Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Calculating "black wealth" but excluding rims. That's funny.
Feminism and why it's bad.
- Thread starter Beaushizzle
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
LordAshur
Banned
Implying that people holding power actually trouble themselves with racial or sexual discrimination (which only makes it harder for them to earn money and increase/maintain their power) is nonsense.
These charts only show the situation in the US. And for the only group which doesn't have it's average constantly downgraded by the arrival of new, mostly impoverished immigrants to have the highest average isn't really an indicator of racial discrimination.
As for the differences by household types, there isn't much of a difference between the white male and white female income. It's impossible for it to be the same, and these numbers certainly do point towards equality.
These charts only show the situation in the US. And for the only group which doesn't have it's average constantly downgraded by the arrival of new, mostly impoverished immigrants to have the highest average isn't really an indicator of racial discrimination.
As for the differences by household types, there isn't much of a difference between the white male and white female income. It's impossible for it to be the same, and these numbers certainly do point towards equality.
And that is one racist-ass remark.Cimmerian Nights said:
Hispanic people are by and large more recent immigrants than black people, and yet have a much larger share of American wealth. In fact, a lot of non-hispanic white people are also more recent immigrants than the vast majority of black people, the slave trade having ended in the early 19th century but massive immigration of Europeans happening through the post-World War 2 years. Racial composition of US immigrants (note that white includes Hispanic in this case -- racial terms are malleable):
Of the foreign born in the United States in 2013, 48 percent reported their race as white, 26 percent as Asian, 9 percent as black, and 15 percent as some other race; more than 2 percent reported having two or more races.
So no, your explanation is not actually an explanation, though it may serve to rationalize the status quo for those who do not wish to dig any deeper.
For those who do, they'll find a whole lot of gender and racial discrimination at the heart of these wealth disparities, operating in many different ways. Ta-Nehisi Coates' The Case for Reparatation detailed one such way: federal and local discrimination in housing policy in the 1950s-80s prevented black people from benefiting from the massive increase in housing prices. A whole lot of white people bought houses in the 1950s with massive federal subsidies, insured mortgages and in segregated neighborhoods, which is the source of a lot of modern-day middle class wealth. Those avenues were closed to black people, through both overt discrimination and the passive acceptance of the benefits of a racist system by those in power.
As for the idea that discrimination only hurts those in power, that is an amusingly ahistorical point of view. For the most obvious rebuttal, slavery was tremendously profitable for those in power. Discrimination helps those in power by maintaining their power, for the rather obvious reason that it prevents those not in power from gaining power.
Wealth, actually, not income. The difference in income between men and women is much larger. The key, however, is that most household wealth is owned by men, not women. A different study found far greater disparities in wealth, incidentally:LordAshur said:
from: http://www.socwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/fact_2-2010-wealth.pdf -- again, pre-crisis so disparities are greater now.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Just curious, what black communities have you ever visited in America?
LordAshur
Banned
And when slavery stopped being profitable for the elites, they did away with it. The reason racism stuck around in the US was that it was more democratic than the rest of the world, so the average racist pleb had more of a say in things. But when it became an issue that the elites actually cared for (the threat that the black population and their supporters might become a breeding ground for commies) they quickly became equals.
You couldn't possibly be arguing for the reparations? If I demanded money from the state for my ancestors being serfs, I would (deservingly) be considered a laughing stock. But when black people do it, it's legitimately being considered? There was a word for it... I think it was something like... Racism?
Also, what about welfare? Unless I'm mistaken, a third of Americans use it, and 40 % of those are black. What if the state just decided to ask for reparations on that?
You couldn't possibly be arguing for the reparations? If I demanded money from the state for my ancestors being serfs, I would (deservingly) be considered a laughing stock. But when black people do it, it's legitimately being considered? There was a word for it... I think it was something like... Racism?
Also, what about welfare? Unless I'm mistaken, a third of Americans use it, and 40 % of those are black. What if the state just decided to ask for reparations on that?
Yeah it just took a small tinny civil war, but that's not really important I guess. Pfff. A bunch of people playing with their rifles in the mud I assume.
Just curious, do you always deflect when the racism inherent in your jokes is pointed out by others? Regardless, data shows: black people spend far less on vehicle purchases each year than white people or any other racial group. Because, you know, they have far less money.
This is, again, a hilariously ahistorical view of things. Slavery wasn't done away with because it wasn't profitable for elites. In fact, slaveholding elites fought a massive and bloody war to preserve and expand slavery -- one they lost. And when they lost it, they then fought and won a terrorist campaign to continue to implement a racially discriminatory system in the South, while the North implemented its own less explicit but still thoroughly harmful discriminatory policies.LordAshur said:
Similarly, the Civil Rights movement didn't win legal equality until the middle of the 1960s. The idea that black people could serve as a breeding ground for communism had been around and acted upon since the 1910s -- acted upon mostly by increased and more violent oppression of civil rights movements, notably. Moreover, as the data I've given you in this thread clearly shows, the implementation of de jure equality is not the same as the implementation of de facto equality. Racial discrimination is a fact of American history and the present.
Note that many of the things I say about the USA here are applicable in different but recognizable ways to Europe, too.
It is nice to see that you didn't actually read the article I linked. Come back when you do.LordAshur said:
LordAshur
Banned
Saying that the civil war was fought about slavery is the same as saying that WWI was fought about Gavrilo shooting Franz Ferdinand and his wife.
And even if this was the case, it could be attributed precisely to the less centralized power structure. All the other white countries abolished slavery without a shot being fired.
EDIT:
@Sander
I'm not in the mood for reading such long articles when it states clearly in its title that it's a Case for Reparation. Just like I wouldn't read a hypothetical 10 000 word essay called Case for Genital Mutilation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Both of these things are factually incorrect. Slavery was the reason for the Civil War, both long-term and short-term. Nearly half of American wealth was bound up in slaves at the time. Declarations of secession referenced slavery as the institution they needed to build the American nation on. It was explicitly and repeatedly referenced as a most benevolent institution, that would allow the white race to live the way God intended. Slavery was through and through the reason for the Civil War. You will not find a single respected historian who disagrees with that statement -- that's how obvious it is.
That is not to say that the North fought to abolish slavery. It did not. The South went to war to preserve and expand slavery, because it saw the North's reluctance to allow the expansion of slavery as a threat to slavery. The North went to war to prevent the South from seceding -- they would not have gone to war had the South not attempted to secede.
Other white countries did abolish de facto slavery without a bloody civil war, most notably Great Britain. Of course, they did so after centuries of profiting from it, and only after a decades-long campaign by abilitionists -- a cultural war, in other words. And they only did so after the violent resistance by slaves became an existential threat -- see the Haitian Revolution. Slavery never stopped being profitable for slave-owners, and they didn't acquiesce to abolishing slavery unless they were heavily compensated for their loss of property -- former slaves, of course, were given no compensation for their decades (or centuries, in the grander scheme) of exploitation. In addition, slavery was then replaced by other systems of forced and coerced labor, allowing the former slaveholders to continue to profit from the labor of exploited people with darker skin colors.
The article is an exploration of housing discrimination in the 1950s-80s. The conclusion that black people should receive reparations for this act is left to the reader. You can disagree with that conclusion, but that changes nothing about the discrimination laid out in the article -- discrimination that is one of the many causes of the massive racial wealth gap. Here's another such article by the same author, based on this exhaustive study by Richard Rothstein. There are many others, but the conclusion is simple: housing discrimination in the middle of the twentieth century prevented black people from accessing one of the biggest sources of economic growth in American history.LordAshur said:
ChildServices
Banned
"other systems of forced and coerced labour"
Inb4 he says capitalism
Inb4 he says capitalism
American slavery was a part of capitalism, sure. So were these other systems of forced and coerced labor. In the aftermath of the abolition of slavery, former slaveowners all across the globe sought to maintain their wealth and the profitability of their plantations and factories by (often violent) coercion and force. This involved laborers who were displaced and disconnected from family and support systems and had little alternative but to work under extremely harsh conditions, with wages withheld or so low that laborers were barely subsisting and never building toward a better future. As one example, when the Dutch abolished slavery (one of the very last countries to do so) in Suriname, they brought in people from India with the promise of well-compensated work to replace the slaves of African origin. Those Indians were then stuck in South America with no way of returning home and no support system -- instead of being well-compensated, they were effectively forced to labor for very low or withheld wages, under threat of force, with their only alternative being starvation. Several times, Dutch forces violently struck down any resistance to these conditions. That's what I'm talking about.
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Last edited by a moderator:
LordAshur
Banned
English once again proving that it's a terrible singing language.
Cimmerian Nights
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Thanks for pointing that out, but rims are aftermarket.
You neglected to answer my question regardless.
Slavery had been unpopular for hundreds of years and had already been ruled illegal within Britain itself. Not sure if it could be called a cultural war.
It took decades of political campaigning (starting around the mid 1780s) before a bill to abolish the slave trade went through parliament in 1807 (background information here), and decades more for the slavery itself to be abolished in 1833. I'm not sure how you can measure the lack of popularity of slavery -- it wasn't something that actually affected most British citizens directly -- but could you support the notion that it had been unpopular for centuries? It should be noted that at this point in time, the opinion of the masses were a lot less relevant in policy than those of the elite, and I think we can at least speak of a cultural war among the elite.
The notion that slavery was illegal on British soil is popular but not really true. That notion was based on 1772 the Somerset case, but that case only ruled on one specific case, and did not set free existing or future slaves in England. It simply prevented their removal to the plantations of the Empire -- even though that ruling did little to prevent it in practice. In addition, it came only 35 years before the abolition of the slave trade, and 61 years before the abolition of slavery throughout the Empire. And it came after centuries of the practice of black slavery on the British Isles. So saying that slavery was illegal within Britain itself prior to 1833 is largely inaccurate.
That said, black slavery on British soil was rare, in large part because there were no plantations there.
Rims also don't represent wealth, but consumption. We were talking about wealth. They're also a fraction of the cost of a car, so I actually pointed you to a lot more relevant data, rather than your knee-jerk, racist joke. Smooches.Cimmerian Nights said:
We could talk about the relative occurrence of conspicuous consumption and the reasons for it if you wanted, but nah, you'd rather throw out some glib, casually racist joke.
Regardless, I am not answering your question because A) you know the answer, B) it is irrelevant, C) you always throw this out as if it somehow excuses the racism inherent in your jokes and I'm tired of that bullshit.
And that counters Sander's point how? Ignoring the fact that slavery being unpopular is a myth.
Gonzalez
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
First Sander, now Tagz. The plan is working folks.
Indeed, it must have tingled their SJW-senses.
While we're on the topic of funny feminism:
http://www.radfemcollective.org/news/2015/9/7/an-interview-with-julie-bindel
Put all men into guarded camps. It's cool, they can ride around on quad bikes and stuff, and if women for some reason are still heterosexual they can take their loved ones out like library books.
It's good to see that even in our day and age there are still people who can openly propose concentration camps without everyone flipping their shit.