institutional racism. And there is such a thing as white privilege. That is the basis of CRT.That obviously isn't the same thing as "all white people are oppressors". To claim it is is just more twisting by dishonest people with an obvious agenda.



Hahahahahaha

"White privilege"... hahahahahaha


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ec0ZuKhU4AMdF0w?format=jpg&name=medium

[Sawfish]

My opinion is that when you get right down to it, every race or
ethnicity thinks it's superior, and often treat other races/ethnicities
only as well as they feel is necessary for their own well-being.

It's as simple as that.

So far as privilege, I don't see it as privilege, which is *actively*
granted to someone on the basis of X, but rather a forebearace of
obstruction or purposeful hindrance. I was neverhindered or obstructed.
To consider thsi to be privilege would mean that only whites were
unobstructed, and all else were. I think blacks were obstructed until
recently in the US, but Asians, Hispanics not really obstructed for the
last 60 years anyway.

So I would see privilage as what someone might get awarded to them for a
certain connection or association (admittance to a event based on being
a member of the  same fraternity, discount for age/status, etc.). In a
cartoon exaggeration of white privilege, I would expect to be awarded a
promising job simply by showing my face, whereas what actually happened
was that showing my face caused me no hindrance or impedance.

Belive me when I say that prior to meeting my wife and being introduced
to her relatives, I thought racism mainly applied to white folk vs all
other races/ethnicities; possibly this is what you think, I don't know.
I found out from them an entirely different way to consider race than I
had been accustomed to, starting with the realizatrion that all of the
various races in Hawaii instantly and openly recognized all other races
as different and having differing characteristics, and that to think
otherwise was just plain laughable.

When I first started in SW in LA, I was  hired by a black project lead.
We remain in touch as friends still. There was no one harder, more
arrogant, more belittling than the ethnic Chinese on him, simply because
he was black. It bothered me, and then I realized that perhaps it was
every race vs every other race, to one degree or another. It bothers me
still, what he went through, but how, exactly, do *I* fix it?

And this still seems to hold true after almost 40 years, so far as I can
see.

No shit, I kid you not.

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[The Iceberg]

what an idiotic thing to say, no such thing as "white privilege" and all you're doing is trying anything to excuse the violent crooked corrupt 100% Marxist and now thankfully exposed BLM movement, yes? or is it your own guilt? like the very rich women who originally invented/pushed CRT to try to feel less guilty as being so rich?

All gotta say is I love my White Male Privilege! LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TU50Bz3Ey0

[The Iceberg]

totally disagree it's very very duplicitous! it's literally just a dress up of Marxism, by Marxists. It's purposely designed and "taught" by scumbags to fragment and divide people - as Marxism specifically says you should do that to cause revolution. This is what all the trans stuff is about too, destroying to family unit, as Marx also specifically said. Like all Marx it's incredibly dumb idea - oh yes black people cannot be "oppressors" and white people cannt be "oppressed", seriously how dumb is that?
sawfish, also you do know that CRT teaching is banned in schools in England and for good reason, yes?

[The Iceberg]

curious why didn't you realise this previously about different races? did you think every other race all loved one another and it only us terrible whites that sometimes say rude things about non-whites? know you were a hippy leftist growing up and so an "idealist", as this seems very naive view and totally ignorant of any knowledge of tribes in Africa, Idi Amin or India/Pakistan or China etc. sounds again like you fell for the whatever the media told you/push ie. "wacism only applies to white folk". So was it power of the media again? Should say they do purposely hide anything like this as best they can eg. Indians call white folk "Gorahs" but only know that cos happened to be in right-place at right-time once and overheard it, few weeks later said "oh those Gorahs" to some different Indian friends and they were all very shocked, that I knew that word, was very funny.
Think bmoore is like you used to be, except he also dismisses anything that contradicts that narrative, even if he meets Chinese people who outrightly say the most racist/hateful things about black people or vice-versa, he makes excuses for why it's somehow different, as it'd upset his white guilt worldview and Marxist agenda.

[Sawfish]

No, I didn't know that, Ice.

Common sense prevails.

I think you Brits do not have the persistent race guilt that is
consuming the US. This is based on two thoroughly decent impulses: the
positive idea of making things "right" (I mean this seriously); and the
idea that chattel slavery is a very great evil.

So when the common, naive and gullible upper-middle class white person 
here is blanketed by messages that *we* (although I've never counted
myself in that number due to relatively recent arrival in the
US--grandparents in 1905 or so) helped to enslave people, and that
therefore *we* can make it better by letting them be the boss, run our
lives, set the norms for us, it takes root.

It s a cynical example of their good impulses being used against them.

So far as Marxism, I've read Marx' main works and even some by Engels,
alone. In my opinion they rely on first distorting or misunderstanding
basic human nature and human drives, and then try to advocate (strongly)
for a system that in my opinion can never work over the long haul
because humans do not act in the way they assume. In every scenario
people either throw up their hands and go back to some form of
free-exchange system, or they are compelled by a forceful tyranny, a
police state, to comply with the tenets of Marxism.

It's possible that it might work in a limited social environment: no
outside competing systems, close bonds of trust (family? tribe?) and
sufficient natural resources and limited population.

It's sure not for me.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It was public knowledge that Sawfish was a loner with strong misanthropic tendencies: it was rare for him to even say a word to his dog."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[bmoore]

Racism exists in all races. There is no superior race. But there is a more powerful race - whites. Whites have been in charge for a long time, and while that's changing, the vestiges remain. This erosion of white privilege, which they don't even admit exists, is why Twistis and Iceberg are so pissed off.

> So far as privilege, I don't see it as privilege, which is *actively*
> granted to someone on the basis of X, but rather a forebearace of
> obstruction or purposeful hindrance. I was neverhindered or obstructed.
> To consider thsi to be privilege would mean that only whites were
> unobstructed, and all else were. I think blacks were obstructed until
> recently in the US, but Asians, Hispanics not really obstructed for the
> last 60 years anyway.

Semantics. Not being hindered when others are means you are treated better. Could be a job, could be how a cop regards you in a traffic stop.

The recent spate of violent attacks on Asians in the US could certainly be seen as an obstruction to Asians.

White privilege is still there, even if some people angrily deny it.

>
> So I would see privilage as what someone might get awarded to them for a
> certain connection or association (admittance to a event based on being
> a member of the same fraternity, discount for age/status, etc.). In a
> cartoon exaggeration of white privilege, I would expect to be awarded a
> promising job simply by showing my face, whereas what actually happened
> was that showing my face caused me no hindrance or impedance.
>
> Belive me when I say that prior to meeting my wife and being introduced
> to her relatives, I thought racism mainly applied to white folk vs all
> other races/ethnicities; possibly this is what you think, I don't know.
> I found out from them an entirely different way to consider race than I
> had been accustomed to, starting with the realizatrion that all of the
> various races in Hawaii instantly and openly recognized all other races
> as different and having differing characteristics, and that to think
> otherwise was just plain laughable.
>
> When I first started in SW in LA, I was hired by a black project lead.
> We remain in touch as friends still. There was no one harder, more
> arrogant, more belittling than the ethnic Chinese on him, simply because
> he was black. It bothered me, and then I realized that perhaps it was
> every race vs every other race, to one degree or another.

Yes, to some degree. It's also men against women, and most relevant to rst, thinking people vs. loudmouth idiots.

Humans vs. humans, too. To some degree.

> It bothers me
> still, what he went through, but how, exactly, do *I* fix it?

You don't fix it, you live with it and don't stoop to their level.

[*skriptis]

bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:r

> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 12:31:05 AM UTC-8, sawfish wrote:> On 11/24/22 8:17 PM, bmoore wrote: > > On Thursday, November 24, 2022 at 10:38:53 AM UTC-8, sawfish wrote: > >> On 11/24/22 3:59 AM, bmoore wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:13:15 AM UTC-8, iceber...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 19:47:52 UTC, Pelle Svanslös wrote: > >>>>> This paper studies the long-run effects of slavery and Jim Crow on Black > >>>>> Americans’ economic outcomes. > >>>>> > >>>>> We trace each Black family’s linked census and administrative records > >>>>> between 1850 and 2000 to measure how long they were enslaved and where > >>>>> they lived during Jim Crow. We show that Black families who were > >>>>> enslaved until the Civil War have considerably lower education, income, > >>>>> and wealth today than Black families who were free before the Civil War. > >>>>> > >>>>> The disparities between the two groups have persisted because most > >>>>> families enslaved until the Civil War lived in states with strict Jim > >>>>> Crow regimes after slavery. > >>>>> > >>>>> We show that states’ Jim Crow regimes sharply reduced Black families’ > >>>>> economic progress in the long run, largely by limiting their access to > >>>>> education. We show that gaining school access closed 80 percent of the > >>>>> gap in human capital caused by exposure to strict Jim Crow regimes. > >>>>> > >>>>> https://lukasalthoff.github.io/jmp/althoff_jmp.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> (Apparently, not yet peer-reviewed) > >>>>> > >>>>> "The dependence of Black economic progress on institutional factors is > >>>>> consistent with the seminal work of Du Bois (1935), Woodward (1955), > >>>>> Ransom and Sutch (2001), and Wright (2013) who highlight that when and > >>>>> where their environment allowed for it, Black families did make rapid > >>>>> progress— such as in the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). Consistent with > >>>>> that, our evidence from the Rosenwald schools suggests that it was not a > >>>>> lack of demand for education among Black children in the Jim Crow South > >>>>> but a lack of access to education that slowed their human capital > >>>>> accumulation". > >>>>> > >>>>> Bring on the CRT classes. > >>>> Why do you hate white people and the West so much? CRT is evil, it's 100% Marxist. For anyone who doesn't know all it does is classify everyone as either "an oppressor" or "an oppressed" and you cannot argue that you are in-between. Yes bmoore, no matter what you say you are an oppressor because you are a privileged white engineer and there's zero excuses, you've downtrodden endless innocent folks to get where you are, it's literally a black/white thing. As usual Pelle is advocating evil Marxism, all part of his plan to try to take over and get power. > >>> Just add CRT to the long list of things that our resident whiner Iceberg doesn't understand, but can't stop mouthing off about. > >> Just an observation here, no personal attack. This being RST, the > >> disclaimer is necessary... > >> > >> When I first heard about CRT I laughed it off as a superficial > >> reaction--really, a lot like the concepts of transgenderism: made up out > >> of whole cloth to explain an emergent phenomenon that is not yet fully > >> understood, or even persistent beyond the intermediate term. I kept > >> hearing about CRT more, so I began to read a bit more. > >> > >> If you've heard of Marxist history theory and understand the > >> historiography aspect of it, CRT looks a lot like Marxist history, with > >> white culture in place of "capitalist class" and minority groups, but > >> predominantly people of African descent, substituting in for "workers". > >> > >> There is nothing inherently duplicitous in this, but it is up to the > >> individual to evaluate whether there is validity in both of these > >> approaches, if so, to what degree, and beyond that, whether it is > >> constructive over the long run. > > Yes. > > > > But it's obvious to me that there exists in America and the world systemic and institutional racism. And there is such a thing as white privilege. That is the basis of CRT. > > > > That obviously isn't the same thing as "all white people are oppressors". To claim it is is just more twisting by dishonest people with an obvious agenda.> My opinion is that when you get right down to it, every race or > ethnicity thinks it's superior, and often treat other races/ethnicities > only as well as they feel is necessary for their own well-being. > > It's as simple as that. Racism exists in all races. There is no superior race. But there is a more powerful race - whites. Whites have been in charge for a long time, and while that's changing, the vestiges remain. This erosion of white privilege, which they don't even admit exists, is why Twistis and Iceberg are so pissed off.> So far as privilege, I don't see it as privilege, which is *actively* > granted to someone on the basis of X, but rather a forebearace of > obstruction or purposeful hindrance. I was neverhindered or obstructed. > To consider thsi to be privilege would mean that only whites were > unobstructed, and all else were. I think blacks were obstructed until > recently in the US, but Asians, Hispanics not really obstructed for the > last 60 years anyway. Semantics. Not being hindered when others are means you are treated better. Could be a job, could be how a cop regards you in a traffic stop. The recent spate of violent attacks on Asians in the US could certainly be seen as an obstruction to Asians.White privilege is still there, even if some people angrily deny it.> > So I would see privilage as what someone might get awarded to them for a > certain connection or association (admittance to a event based on being > a member of the same fraternity, discount for age/status, etc.). In a > cartoon exaggeration of white privilege, I would expect to be awarded a > promising job simply by showing my face, whereas what actually happened > was that showing my face caused me no hindrance or impedance. > > Belive me when I say that prior to meeting my wife and being introduced > to her relatives, I thought racism mainly applied to white folk vs all > other races/ethnicities; possibly this is what you think, I don't know. > I found out from them an entirely different way to consider race than I > had been accustomed to, starting with the realizatrion that all of the > various races in Hawaii instantly and openly recognized all other races > as different and having differing characteristics, and that to think > otherwise was just plain laughable. > > When I first started in SW in LA, I was hired by a black project lead. > We remain in touch as friends still. There was no one harder, more > arrogant, more belittling than the ethnic Chinese on him, simply because > he was black. It bothered me, and then I realized that perhaps it was > every race vs every other race, to one degree or another. Yes, to some degree. It's also men against women, and most relevant to rst, thinking people vs. loudmouth idiots.Humans vs. humans, too. To some degree.> It bothers me > still, what he went through, but how, exactly, do *I* fix it? You don't fix it, you live with it and don't stoop to their level. > And this still seems to hold true after almost 40 years, so far as I can > see. > > No shit, I kid you not. > > -- > --Sawfish > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance." > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Why didn't you just say that you're a clown?

[guypers]

yes, why are you a clown? LOL!

[bmoore]

?

[Sawfish]

Essentially, yes.

My parents never had anything to say about it at all, but some of my
elementary school teachers did and it was invariably a sort of maternal
instinct  to protect the weak. This was in the early-mid 1950s. That's
how I see it now.

And my parents, especially my mom, told me to respect my teachers as
kind experts. So, I believed them; it was stuff my teachers knew about
but my parents didn't. It was my first default position on race
relations, and the US entered into a very pubic crusade for civil rights
in the mid-60s, about the time I graduated from HS.

> know you were a hippy leftist growing up and so an "idealist", as this seems very naive view and totally ignorant of any knowledge of tribes in Africa, Idi Amin or India/Pakistan or China etc.

Generally speaking, people didn't know about any of this here in the US
in the 50s-60s. And to a degree, these places were British (or European)
colonies being administered with a sort of European sensibility, which
tended to reduce the magnitude of the native excesses that we see today.
Or at least the visibility of them.

> sounds again like you fell for the whatever the media told you/push ie. "wacism only applies to white folk". So was it power of the media again?

Not media. It did not start up with the white man's burden thing until,
honestly, Obama. It was there in sentiment, but no one was going around
talking about reparations, pulling down statues, etc.

It was largely thru the education system, and to this day I think it was
well-meaning but extremely naive teachers and profs.

It only got real bad with these folk maybe 15 years ago. It was always
there, but it was restrained. Now that "attitude" the the greatest
social trait anyone can possess in the us, it's in your face unashamedly.

Kinda like US education is done by a bunch of pelles.

> Should say they do purposely hide anything like this as best they can eg. Indians call white folk "Gorahs" but only know that cos happened to be in right-place at right-time once and overheard it, few weeks later said "oh those Gorahs" to some different Indian friends and they were all very shocked, that I knew that word, was very funny.

Now that I think about it, marrying my wife, of Japanese descent,
completely re-worked how I saw race. She  has always seen it that way,
was sorta surprised that people on the mainland saw it any other way.

I really started to notice that east Asian were actually unabashedly
"racist" (wacist) but because they tend to be reserved and fairly quiet,
you never hear this. It's not "Klan-type" racism, but more like "you're
a giraffe and I'm a zebra; *of course* we're different. Anyone would
know that."

Basically, I think they are seeing things the way they actually are, in
nature. They don't have guilt, such as westerners understand it,
especially not the Chinese.

> Think bmoore is like you used to be, except he also dismisses anything that contradicts that narrative, even if he meets Chinese people who outrightly say the most racist/hateful things about black people or vice-versa, he makes excuses for why it's somehow different, as it'd upset his white guilt worldview and Marxist agenda.

Bmoore and you are just jostling each other in the pub, after having
maybe 5 pints. That's how I see it, Ice. :^)

I never really had white guilt, either. The folks I grew up around did
not see the world like that. It was a giant chance to get ahead in the
US, so they basically went for it with vigor, thinking that everyone
else was doing the same, and if they didn't, tough shit on them.


--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wha's yo name, fool?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[bmoore]

Poor persecuted Twistis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sad_Sack

[Sawfish]

I can agree on all of this.

>
>> It bothers me
>> still, what he went through, but how, exactly, do *I* fix it?
> You don't fix it, you live with it and don't stoop to their level.

I feel that I do just that.

The way I see it, there are racial differences, but I deal with people
as individuals and this certainly can trump race and ethnicity. In
short, I don't speak personally with "negroes" at my gym, I speak
personally to Billy, a very amusing man who happens to have dark skin.

So long as the relationship stays in this focus, it very often works out
well.

>
>> And this still seems to hold true after almost 40 years, so far as I can
>> see.
>>
>> No shit, I kid you not.
>>
>> --
>> --Sawfish
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: He talks the talk...but does he walk the walk?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[guypers]

oops, bad joke, you are a very good poster!

[Sawfish]

I missed a part of this and will address that part here and delete the
rest, which I already responded to earlier this AM.

But only for the last 600 or so years!

For shit's sake, western/central Asians *owned* most of white
east/central Europe.

Aggression and dominance are not exclusive to whites, and I really doubt
you'd say that living in what is now Romania, in 800 AD.

> Whites have been in charge for a long time, and while that's changing, the vestiges remain.

It's cyclical and it is evolving. Why beat ourselves up over noticing
this and happening to be in a racial group whose dominance is ending?

> This erosion of white privilege, which they don't even admit exists, is why Twistis and Iceberg are so pissed off.

I'll say this: I've never yet been impeded over who/what I am. My wife
says she hasn't either.

We need to distinguish between being "unliked, unappreciated" and being
forbidden by law from certain personal goals. The former cannot be
legislated, although enough force will cause it to go underground. The
latter is legally actionable and has been for 50 years at least int he US.

>
>> So far as privilege, I don't see it as privilege, which is *actively*
>> granted to someone on the basis of X, but rather a forebearace of
>> obstruction or purposeful hindrance. I was neverhindered or obstructed.
>> To consider thsi to be privilege would mean that only whites were
>> unobstructed, and all else were. I think blacks were obstructed until
>> recently in the US, but Asians, Hispanics not really obstructed for the
>> last 60 years anyway.
> Semantics. Not being hindered when others are means you are treated better.

Look. There was a mid-level manager in a company where I worked, and it
sure as hell looked like he preferred to hire gays. This was gay
privilege, I suppose.

A lot of men like to hire attractive young women; my first wife got her
first professional job for this reason, in her opinion and mine. Was
this "babe" privilege?

And if this is true, was there actually anything legally wrong in this?
It looks like simple human nature to me.

> Could be a job, could be how a cop regards you in a traffic stop.

You are conflating active dislike by others for other as privilege for
me. This I'll never accept.

In all due respect, words have meaning. "Privilege" does not mean
freedom from impediment or obstruction when all/most others are not
impeded or obstructed, either. There are for sure cases of personal
dislike that ***reduce*** the choices for others. But I'm not singled
out for *special* extra stuff, my wife either.

Certainly when I applied to law schools in the early 80s no one said,
"Well, gosh, since you're white, we'll move you to the front of the line."

>
> The recent spate of violent attacks on Asians in the US could certainly be seen as an obstruction to Asians.

It reduces their privilege?

>
> White privilege is still there, even if some people angrily deny it.

Are you suggesting that there is no blind favoritism based on
race/ethnicity among other groups here in the US? Indians? Chinese?
Gays? Rednecks? Women? Jews? Mormons? Scientologists?

To me, favoritism based on perceived or imagined shared
background/interests is what you're talking about, not privilege.


>
>
>
>

[REST DELETED]


--
--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[bmoore]

Thanks.

[bmoore]

That's our whole lives, and our parents', and...

> For shit's sake, western/central Asians *owned* most of white
> east/central Europe.
>
> Aggression and dominance are not exclusive to whites,

True, but in the US for our whole lives it's been mostly white domination. Why did we have a civil rights movement?

> and I really doubt
> you'd say that living in what is now Romania, in 800 AD.

> > Whites have been in charge for a long time, and while that's changing, the vestiges remain.
> It's cyclical and it is evolving. Why beat ourselves up over noticing
> this and happening to be in a racial group whose dominance is ending?

The cycle is long, and many have become used to being the dominant group. They are the ones who are pissed it's ending.

> > This erosion of white privilege, which they don't even admit exists, is why Twistis and Iceberg are so pissed off.
> I'll say this: I've never yet been impeded over who/what I am. My wife
> says she hasn't either.
>
> We need to distinguish between being "unliked, unappreciated" and being
> forbidden by law from certain personal goals. The former cannot be
> legislated, although enough force will cause it to go underground. The
> latter is legally actionable and has been for 50 years at least int he US.

White privilege goes way beyond the courts. Cops giving you a harder time because you're black, you really deny that exists? It may be illegal, but when it's just you and the cop on the highway legal don't matter much.

> >> So far as privilege, I don't see it as privilege, which is *actively*
> >> granted to someone on the basis of X, but rather a forebearace of
> >> obstruction or purposeful hindrance. I was neverhindered or obstructed.
> >> To consider thsi to be privilege would mean that only whites were
> >> unobstructed, and all else were. I think blacks were obstructed until
> >> recently in the US, but Asians, Hispanics not really obstructed for the
> >> last 60 years anyway.
> > Semantics. Not being hindered when others are means you are treated better.
> Look. There was a mid-level manager in a company where I worked, and it
> sure as hell looked like he preferred to hire gays. This was gay
> privilege, I suppose.
>
> A lot of men like to hire attractive young women; my first wife got her
> first professional job for this reason, in her opinion and mine. Was
> this "babe" privilege?

Sure it is. Everyone has biases and preferences.

> And if this is true, was there actually anything legally wrong in this?
> It looks like simple human nature to me.

What if lots of capable people don't get jobs and lots of inept babes get jobs? Is that OK? It's not a question of legality; lots of legal things are outrageous.

> > Could be a job, could be how a cop regards you in a traffic stop.
> You are conflating active dislike by others for other as privilege for
> me. This I'll never accept.

I don't care what words we use, if blacks are more likely to be hassled than whites, that's OK?

> In all due respect, words have meaning. "Privilege" does not mean
> freedom from impediment or obstruction when all/most others are not
> impeded or obstructed, either. There are for sure cases of personal
> dislike that ***reduce*** the choices for others. But I'm not singled
> out for *special* extra stuff, my wife either.
>
> Certainly when I applied to law schools in the early 80s no one said,
> "Well, gosh, since you're white, we'll move you to the front of the line."
> >
> > The recent spate of violent attacks on Asians in the US could certainly be seen as an obstruction to Asians.
> It reduces their privilege?

You seem hung up on the word privilege. Racism is alive and well, and in a white-dominated society, that means whites have an advantage.

> > White privilege is still there, even if some people angrily deny it.
> Are you suggesting that there is no blind favoritism based on
> race/ethnicity among other groups here in the US? Indians? Chinese?
> Gays? Rednecks? Women? Jews? Mormons? Scientologists?

No, of course not. Did not say that. But racism is alive and well, and in a white-dominated society, that means whites have an advantage.

> To me, favoritism based on perceived or imagined shared
> background/interests is what you're talking about, not privilege.

OK, call it that if you like. Doesn't change the point or reality of the situation.

[bmoore]

BTW, I don't mean to belittle or take away from your accomplishments. You worked hard, with integrity and did well. But it's possible that others in a similar situation, with just as much ability, work ethic and integrity ran into more stumbling blocks. Thankfully, that is changing, but it's not just the law that has problems - it's a deep societal issue that won't go away easily.

[guypers]

Stanford asked all freshman applicants to enclose a pic! with their application, so they can limit number of Asians, else it would be 99% Asian!

[Sawfish]

I don't deny this. I'll note that the institution of "police" is one
well worth thinking about and understanding, and will share with you the
analogy that if you live in fear of a break-in and buy a guard-trained
Doberman, this is actually what the police are and always have been in
the US. I think it's different in different nations--it is not a uniform
trait to have police be bad-asses.

But then in a place like Japan, you'll have very little reason to fear a
break-in, and this social reality is what informs the selection of
police officers. They don't need to be reactionary pit-bulls in Japan,
and so they aren't. Here, it's different. I don't know what it's like
where you live, but here in Portland, people routinely, virtually daily,
do not pull over for police. They attempt to flee, causing great risk to
others. These are for the most part white drivers.

A group of Japanese policemen would be unprepared for this daily occurrence.

You see my point, I hope.

> It may be illegal, but when it's just you and the cop on the highway legal don't matter much.

Agreed.

>
>>>> So far as privilege, I don't see it as privilege, which is *actively*
>>>> granted to someone on the basis of X, but rather a forebearace of
>>>> obstruction or purposeful hindrance. I was neverhindered or obstructed.
>>>> To consider thsi to be privilege would mean that only whites were
>>>> unobstructed, and all else were. I think blacks were obstructed until
>>>> recently in the US, but Asians, Hispanics not really obstructed for the
>>>> last 60 years anyway.
>>> Semantics. Not being hindered when others are means you are treated better.
>> Look. There was a mid-level manager in a company where I worked, and it
>> sure as hell looked like he preferred to hire gays. This was gay
>> privilege, I suppose.
>>
>> A lot of men like to hire attractive young women; my first wife got her
>> first professional job for this reason, in her opinion and mine. Was
>> this "babe" privilege?
> Sure it is. Everyone has biases and preferences.

OK. Then it sounds like nothing "special" s going on, just humans giving
preference to other humans as they see fit.

>
>
>> And if this is true, was there actually anything legally wrong in this?
>> It looks like simple human nature to me.
> What if lots of capable people don't get jobs and lots of inept babes get jobs? Is that OK? It's not a question of legality; lots of legal things are outrageous.

Yes, but legality defines the borders of what one can reasonably expect
in a society. Beyond legality, everything else is permitted and
negotiable. It is pissing against the wind to think otherwise.

>
>>> Could be a job, could be how a cop regards you in a traffic stop.
>> You are conflating active dislike by others for other as privilege for
>> me. This I'll never accept.
> I don't care what words we use, if blacks are more likely to be hassled than whites, that's OK?

It's not OK, but in truth, it's not entirely without reason *when taken
on a group level*. The main problem that everyone else has with blacks
is that they do not judge them as individuals, but as a group. I wish
this were not true, but it seems to be, and all races/ethnicities do
this because in actuality humanity is not aligned along racial lines
primarily, but along lines of personal values. The values are generally
the same, but the order of priority and the relative importance differ,
and so those who value, e.g., personal responsibility, tend to be more
alike, white or black regardless, than those who thing personal
responsibility is way down the list.

This is where we are now in human evolution. It is all you can
expect--or rather, it's all that *I* can expect, so I'm neither
surprised nor disappointed in what I see. I see it the same as getting
old and dying: there is at this time no avoiding it, so just hump thru
it to the end as best you can.

Has it ever been any different for any previous generation, or any human
who ever lived?

>
>> In all due respect, words have meaning. "Privilege" does not mean
>> freedom from impediment or obstruction when all/most others are not
>> impeded or obstructed, either. There are for sure cases of personal
>> dislike that ***reduce*** the choices for others. But I'm not singled
>> out for *special* extra stuff, my wife either.
>>
>> Certainly when I applied to law schools in the early 80s no one said,
>> "Well, gosh, since you're white, we'll move you to the front of the line."
>>> The recent spate of violent attacks on Asians in the US could certainly be seen as an obstruction to Asians.
>> It reduces their privilege?
> You seem hung up on the word privilege.

Yes. I am.

Most of the things that bother you don't bother me. I think maybe it's a
basic difference in what we expect out of the world and out of humanity.
I don't see that they way you view the world is any worse than my way,
it's just that I couldn't be effective living in the way you do.

Here's a concept that I think *you* may be hung up on: justice. There is
no objective justice in life, never has been so  far as I can tell. It's
a subjective sense of satisfaction in evening the score after you've
been wronged. For society, justice is the widespread assurance that if
*you*, yourself, are wronged, there are lawful means available out there
for you even the score.

If they are not available, or if they are unsatisfactory for some
reason, the individual attempt to administer freelance justice.

> Racism is alive and well, and in a white-dominated society, that means whites have an advantage.

I'm not trying to be a wise-ass here, but do you feel that Asians in
general are disadvantaged here in the US? I want to be clear what I mean
and honest up front: I'm not asking if they are liked as much, thought
to be as cool, are generally esteemed in a social way. I'm asking what
it is they *cannot* do here in the US that whites can do.

Now take the next step in your head, you don't need to respond. If this
is true, but not true of blacks, then Asians have effectively the same
advantages as whites in the US.

Why then is this exclusively a white problem, as we are currently seeing it?

For Asians, substitute in Hispanics, or Arabs, or Jews. Again, not
asking of they are well-liked: I'm asking what they CANNOT do here that
whites or Asians can?

>
>>> White privilege is still there, even if some people angrily deny it.

We'll have to disagree o n the meaning of "privilege.

>> Are you suggesting that there is no blind favoritism based on
>> race/ethnicity among other groups here in the US? Indians? Chinese?
>> Gays? Rednecks? Women? Jews? Mormons? Scientologists?
> No, of course not. Did not say that. But racism is alive and well, and in a white-dominated society, that means whites have an advantage.

Do Asians share this advantage? If not, in what ways are they legally
disadvantaged?

Can it be that, all other things aside, US blacks have a *terrible*
social reputation in that very many people of very many backgrounds find
them very worrisome to be around?  How can we remedy this?

Or rather, how can *they* remedy it? Or what are the combined steps that
both sides might take?

>
>> To me, favoritism based on perceived or imagined shared
>> background/interests is what you're talking about, not privilege.
> OK, call it that if you like. Doesn't change the point or reality of the situation.

OK.

FWIW, this was a fair and decent discussion, in my opinion.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reality is that thing that does not go away when you stop believing in it."

--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Sawfish]

No problems, same here.

A good exchange of views, fair and respectful.

Thanks.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant was awful--but at least the portions
were large!" --Sawfish

[Sawfish]

NOOOO!


How much worse can it get!!!!!!!

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"He who talks the talk must also walk the walk."

--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[bmoore]

Perhaps that's because it's not exactly true - Iceberg's lies, exaggerations and misleading statements, you know... as usual, the truth is not so simple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#United_Kingdom

Conservatives within the UK government began to criticize CRT in late 2020.[155] Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch, who is of Nigerian descent, said during a parliamentary debate to mark Black History Month, "We do not want to see teachers teaching their pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt [...] Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law."[155]

[Sawfish]

Maybe I am missing something, b, but it looks like the quote you posted
is in support of what Ice had said.

He said:

"sawfish, also you do know that CRT teaching is banned in schools in
England and for good reason, yes?"

He's saying that CRT is not taught in England.

You quote says that "Any school which teaches these elements of critical

race theory, or which promotes partisan political views such as
defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing

views, is breaking the law.", which I take to mean that it is banned.

Is this how you see it?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,
a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish

[*skriptis]

bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:

> That's our whole lives, and our parents', and...True, but in the US for our whole lives it's been mostly white domination.


Is US founded as a white country or not?
Who is supposed to dominate there?



And globally, what white domination when we haven't even liberated Constantinople yet?

So my question to you...are you deranged?
What white domination?

Our greatest city is under Moslem rule and we're only 10% of world population.

Is that how you dominate?




Spain got rid of browns just recently, and Greece is still not fully freed.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Andalus

Al-Andalus (Arabic: الأَنْدَلُس) was the Muslim-ruled area of the Iberian Peninsula. The term is used by modern historians for the former Islamic states in modern Spain and Portugal.

The name describes the different Arab and Muslim states that controlled these territories at various times between 711 and 1492.



So that's almost 8 centuries of occupation, and only little over 5 centuries of freedom.

For Greeks, it's even worse. Their occupation is still ongoing. It started a bit later though.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Greece

The Eastern Roman Empire, the remnant of the ancient Roman Empire which ruled most of the Greek-speaking world for over 1100 years, had been fatally weakened since the sacking of Constantinople by the Latin Crusaders in 1204.

The Ottoman advance into Greece was preceded by victory over the Serbs to its north. First, the Ottomans won the Battle of Maritsa in 1371. The Serb forces were then led by the King Vukašin of Serbia, the father of Prince Marko and the co-ruler of the last emperor from the Serbian Nemanjic dynasty. This was followed by another Ottoman draw in the 1389 Battle of Kosovo.

With no further threat by the Serbs and the subsequent Byzantine civil wars, the Ottomans besieged and took Constantinople in 1453 and then advanced southwards into Greece, capturing Athens in 1458. The Greeks held out in the Peloponnese until 1460, and the Venetians and Genoese clung to some of the islands, but by the early 16th century all of mainland Greece and most of the Aegean islands were in Ottoman hands.



Greeks retook Athens in 19th century, but Constantinople is still under occupation.

So when you talk about white privilege where is Constantinople for you?

The greatest city in all of Christendom (which is another word for "white Europeans") held by...

Go ahead...say it?





This is a Parthenon in Athens converted into a mosque during ottoman occupation, a mosque that Greeks demolished following liberation of Athens.


https://linearbknossosmycenae.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/ottoman-parthenon-1456.jpg



Sadly Hagia Sophia is still desecrated and is mosque.

This is her original look vs now under occupation.


https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f208f27db709e2c7bea3ad25c4d677a8-lq

vs

https://wallpapercave.com/wp/wp4710604.jpg

> Why did we have a civil rights movement?

Jews.


https://jewishunpacked.com/jews-and-the-civil-rights-movement/

"Over the previous half-century, Blacks and Jews increasingly came together to fight discrimination."



https://rac.org/issues/civil-rights-voting-rights/brief-history-jews-and-civil-rights-movement-1960s

"American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC)."

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> On 11/25/22 12:26 PM, bmoore wrote:> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 8:14:25 AM UTC-8, sawfish wrote:>> On 11/25/22 1:49 AM, The Iceberg wrote:>>> On Thursday, 24 November 2022 at 18:38:53 UTC, sawfish wrote:>>>> On 11/24/22 3:59 AM, bmoore wrote:>>>>> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 1:13:15 AM UTC-8, iceber...@gmail.com wrote:>>>>>> On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 19:47:52 UTC, Pelle Svanslös wrote:>>>>>>> This paper studies the long-run effects of slavery and Jim Crow on Black>>>>>>> Americans’ economic outcomes.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We trace each Black family’s linked census and administrative records>>>>>>> between 1850 and 2000 to measure how long they were enslaved and where>>>>>>> they lived during Jim Crow. We show that Black families who were>>>>>>> enslaved until the Civil War have considerably lower education, income,>>>>>>> and wealth today than Black families who were free before the Civil War.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The disparities between the two groups have persisted because most>>>>>>> families enslaved until the Civil War lived in states with strict Jim>>>>>>> Crow regimes after slavery.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We show that states’ Jim Crow regimes sharply reduced Black families’>>>>>>> economic progress in the long run, largely by limiting their access to>>>>>>> education. We show that gaining school access closed 80 percent of the>>>>>>> gap in human capital caused by exposure to strict Jim Crow regimes.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lukasalthoff.github.io/jmp/althoff_jmp.pdf>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Apparently, not yet peer-reviewed)>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The dependence of Black economic progress on institutional factors is>>>>>>> consistent with the seminal work of Du Bois (1935), Woodward (1955),>>>>>>> Ransom and Sutch (2001), and Wright (2013) who highlight that when and>>>>>>> where their environment allowed for it, Black families did make rapid>>>>>>> progress— such as in the Reconstruction era (1865–1877). Consistent with>>>>>>> that, our evidence from the Rosenwald schools suggests that it was not a>>>>>>> lack of demand for education among Black children in the Jim Crow South>>>>>>> but a lack of access to education that slowed their human capital>>>>>>> accumulation".>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bring on the CRT classes.>>>>>> Why do you hate white people and the West so much? CRT is evil, it's 100% Marxist. For anyone who doesn't know all it does is classify everyone as either "an oppressor" or "an oppressed" and you cannot argue that you are in-between. Yes bmoore, no matter what you say you are an oppressor because you are a privileged white engineer and there's zero excuses, you've downtrodden endless innocent folks to get where you are, it's literally a black/white thing. As usual Pelle is advocating evil Marxism, all part of his plan to try to take over and get power.>>>>> Just add CRT to the long list of things that our resident whiner Iceberg doesn't understand, but can't stop mouthing off about.>>>> Just an observation here, no personal attack. This being RST, the>>>> disclaimer is necessary...>>>>>>>> When I first heard about CRT I laughed it off as a superficial>>>> reaction--really, a lot like the concepts of transgenderism: made up out>>>> of whole cloth to explain an emergent phenomenon that is not yet fully>>>> understood, or even persistent beyond the intermediate term. I kept>>>> hearing about CRT more, so I began to read a bit more.>>>>>>>> If you've heard of Marxist history theory and understand the>>>> historiography aspect of it, CRT looks a lot like Marxist history, with>>>> white culture in place of "capitalist class" and minority groups, but>>>> predominantly people of African descent, substituting in for "workers".>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently duplicitous in this, but it is up to the>>>> individual to evaluate whether there is validity in both of these>>>> approaches, if so, to what degree, and beyond that, whether it is>>>> constructive over the long run.>>> totally disagree it's very very duplicitous! it's literally just a dress up of Marxism, by Marxists. It's purposely designed and "taught" by scumbags to fragment and divide people - as Marxism specifically says you should do that to cause revolution. This is what all the trans stuff is about too, destroying to family unit, as Marx also specifically said. Like all Marx it's incredibly dumb idea - oh yes black people cannot be "oppressors" and white people cannt be "oppressed", seriously how dumb is that?>>> sawfish, also you do know that CRT teaching is banned in schools in England and for good reason, yes?>> No, I didn't know that, Ice.> Perhaps that's because it's not exactly true - Iceberg's lies, exaggerations and misleading statements, you know... as usual, the truth is not so simple.>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#United_Kingdom>> Conservatives within the UK government began to criticize CRT in late 2020.[155] Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch, who is of Nigerian descent, said during a parliamentary debate to mark Black History Month, "We do not want to see teachers teaching their pupils about white privilege and inherited racial guilt [...] Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law."[155]Maybe I am missing something, b, but it looks like the quote you posted is in support of what Ice had said.He said:"sawfish, also you do know that CRT teaching is banned in schools in England and for good reason, yes?"He's saying that CRT is not taught in England.You quote says that "Any school which teaches these elements of critical race theory, or which promotes partisan political views such as defunding the police without offering a balanced treatment of opposing views, is breaking the law.", which I take to mean that it is banned.Is this how you see it?>>> Common sense prevails.>>>> I think you Brits do not have the persistent race guilt that is>> consuming the US. This is based on two thoroughly decent impulses: the>> positive idea of making things "right" (I mean this seriously); and the>> idea that chattel slavery is a very great evil.>>>> So when the common, naive and gullible upper-middle class white person>> here is blanketed by messages that *we* (although I've never counted>> myself in that number due to relatively recent arrival in the>> US--grandparents in 1905 or so) helped to enslave people, and that>> therefore *we* can make it better by letting them be the boss, run our>> lives, set the norms for us, it takes root.>>>> It s a cynical example of their good impulses being used against them.>>>> So far as Marxism, I've read Marx' main works and even some by Engels,>> alone. In my opinion they rely on first distorting or misunderstanding>> basic human nature and human drives, and then try to advocate (strongly)>> for a system that in my opinion can never work over the long haul>> because humans do not act in the way they assume. In every scenario>> people either throw up their hands and go back to some form of>> free-exchange system, or they are compelled by a forceful tyranny, a>> police state, to comply with the tenets of Marxism.>>>> It's possible that it might work in a limited social environment: no>> outside competing systems, close bonds of trust (family? tribe?) and>> sufficient natural resources and limited population.>>>> It's sure not for me.>>>> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> "It was public knowledge that Sawfish was a loner with strong misanthropic tendencies: it was rare for him to even say a word to his dog.">> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. But give a man a boat,a case of beer, and a few sticks of dynamite..." -- Sawfish



Iceberg is truth.

[bmoore]

Not if you also include opposing views. Plus, it's just what some minister said during a debate, not like there was a specific law banning it.

https://unherd.com/thepost/report-critical-race-theory-is-endemic-in-british-schools/

The Tories say it's endemic. If it is banned, the ban is not being enforced, they say.

The truth ain't as simple a some claim.

"CRT teaching is banned in schools in England"

is a blanket statement that doesn't tell much of the story.

[bmoore]

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 1:01:47 PM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:
> > That's our whole lives, and our parents', and...True, but in the US for our whole lives it's been mostly white domination.
>
>
> Is US founded as a white country or not?
> Who is supposed to dominate there?

You have a twisted view of... everything.

[The Iceberg]

thank goodness you wrote this sawfish, thought you'd fallen for this Marxist moron bmoore's propaganda and lies about "white privilege", something that definitely doesn't exist and the good thing is you explain exactly why it doesn't exist the same way I would do. It's like saying if you went for an acting job in Hollywood and told the director you were Republican, is that Democrat privilege.

[The Iceberg]

so what if they did run into more stumbling blocks, there are endless stumbing blocks as sawfish depends on your own cleverness, looks, political favour, way you speak etc. people are all different and have different abilities, but you're trying to cover all that over with your dumb Marxist lies and fantasy that somehow we'll all become robots and everyone will be "exactly equal" and all our "struggles" will be exactly the same, if somehow you can downpress and get rid of these terrible white people. You sound like a total clown saying this nonsense.

[The Iceberg]

let's cut to the chase? why do you hate white people so much? come on, you can tell us. You quote this rubbish about cops, yet know fully well that cops stop blacks more because blacks commit a disproporionate amount of crime compared to whites. There's also that inconvenient study from a while ago that showed cops do not discriminate based on colour of skin, as black cops stop just as many black folks as white officers do.

[The Iceberg]

On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 21:01:47 UTC, *skriptis wrote:
> bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:
> > That's our whole lives, and our parents', and...True, but in the US for our whole lives it's been mostly white domination.
>
>
> Is US founded as a white country or not?
> Who is supposed to dominate there?
>
>
>
> And globally, what white domination when we haven't even liberated Constantinople yet?
>
> So my question to you...are you deranged?
> What white domination?
>
> Our greatest city is under Moslem rule and we're only 10% of world population.
>
> Is that how you dominate?

yes despite the USA and the West being founded by white people, somehow that's a terribly bad thing, despite whites only being 10% of the world. This is despite the entire continents of Africa and Asia being fully dominated by black and Asian folks AND even better whites should be removed from power in the USA and the West. Also blacks who are 15% of the USA population should be in at least 50% of the power positions in the country too!

[The Iceberg]

On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 22:29:18 UTC, bmoore wrote:
> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 1:01:47 PM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote:
> > bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:
> > > That's our whole lives, and our parents', and...True, but in the US for our whole lives it's been mostly white domination.
> >
> >
> > Is US founded as a white country or not?
> > Who is supposed to dominate there?
> You have a twisted view of... everything.

you're a Marxist scumbag and what's bad/amazing is you still try to deny it. Let's check:
1) you voted for Biden and hate Trump
2) you defend absolutely anything the Biden admin does
3) you claim to be Christian and post about child molesting and love men dressing as women
4) you fully support BLM - a 100% non-Christian Marxist group (you must love that have posted since 2020 about how BLM were all proud and fully admitted Marxists)
5) you now admit to reckoning "white privilege" exists LOL
6) you reckon CRT is valid
those last 2 are zero surprise but defining proof of what you are! you should embrace this moment, this "CRT/white privilege" thing is like when Pelle finally cracked and yelled "ok I really just want to burn the constitution!" it was very liberating for Pelle, be proud, comrade!

[bmoore]

As usual, you know nothing.

[*skriptis]

bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message:r

> On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 3:53:57 PM UTC-8, iceber...@gmail.com wrote:> On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 22:29:18 UTC, bmoore wrote: > > On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 1:01:47 PM UTC-8, *skriptis wrote: > > > bmoore <bmo...@nyx.net> Wrote in message: > > > > That's our whole lives, and our parents', and...True, but in the US for our whole lives it's been mostly white domination. > > > > > > > > > Is US founded as a white country or not? > > > Who is supposed to dominate there? > > You have a twisted view of... everything.> you're a Marxist scumbag and what's bad/amazing is you still try to deny it. Let's check: > 1) you voted for Biden and hate Trump > 2) you defend absolutely anything the Biden admin does > 3) you claim to be Christian and post about child molesting and love men dressing as women > 4) you fully support BLM - a 100% non-Christian Marxist group (you must love that have posted since 2020 about how BLM were all proud and fully admitted Marxists) > 5) you now admit to reckoning "white privilege" exists LOL > 6) you reckon CRT is valid > those last 2 are zero surprise but defining proof of what you are! you should embrace this moment, this "CRT/white privilege" thing is like when Pelle finally cracked and yelled "ok I really just want to burn the constitution!" it was very liberating for Pelle, be proud, comrade!As usual, you know nothing.

He knows you.

[bmoore]

OK, Skrip.

[bmoore]

Also, try a search with keywords "critical race theory endemic uk".

[Sawfish]

OK, but I've got to say that right now, it looks like quibbling over
wording. You're looking at the quote as if it were a legal contract, and
I'm viewing it as a general statement of policy.

Now, he may be *lying*, of course, but that would be apart from our
current discussion.

But I'll certainly give it a look.

FWIW, I don't see our current exchange as negative in any way. Each of
us is significantly attached to our current position, and so we're
holding fast. This has already caused me to think about the issues a lot
more, which is never bad, always good.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I done created myself a monster."

--Boxing trainer Pappy Gault, on George Foreman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[The Iceberg]

well yes know bmoore, but he's also given himself away just like Pelle did. Don't think these Marxists can help it, eventually they have to "come out" like bmoore did with this "white male privilege" and CRT trash.
In the pub he would've prob been beaten up good and proper by now!

[Sawfish]

Yet bmoore is a thoroughly decent person.

Things are so fucked up right now that unless you are very careful
you'll have your emotional strings plucked exactly like the lawyers with
the concerned moms over the issue of playground safety.

It got even me, who tries hard to be aware of it, when I blithely
criticized Musk a while back.  And he's vulnerable to criticism, but not
in the areas I surmised.

It's so fucked up that the lyrics from that great sage and social
observer, Grand Master Flash run thru my mind:

"It's like a jungle sometimes.
I really wonder how I keep from goin' under..."

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

--H. L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> Yet bmoore is a thoroughly decent person.

No he isn't. He calls other people names for disagreeing with him.

You can say "bmoore was decent im communication with me and I have no issues with him", that would be fine, I guess.

[The Iceberg]

yes, he is quibbling over wording, as usual, that's all bmoore/jdeluise does, but he has an agenda. Maybe you'll realise that out soon enough, that's why made that post with the checklist, forgot to say he even lived in China.

> Now, he may be *lying*, of course, but that would be apart from our
> current discussion.

Think he keeps up this "lying" thing about skrip and me cos he can't explain or defend his own beliefs, so it's like his get out. Also I caught him out that time when he got it wrong about Charles Manson being a mass murderer. That made him look really clueless compared to us and being some kind of weird obsessive he is desperately trying to even things.
He's also trying to distract the discussion from what teaching CRT actually involves ie. whereby they classify everyone as either "oppressors"(whites) or "oppressed"(non-whites). Should say these are not my words but they are verbatim from teachers who teach it. It's literally preaching Marxism which is why you thought it appeared like Marxism.

> But I'll certainly give it a look.
>
> FWIW, I don't see our current exchange as negative in any way. Each of
> us is significantly attached to our current position, and so we're
> holding fast. This has already caused me to think about the issues a lot
> more, which is never bad, always good.

CRT is an evil lying Marxist tool solely designed to divide peoples, there's zero positive to it, other than it outs Marxists! LOL seriously though just ask yourself who does it help in any way to think of themselves as an oppressor or an oppressed? did those white idiot students bowing down to black people in 2020 help anything in any way at all? oh yes Pelle now feels more sorry for himself but his solution is to take revenge and "burn the USA constitution"(even though he lives in Finland).

[Sawfish]

On 11/26/22 9:35 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Yet bmoore is a thoroughly decent person.
>
> No he isn't. He calls other people names for disagreeing with him.
>
> You can say "bmoore was decent im communication with me and I have no issues with him", that would be fine, I guess.
>
>
>
>

I see your point, but I have a different worldview, I guess.

I really don't care what others do if it does not affect me, personally.
Things that happen to friends/family *do* affect me, and so I poke my
nose in uninvited, pre-emptively some times.

Here on RST we are acquaintances--in some cases good acquaintances who
would be candidates for close friendship--tribal initiation and all
that--but this could never happen without direct personal contact and
exchange, preferably over drinking. Maybe shooting off guns in
celebration... ;^)

So if people go at each other here, I stay out, or try to as best I can.
When I fail to do so it's less over attempting to side with an
individual over another individual, but that the particular statement is
so devoid of logic and integrity that I am almost compelled to call it
into question.

I've become aware over time--and I sure didn't realize this the last
time I was on RST--that many who post here live in a VERY MUCH different
social/political environment than I do here in the US. I think where
there are serious differences, a lot of it is that the US is very
different from Europe--in fact, all of the western hemisphere is
different from Europe in this profoundly important way:

"nation" has never equaled "ethnicity" ever since European contact.

So until recently, if you were from France, it was very likely your were
of French cultural identity for many generations. Same with Germany,
same with most nations there. I realize that over the last 60 or so
years this has changed but the remnant of deeply rooted cultural
affinity--multiple centuries worth--is still there, good and deep. So if
a Hungarian longs for the good old days of "pure" Magyar tradition, you
don't have to go back very far to find it in the general populace.

But here in the US, and Argentina, too, especially, not only did
multiple national identities settle (after exterminating the native
population in the US, mostly, don't know about Argentina) but there were
national policies that encouraged immigration from various
ethnicities/nations, and even races to some degree, forced or otherwise.

Here in the US this national reality started about 1850 or so, and has
not stopped still, except for comparatively short periods. I see no real
evidence of this is any European nation until after WWII, and it seems
to me to have started after de-colonization, a sense of debt something
like happened here after the Vietnam war, when significant populations
of Vietnamese (a completely decent group of folks, in my opinion)  were
given residency because of a sort of moral debt.

Now here's the payoff--and it took me many paragraphs as usual. For most
of the immigration period, various ethnicities/cultures were welcomed
here, with one proviso: we don't care what you do at home, but in public
you are now an American and you will appear to contribute to the
American culture.

So you can celebrate Xmas on another day, shoot off guns for
celebration, but it needs to be among your own group. DO  NOT EXPECT
EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US TO RESPECT OR CELEBRATE YOUR CUSTOMS. THEY ARE
YOURS, NOT THOSE OF AMERICA.

And by default, the American customs were largely those of
England/Scotland/Ireland, and that was  the baseline that all new
peoples needed to adapt to *publicly*.

Here where the irony sets in, and it makes one laugh. You were expected
to do to your cultural traditions what homosexuals had to do until
fairly recently: keep them largely in the closet.

And guess what? This worked REALLY well for a very long time! My own
ethnic group has no troubles/complaints, and I suspect that it made
common sense to them: when in Rome, do as the Roman do.

And we were left the fuck alone to do whatever we wanted, on our own
time, in our own society.

I repeat: this was not hard to do and it seemed fair enough.

At the same time you had Jews celebrating their own holy days as they
wished, and no one was expected to say "happy hannuka" to them, nor did
they expect it. Nor did we all celebrate Mexican victory over Maximilian
(cinquo de mayo) and certainly not Juneteenth or Quaansa    , both
recent politically manufactured "holidays".

This all worked very well, indeed, but basically broke when politicians
realized that they could court a block vote if they represented a
district that had a large Italian population, and he favored honoring
Italians by supporting Columbus Day, and this may have been the first
such divisive celebration, followed by many others honoring specific
*groups* within the overall population.

So now what we have is not only out-of-the-closet homosexuality (and
every other sexual descriptor, even beyond imagining), with constant
whining about how unfair it had been before, but now every other
ethnicity/nationality/racial identity is out of the closet, as well,
weeping about how they miss female circumcision, or what have you.

No shit. One the US decided it was NOT a melting pot, but a stinking
sack full of precious and *diverse* cultures, it was all over.

...and my guess is that your national/cultural reality has nothing like
this, so far as magnitude/pervasiveness and relatively currency. What
happened there was mostly in the past, and has stabilized over time, as
it had multiple times in the past, and what's more, the core cultural
identity has remained the same, mostly.

So it is realistic in places like Hungary/Croatia/etc. to imagine that
you can "take back" the cultural direction of the nation, but over here
this only existed as an overlay--a conformity to--Anglo cultural
norms--which are good, decent, understandable norms, work/accomplishment
is valued, personal responsibility, basic honesty. etc.--and that has
only been fairly recently, not for many centuries like in Europe.

So now the underlying US culture--Anglo--is discredited, we have no
dominant culture. We have a cultural war for dominance, and the way
things are, the cultures that demand the least from the individual, and
that allow and celebrate the self, and immediate gratification, will
most likely win out.

Can you dig it, skriptis?

--
--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them...well, I have others."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> I see your point, but I have a different worldview, I guess. I really don't care what others do if it does not affect me, personally.

Well, I feel I was fair enough?

I said you're entitled to like bmoore or even say he was *decent to you*. Whatever. I think that was in line with your worldview.

But if you claim he's a decent person, overall, after he had call Iceberg and myself all sorts of names, well, that's wrong.

You do not fight Iceberg and myself, now do you? You see what it's like for him (bmoore).






> Things that happen to friends/family *do* affect me, and so I poke my nose in uninvited, pre-emptively some times.Here on RST we are acquaintances--in some cases good acquaintances who would be candidates for close friendship--tribal initiation and all that--but this could never happen without direct personal contact and exchange, preferably over drinking. Maybe shooting off guns in celebration... ;^)So if people go at each other here, I stay out, or try to as best I can. When I fail to do so it's less over attempting to side with an individual over another individual, but that the particular statement is so devoid of logic and integrity that I am almost compelled to call it into question.I've become aware over time--and I sure didn't realize this the last time I was on RST--that many who post here live in a VERY MUCH different social/political environment than I do here in the US. I think where there are serious differences, a lot of it is that the US is very different from Europe--in fact, all of the western hemisphere is different from Europe in this profoundly important way:"nation" has never equaled "ethnicity" ever since European contact.So until recently, if you were from France, it was very likely your were of French cultural identity for many generations. Same with Germany, same with most nations there. I realize that over the last 60 or so years this has changed but the remnant of deeply rooted cultural affinity--multiple centuries worth--is still there, good and deep. So if a Hungarian longs for the good old days of "pure" Magyar tradition, you don't have to go back very far to find it in the general populace.But here in the US, and Argentina, too, especially, not only did multiple national identities settle (after exterminating the native population in the US, mostly, don't know about Argentina) but there were national policies that encouraged immigration from various ethnicities/nations, and even races to some degree, forced or otherwise.Here in the US this national reality started about 1850 or so, and has not stopped still, except for comparatively short periods. I see no real evidence of this is any European nation until after WWII, and it seems to me to have started after de-colonization, a sense of debt something like happened here after the Vietnam war, when significant populations of Vietnamese (a completely decent group of folks, in my opinion) were given residency because of a sort of moral debt.Now here's the payoff--and it took me many paragraphs as usual. For most of the immigration period, various ethnicities/cultures were welcomed here, with one proviso: we don't care what you do at home, but in public you are now an American and you will appear to contribute to the American culture.So you can celebrate Xmas on another day, shoot off guns for celebration, but it needs to be among your own group. DO NOT EXPECT EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US TO RESPECT OR CELEBRATE YOUR CUSTOMS. THEY ARE YOURS, NOT THOSE OF AMERICA.And by default, the American customs were largely those of England/Scotland/Ireland, and that was the baseline that all new peoples needed to adapt to *publicly*.Here where the irony sets in, and it makes one laugh. You were expected to do to your cultural traditions what homosexuals had to do until fairly recently: keep them largely in the closet.And guess what? This worked REALLY well for a very long time! My own ethnic group has no troubles/complaints, and I suspect that it made common sense to them: when in Rome, do as the Roman do.And we were left the fuck alone to do whatever we wanted, on our own time, in our own society.I repeat: this was not hard to do and it seemed fair enough.At the same time you had Jews celebrating their own holy days as they wished, and no one was expected to say "happy hannuka" to them, nor did they expect it. Nor did we all celebrate Mexican victory over Maximilian (cinquo de mayo) and certainly not Juneteenth or Quaansa , both recent politically manufactured "holidays".This all worked very well, indeed, but basically broke when politicians realized that they could court a block vote if they represented a district that had a large Italian population, and he favored honoring Italians by supporting Columbus Day, and this may have been the first such divisive celebration, followed by many others honoring specific *groups* within the overall population.So now what we have is not only out-of-the-closet homosexuality (and every other sexual descriptor, even beyond imagining), with constant whining about how unfair it had been before, but now every other ethnicity/nationality/racial identity is out of the closet, as well, weeping about how they miss female circumcision, or what have you.No shit. One the US decided it was NOT a melting pot, but a stinking sack full of precious and *diverse* cultures, it was all over....and my guess is that your national/cultural reality has nothing like this, so far as magnitude/pervasiveness and relatively currency. What happened there was mostly in the past, and has stabilized over time, as it had multiple times in the past, and what's more, the core cultural identity has remained the same, mostly.So it is realistic in places like Hungary/Croatia/etc. to imagine that you can "take back" the cultural direction of the nation, but over here this only existed as an overlay--a conformity to--Anglo cultural norms--which are good, decent, understandable norms, work/accomplishment is valued, personal responsibility, basic honesty. etc.--and that has only been fairly recently, not for many centuries like in Europe.So now the underlying US culture--Anglo--is discredited, we have no dominant culture. We have a cultural war for dominance, and the way things are, the cultures that demand the least from the individual, and that allow and celebrate the self, and immediate gratification, will most likely win out.Can you dig it, skriptis?


Yes, and it's really strange that people are so oblivious to it.

It's not merely a position that all cultures are equally valid, a position which perhaps some new right wing government might not take. It's really an unstoppable process once the "minorities" are 10%, 20%, 30% of population. At that point you can't change it without some action such as deportations or ethnic cleansing.

[bmoore]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 10:38:55 AM UTC-8, sawfish wrote:
> On 11/26/22 9:35 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> > Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> >> Yet bmoore is a thoroughly decent person.
> >
> > No he isn't. He calls other people names for disagreeing with him.

Skrip is projecting, Twisting. You call people names constantly. Are you for real?

[Sawfish]

On 11/26/22 11:09 AM, *skriptis wrote:
> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> I see your point, but I have a different worldview, I guess. I really don't care what others do if it does not affect me, personally.
>
> Well, I feel I was fair enough?
>
> I said you're entitled to like bmoore or even say he was *decent to you*. Whatever. I think that was in line with your worldview.
>
> But if you claim he's a decent person, overall, after he had call Iceberg and myself all sorts of names, well, that's wrong.
>
> You do not fight Iceberg and myself, now do you? You see what it's like for him (bmoore).

I see that a state of war exists and that I'm not a belligerent.

I can see where you'd not think he was decent, and vice-versa, but it's
not my fight.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Things that happen to friends/family *do* affect me, and so I poke my nose in uninvited, pre-emptively some times.Here on RST we are acquaintances--in some cases good acquaintances who would be candidates for close friendship--tribal initiation and all that--but this could never happen without direct personal contact and exchange, preferably over drinking. Maybe shooting off guns in celebration... ;^)So if people go at each other here, I stay out, or try to as best I can. When I fail to do so it's less over attempting to side with an individual over another individual, but that the particular statement is so devoid of logic and integrity that I am almost compelled to call it into question.I've become aware over time--and I sure didn't realize this the last time I was on RST--that many who post here live in a VERY MUCH different social/political environment than I do here in the US. I think where there are serious differences, a lot of it is that the US is very different from Europe--in fact, all of the western hemisphere is different from Europe in this profoundly important way:"nation" has never equaled "ethnicity" ever since European contact.So until recently, if you were from France, it was very likely your were of French cultural identity for many generations. Same with Germany, same with most nations there. I realize that over the last 60 or so years this has changed but the remnant of deeply rooted cultural affinity--multiple centuries worth--is still there, good and deep. So if a Hungarian longs for the good old days of "pure" Magyar tradition, you don't have to go back very far to find it in the general populace.But here in the US, and Argentina, too, especially, not only did multiple national identities settle (after exterminating the native population in the US, mostly, don't know about Argentina) but there were national policies that encouraged immigration from various ethnicities/nations, and even races to some degree, forced or otherwise.Here in the US this national reality started about 1850 or so, and has not stopped still, except for comparatively short periods. I see no real evidence of this is any European nation until after WWII, and it seems to me to have started after de-colonization, a sense of debt something like happened here after the Vietnam war, when significant populations of Vietnamese (a completely decent group of folks, in my opinion) were given residency because of a sort of moral debt.Now here's the payoff--and it took me many paragraphs as usual. For most of the immigration period, various ethnicities/cultures were welcomed here, with one proviso: we don't care what you do at home, but in public you are now an American and you will appear to contribute to the American culture.So you can celebrate Xmas on another day, shoot off guns for celebration, but it needs to be among your own group. DO NOT EXPECT EVERYONE ELSE IN THE US TO RESPECT OR CELEBRATE YOUR CUSTOMS. THEY ARE YOURS, NOT THOSE OF AMERICA.And by default, the American customs were largely those of England/Scotland/Ireland, and that was the baseline that all new peoples needed to adapt to *publicly*.Here where the irony sets in, and it makes one laugh. You were expected to do to your cultural traditions what homosexuals had to do until fairly recently: keep them largely in the closet.And guess what? This worked REALLY well for a very long time! My own ethnic group has no troubles/complaints, and I suspect that it made common sense to them: when in Rome, do as the Roman do.And we were left the fuck alone to do whatever we wanted, on our own time, in our own society.I repeat: this was not hard to do and it seemed fair enough.At the same time you had Jews celebrating their own holy days as they wished, and no one was expected to say "happy hannuka" to them, nor did they expect it. Nor did we all celebrate Mexican victory over Maximilian (cinquo de mayo) and certainly not Juneteenth or Quaansa , both recent politically manufactured "holidays".This all worked very well, indeed, but basically broke when politicians realized that they could court a block vote if they represented a district that had a large Italian population, and he favored honoring Italians by supporting Columbus Day, and this may have been the first such divisive celebration, followed by many others honoring specific *groups* within the overall population.So now what we have is not only out-of-the-closet homosexuality (and every other sexual descriptor, even beyond imagining), with constant whining about how unfair it had been before, but now every other ethnicity/nationality/racial identity is out of the closet, as well, weeping about how they miss female circumcision, or what have you.No shit. One the US decided it was NOT a melting pot, but a stinking sack full of precious and *diverse* cultures, it was all over....and my guess is that your national/cultural reality has nothing like this, so far as magnitude/pervasiveness and relatively currency. What happened there was mostly in the past, and has stabilized over time, as it had multiple times in the past, and what's more, the core cultural identity has remained the same, mostly.So it is realistic in places like Hungary/Croatia/etc. to imagine that you can "take back" the cultural direction of the nation, but over here this only existed as an overlay--a conformity to--Anglo cultural norms--which are good, decent, understandable norms, work/accomplishment is valued, personal responsibility, basic honesty. etc.--and that has only been fairly recently, not for many centuries like in Europe.So now the underlying US culture--Anglo--is discredited, we have no dominant culture. We have a cultural war for dominance, and the way things are, the cultures that demand the least from the individual, and that allow and celebrate the self, and immediate gratification, will most likely win out.Can you dig it, skriptis?
>
> Yes, and it's really strange that people are so oblivious to it.
>
> It's not merely a position that all cultures are equally valid, a position which perhaps some new right wing government might not take.

Between you and me, there is such a thing as social Darwinism. I think
one needs to strip away the solipsistic attachment to one's own culture
when thinking it thru, and you may not like what you find, but given the
current state of economic development, not all cultures are capable of
surviving. Conversely, if the current economic environment were to
change radically, the current successful cultures may prove unfit.

One thing for sure: *without* the current system, there is likely to be
a large reduction in human population. I really do think that most
people who call for another system don't, or won't, think about  this.

It is parallel to the ideas expressed in the book The Bell Curve. Ugly
to certain idealistic ideas of humankind (of which I share certain
remnants), but it certainly looks to be in operation, and always has been.

> It's really an unstoppable process once the "minorities" are 10%, 20%, 30% of population. At that point you can't change it without some action such as deportations or ethnic cleansing.

Yes. This is what is required to *regain* cultural traditions, but you
need both the means and the will. The alternative, which is what will
happen here, I think, is that we'll go unstable for a while (we are
right now), then stabilize in a very much weakened world political state
and likely China will be numero uno. Russia will be insular, like now (a
lot like N. Korea, but with resources), and the EU is a fucking
joke--just like the US, but with nicer architecture.

There is no regaining American dominance. It's gone too decadent for
that.  The hard path is tough, and once you head down the easy path, and
legitimize it, the hard path is unspeakably tough--all but impossible to
follow. Think about it: the reason a culture heads down the easy path is
that it lacked the collective resolve to that the harder--but more
constructive--path. So once on the easy path, it would actually require
*more* resolve and will power than to simply have stayed on the hard
path. And resolve and willpower are sorely lacking.

America will be effectively like a more-developed Argentina for a
significant amount of time. Conceivably, it could break up within 50-75
years. EU, too, maybe sooner. Not China, not Russia.

>
>

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 26.11.2022 20.38, Sawfish wrote:
> On 11/26/22 9:35 AM, *skriptis wrote:
>> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> Yet bmoore is a thoroughly decent person.
>>
>> No he isn't. He calls other people names for disagreeing with him.
>>
>> You can say "bmoore was decent im communication with me and I have no
>> issues with him", that would be fine, I guess.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I see your point, but I have a different worldview, I guess.
>
> I really don't care what others do if it does not affect me, personally.

Fine, but ...

> of the immigration period, various ethnicities/cultures were welcomed
> here, with one proviso: we don't care what you do at home, but in public
> you are now an American and you will appear to contribute to the
> American culture.

... now you obviously do care ...

> Here where the irony sets in, and it makes one laugh. You were expected
> to do to your cultural traditions what homosexuals had to do until
> fairly recently: keep them largely in the closet.

... and now you quite obviously care a lot!

> And guess what? This worked REALLY well for a very long time! My own
> ethnic group has no troubles/complaints, and I suspect that it made
> common sense to them: when in Rome, do as the Roman do.

But who is "Rome"? A 75 year old man alone in his cubicle writing
whatever-phobic rants to RST?

> No shit. One the US decided it was NOT a melting pot, but a stinking
> sack full of precious and *diverse* cultures, it was all over.

You know, "melting" takes time ... But ain't I lucky not having to live
in a place that, if you're description of it is to be taken for granted,
is a shithole.

> So it is realistic in places like Hungary/Croatia/etc. to imagine that
> you can "take back" the cultural direction of the nation, but over here
> this only existed as an overlay--a conformity to--Anglo cultural
> norms--which are good, decent, understandable norms, work/accomplishment
> is valued, personal responsibility, basic honesty. etc.--and that has
> only been fairly recently, not for many centuries like in Europe.
>
> So now the underlying US culture--Anglo--is discredited, we have no
> dominant culture. We have a cultural war for dominance, and the way
> things are, the cultures that demand the least from the individual, and
> that allow and celebrate the self, and immediate gratification, will
> most likely win out.

Poor you.

--
"And off they went, from here to there,
The bear, the bear, and the maiden fair"
-- Traditional

[Sawfish]

Looks like a big un, capt'n!!!

:^)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Man! I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!"
--Sawfish

[The Iceberg]

arrrr capt'n it a great big Pelle-fish again and he thrashin' about claiming you're "whatever-ophobic" this time! LOL

[The Iceberg]

some cultures are better than other cultures and the Christian one is the best. All this is really also result of having a middle-class rich enough to waste their money on lazy kids who do nothing but provoke trouble and invent more divisions, just like the leftist idiots on Twitter who don't do any real job cos their parents pay for them. Don't forget it's very much only half of the USA going down this woke identity dumbness, with any luck thanks to Roe vs Wade making people choose states all the dumb demmies will be forced to split off into the disaster zones crime centrals California or New York or PDX or San Francisco. Then when they realise they made a huge mistake, Texas, Florida etc will have built a big wall to keep them out.

oh yes this is also what I think, F America, I am a monument!!
https://hw-videos.worldstarhiphop.com/u/vid/2021/11/IxXbGBvdaQjx.mp4

[bmoore]

But what ever happened to love?