Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Slavery

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23242526>
Author
Roll Tide View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

NEVER had a STRIKE!

Joined: 18 September 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2652
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roll Tide Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 6:41pm
Originally posted by Snake6 Snake6 wrote:

Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory.

Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins.

The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out.

<Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
Back to Top
entropy View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Future BTK

Joined: 12 June 2005
Location: Brunei Darussalam
Status: Offline
Points: 336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote entropy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 6:49pm
Originally posted by Snake6 Snake6 wrote:

Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins.



Does that somehow make the facts less true?

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 6:50pm

Originally posted by Jim Paint Jim Paint wrote:

Zesty

They argue that until 40ish years ago, everything was still very racist.  Which it was.  So the slaves/sharecroppers came to the cities on the ticket of some program, that I cant remember the name of now. 
(I.)  They are stuck in a vicious cycle and can not leave the city cause the white mans holding them down.  Theyre friends/parents make fun of them when they try to succeed.

(II.)  But now that racism is virtually (at least legally) gone, the people should rise out of the ghettos, get an education, and make something of themselves, instead of living off the government.

I.  <---This is what I see Clark/dune/whales opinion as.  If I am wrong, please correct me.

I actually agree with points I AND II both.  I agree that with the legal obstacles out of the way, that eventually things will even out again, and that the formerly oppressed should work hard towards that goal.

BUT - the direct effects of formerly legalized racism linger, and have left a very serious mark on the young generations of today.  You can't just declare racism gone with an act of Congress.  It will take generations for it to go away (if ever - witness anti-Semitism after all these years).

So to say we "fixed" racism in 1964 is too simplistic, just like it is too simplistic to say that "oe noez, t3h Man is keeping me down".  Both are too extreme, and both are incorrect.

First (IMO), we need to acknowledge the following points:

1.  The effects of legal racism remain.

2.  There remains actual racism today, both intentional and unintentional.

3.  Both of those truths place an unfair disadvantage on black Americans, entirely due to their race.

4.  Our ultimate goal is a meritocracy (to a large extent, anyway) regardless of race.

Only when we recognize those truths can we decide the best way to address the situation.

Affirmative action is one possible solution, but there are certainly others, and AA obviously has its drawbacks.  Simply ignoring the issue and letting time solve it is also a possible solution, although we would have to sacrifice several generations of American blacks in the process.  Presumably there are other solutions that I can't think of at the moment.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 6:53pm

Originally posted by Zesty Zesty wrote:

Take it from a minority who actually knows what it's like to have everyone against you...if you really have the drive, no one can stop you.

And nobody doubts that.  But, as I said before, the issue isn't the cream.  John Johnson was bound to succeed, whatever his circumstances. 

But most people aren't John Johnson.  Most people are fairly motivated, fairly intelligent, fairly studious, and think Algebra II is very difficult.  What about those guys?  Should they also get the same shake, regardless of race?

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 7:04pm

Originally posted by Jim Jim wrote:

have no idea how much welfare pays, or any such programs. Or if people are turned off on jobs because they could get the same amount staying at home and living off the system. To me it seems that we need a program that wil help pay for housing for people attempting to leave the city, so that they can use the job money for food,vehicle, etc.


Welfare is a fiendishly difficult issue.

The principal "welfare" in the country is AFDC - Aid for Families with Dependant Children.  It gives money to mothers/parents with minor children, so that the children don't starve.  Unemployment isn't as big of an issue (but certainly not a small issue), because of the qualification procedure (you must have had a job to begin with that you lost).

AFDC gives you $$ and foodstamps.  More children = more money.  If the custodial parent(s) has a job, then that is offset against the welfare.

So it encourages mothers to have lots of kids and to NOT marry - if they marry a guy with a job, then the husband's money reduces the welfare.

It also makes it very difficult for the single mother to work.  When she gets a job, she now needs daycare for the children, and her welfare has been reduced because of her job.  AFDC can also provide some daycare benefits, but there is a large spot in the middle (where most poor uneducated mothers are) where it essentially would be really stupid of them to get a job.  So the system self-perpetuates.

Originally posted by Hades Hades wrote:

I would have to look up the numbers but I am willing to bet that the War on Terror is 100 times the strain on the US budget than all welfare/goverment assistance programs combined.

Yes and no - matter of definition.  The defense budget is the largest of the "discretionary" budget.  But Social Security and Medicare are by far the largest item of the non-discretionary budget.  AFDC is partially state and partially federal money.

The real question is whether SS, Medicare, AFDC, etc. ADDS to the economy or DETRACTS from the economy.

Back to Top
Jim Paint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dukes of Hazzard is SOOO Last Year

Joined: 16 December 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim Paint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 7:21pm
Off topic-

Foodstamps really irk me.  We cant afford to buy top brands of all food, so we get some store brands, or dont get teh expensive pointless food. (drinkable yogurt for a dollar a container, or the toaster strudles that are 6 for $3.)
So my point is food stamps people get the luxury of food that I cant have.



saepe fidelis
Back to Top
Jim Paint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dukes of Hazzard is SOOO Last Year

Joined: 16 December 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim Paint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 7:23pm
Originally posted by Roll Tide Roll Tide wrote:

Originally posted by Snake6 Snake6 wrote:

Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory.

Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins.

The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out.



We learned about it.  Grant didn't like burning all the farms and such, but if he didn't the money would fund the south.

And if the south IS all about just being independent, why did Lee take the offensive and march north?  He may have been able to just defend the south, instead of trying to conquer the north.
 



saepe fidelis
Back to Top
Jim Paint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dukes of Hazzard is SOOO Last Year

Joined: 16 December 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim Paint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 7:25pm
Whale- you have yet to tell me why Im racist against blacks for not liking the Gangsters and thugs.



saepe fidelis
Back to Top
Roll Tide View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

NEVER had a STRIKE!

Joined: 18 September 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2652
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Roll Tide Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 7:28pm
Originally posted by Jim Paint Jim Paint wrote:

Originally posted by Roll Tide Roll Tide wrote:

Originally posted by Snake6 Snake6 wrote:

Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory.

Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins.

The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out.



We learned about it.  Grant didn't like burning all the farms and such, but if he didn't the money would fund the south.

And if the south IS all about just being independent, why did Lee take the offensive and march north?  He may have been able to just defend the south, instead of trying to conquer the north.
 

It wasn't Grant as much as Sherman. Sherman burned everything.

And it's a strategy, Hit them before they hit you. I'm not saying it's right, but that's what they did.



Edited by Roll Tide
<Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules>
Back to Top
Jim Paint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dukes of Hazzard is SOOO Last Year

Joined: 16 December 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim Paint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 7:33pm
Originally posted by Roll Tide Roll Tide wrote:

Originally posted by Jim Paint Jim Paint wrote:

Originally posted by Roll Tide Roll Tide wrote:

Originally posted by Snake6 Snake6 wrote:

Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory.

Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins.

The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out.



We learned about it.  Grant didn't like burning all the farms and such, but if he didn't the money would fund the south.

And if the south IS all about just being independent, why did Lee take the offensive and march north?  He may have been able to just defend the south, instead of trying to conquer the north.
 

It wasn't Grant as much as Sherman. Sherman burned everything.

And it's a strategy, Hit them before they hit you. I'm not saying it's right, but that's what they did.



Yea, Shermans the one that marched, and I remember the total was strategy. It was pretty violent.
 



saepe fidelis
Back to Top
Hades View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2003
Location: Virgin Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 12983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 7:54pm
Jim, It is racist/prejuduce because your defining the people with whom you label gangsta' or thug off their appearance without ever having gotten to know them personally or seen their actions. I am guessing you havent seen too much gang activity ever in your lifetime. Therefore to judge someone by their apperence alone is prejudious. Then to catagorize the people you deem gangsta into one big group and give it a negative label is racist.

Back to Top
entropy View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Future BTK

Joined: 12 June 2005
Location: Brunei Darussalam
Status: Offline
Points: 336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote entropy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 7:57pm
hades, humans judge each other. Looks are the deciding factor in many cases. First impressions mean a lot. To me, someone dressing that way is dressing like trash. I feel like I should dislike them. If I then get to know the person, my opinion may change, but to say I ought not judge someone based on how they dress is simply not possible.
Back to Top
Jim Paint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dukes of Hazzard is SOOO Last Year

Joined: 16 December 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim Paint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 8:01pm
Originally posted by Hades Hades wrote:

Jim, It is racist/prejuduce because your defining the people with whom you label gangsta' or thug off their appearance without ever having gotten to know them personally or seen their actions. I am guessing you havent seen too much gang activity ever in your lifetime. Therefore to judge someone by their apperence alone is prejudious. Then to catagorize the people you deem gangsta into one big group and give it a negative label is racist.


I think gothic kids dress weird too, and I don't hate all whites.
 



saepe fidelis
Back to Top
Hades View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2003
Location: Virgin Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 12983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 8:03pm
I am not saying judging someone is wrong or following your first impression is wrong. I am saying judging someone of their appereance, then negatively labeling them because of of it, and then making a negative group label for that group solely for their apperence/background/ social wealth/ any category is racist.

Glad to know that if you ever met me, 99 percent of the time you will dislike me.


^^^
Exactly, so what is the difference, Jim? Why is it that you dislike gangsters than?



Edited by Hades

Back to Top
Jim Paint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dukes of Hazzard is SOOO Last Year

Joined: 16 December 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim Paint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 8:06pm
I think you misunderstood that.

I know I'm probaly wrong about most.  I am friends with a gothic kid, but hes not into it like most of them.  And I dont like most of them, for the fact that many sneer at me when I have never even seen them.  The same as when I go downtown, I get dirty looks walking to reds games from "gangstas and thugs".


Edited by Jim Paint



saepe fidelis
Back to Top
Hades View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2003
Location: Virgin Islands
Status: Offline
Points: 12983
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hades Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 8:07pm
What us the reason you dislike gangsters?

Out of curiosity have you ever met a person with which you would label gangser?

Back to Top
Snake6 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Outranked by guitarguy?

Joined: 11 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Snake6 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 8:11pm
Originally posted by Jim Paint Jim Paint wrote:

Originally posted by Roll Tide Roll Tide wrote:

Originally posted by Snake6 Snake6 wrote:

Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory.

Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins.

The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out.



We learned about it.  Grant didn't like burning all the farms and such, but if he didn't the money would fund the south.

And if the south IS all about just being independent, why did Lee take the offensive and march north?  He may have been able to just defend the south, instead of trying to conquer the north.
 

Lee did not make the diescion to attack north, that was Davis. The march north is what screwed the CSA over, the idea behind it was to demoralize the population of the north and turn public opinion against the war. It didnt work.

Back to Top
Jim Paint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dukes of Hazzard is SOOO Last Year

Joined: 16 December 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim Paint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 8:12pm
Originally posted by Hades Hades wrote:

What us the reason you dislike gangsters?

Out of curiosity have you ever met a person with which you would label gangser?


I have never stopped to talk with any, because of the looks I get just walking from my car to a reds game.  I've been offered crack though, but that wasnt the typical "gangsta or thug".
 



saepe fidelis
Back to Top
Jim Paint View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dukes of Hazzard is SOOO Last Year

Joined: 16 December 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jim Paint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 8:13pm
Originally posted by Snake6 Snake6 wrote:

Originally posted by Jim Paint Jim Paint wrote:

Originally posted by Roll Tide Roll Tide wrote:

Originally posted by Snake6 Snake6 wrote:

Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory.

Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins.

The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out.



We learned about it.  Grant didn't like burning all the farms and such, but if he didn't the money would fund the south.

And if the south IS all about just being independent, why did Lee take the offensive and march north?  He may have been able to just defend the south, instead of trying to conquer the north.
 

Lee did not make the diescion to attack north, that was Davis. The march north is what screwed the CSA over, the idea behind it was to demoralize the population of the north and turn public opinion against the war. It didnt work.



Ah, I always thought Lee would have known better.
 



saepe fidelis
Back to Top
Snake6 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Outranked by guitarguy?

Joined: 11 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Snake6 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 August 2005 at 8:22pm
Yeah Davis was stupid for that one...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23242526>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.297 seconds.