Thank you, @BBaker.
Also, when you say:
…I am likely to agree with you.
Thank you, @BBaker.
Also, when you say:
…I am likely to agree with you.
You can reject it. But you obviously not referencing МГУ, or Cambridge history of Europe to paint your model. Your perspective is that of a black person growing up in America, and learning history from that POV. “The America” is the core of your conceptual framework.
You are placing yourself in a position of educator about “white people”, and “white supremacy”, but if you were given a comprehensive history test of the said “white people”…I’m fairy certain you would fail.
The following is actually a very good example of that
Do you expect blonds to be found in African slave markets?
Let me break it down
The power dynamics in Europe was diverse nation to nation. Mostly 80% were peasants with virtually no influence at all, and these were slowly converting to growing industrial worker class. There was a very small merchant class and Nobility and Clergy that had the most influence. Colonization efforts were driven by a very small layer of people, who exploited destitute lower classes to man these dangerous and lengthy expeditions with promise of better life.
These slave trading and colonization voyages were largely driven by small core crews that would recruit up to a 100 poor people… with only 30 of them returning back. A third of them would die at sea, and the other third would be laid off at the destination without prior notice, so they would not consume food and water on the way back. They would end up right along side of the slaves in these colonies, and died more rapidly from diseases like malaria, which they were not accustomed to. Some of these crew were free black men living in Europe. Hence crew wasn’t exclusively “white people”.
Africa had pre-existing internal slave trade. While slavery was diminishing in Europe, it was booming in Africa, especially due to export demands. The opportunist monarchs in these nations would capture and sell off people from other tribes and kingdoms. In some cases, they simply re-purposed their internal slave markets, to a more lucrative external ones… especially since in several countries they would simply kill off these captive slaves in ritualistic manner:
European merchants and nobility capitalized on new opportunities by financing more expeditions. The process grew and expanded largely peaking in 18th century… even after abolition of slave-trade… many of these companies operated independently from their home states to circumvent the laws.
As such, the racial composition is coincidental. African slave traders supplied African slaves, unsurprisingly. European opportunists transported these to Colonies who bought these as workers. Hence, we are talking about a category of opportunists. These opportunists were both European and African, although Arabs ad Turks were involved too.
The core driver behind the opportunists was commerce. See my last post about more on that.
Because North American colonies accumulated African slaves, people occupying these developed racial-driven narratives to perpetuate control. These narratives gradually amplified and had some ideological export with people traveling from these places.
To sum up… NO… it wasn’t a case of “white people” targeting “black people” because of their skin color until such paradigm was established in colonies that structured racist ideology. It doesn’t take away from cruelty of slave trade, which was distributed along the capture, transport, and exploitation. As such… such process wasn’t exclusively European… hence you can’t abstract it to just that.
All…African Kings and tribal leaders, European Slave traders, Nobility and merchants that commissioned them, and Colonists that exploited them involved in this crime against humanity. As such, slavery was multi-racial and multi-cultural scope of cooperation, coordinated trade and control by relatively small number of opportunists who benefited at the expense who they exploited on all sides.
Hanging it on some dubious “white people” is a distortion of complex history.
What had to happen would be severe exploitation of Ukrainian by Turks, who systematically captured their people into slavery, and at the same time constant conquest of the boundaries by Polish-Lithuanian empire and Russia, with Ukraine going in and out of either during that era. It served as a Russian buffer for all of the invasions into Russia… from Napoleon to Hitler. And it had the most difficult fate under Stalin.
Hence, what you would find in Eastern Ukraine is a severe distrust for outsiders… that would include various nationalities, races, and cultures. It has little to do with them thinking of themselves as superior, and more to do with them surviving historical onslaught they were put through, constantly having to rebuilt generation after generation, and invasion after invasion… regime change after regime change. That’s not much different in the rest of the Eastern Europe.
Beyond that you have to really understand Eastern European culture as much more direct and much more driven by “collective teasing” and “microaggressions” in order to scope someone’s weakness and strengths and see if they would be a viable and reliable fit. As such it’s actually closer to what I’ve experienced in black community in Opa Locka… in which case for you as outsider it takes more effort to establish yourself as strong-enough. People aren’t going to trust you by default. You have to prove yourself.
Just to give you an idea as to severity of that in certain context, I was groomed for professional basketball in Ukraine at the age of 13, so I would have to play against and potentially displace grown men. So they would light my socks on fire, and urinate in my bag, or dump in my shoes. Verbal abuse was actually a good day. So, until you persistently fight back… there’s a range of exploits that people would run to try to find your weakness and see if it can be topped. Of course, that’s extreme. But it exists in some hyper-competitive settings… very similar to which I found in similar sports setting in Miami… perhaps not to that extreme, but similar.
So, I’m not really sure if we can viably call that racism, although it can certainly be perceived as such and certainly be expressed as such. Eastern Europeans are notoriously much harder to convert to religion like Adventism. They don’t trust very easily. But, once you gain their trust, they tend to be very loyal friends. And that spans beyond any cultural or racial barriers.
Much of the racism is nested in that particular tendency. So, you may have someone walk up to you and ask… “How did you get so much tan?”, etc. If you find a way to respond with some more clever quip … like “Why are you looking like you were sucked dry by a Vampire with AIDS?” they can chuckle and skip to more relational level. In some circles there are people who lift themselves up by putting down the lower ones. So, you have to be much more forceful with these to show them you are not that guy.
It’s a complex world of people who had to survive for very very long time. So, the social engagement rules are different, especially in male circles. Life is a lot harder, and people get harder.
You are trying to enforce some centrality to this process, which wasn’t central, and had much more parties and players in it than you can imagine. Neither it was a “project of race” as much as it was a collection of trade project sponsored by private and state efforts during the era of maturity of sea exploration.
It was largely driven by navigators like Colombus who hyped expedition investors with promises of safer trade passage over the sea, and gold … and spices … and silks … and gold… and when arriving and discovering no gold and hunter and gatherer societies, change the plan and say… ok there was no gold, but the weather is good, and there are valuable plants we could grow and transport back… so still worth it.
And so other navigators would hype investors, or with nobleman bringing it to the top as viable enterprise for nobility revenue stream… all in different countries… all driven by commercial enterprise. And that’s essentially what Europeans were after. They were after establishing outlets for largely agrarian commercial enterprise, which they organized through treaties and localized plantations, which they had to secure with treaties that paid tribute to the local kings.
As such, there was no centralization of these that went beyond competitive European nations saying agreeing not to touch each other’s enterprise locations. Eventually it resulted in the opposite. You will notice gradual decentralization from nations into corporate enterprise entities which in many cases would set themselves above any national laws, and treaties of the country of origins. And these secured their own treaties, and established local laws.
American colonial development is exactly that process. You can’t understand it apart from that process… Unfortunately, it tends to be hidden through the layers of constitutional narratives and various nationalistic or religious narratives that band a nation. But, the only dominant process that drove most of it was commercial enterprise and deciding who runs it. The moment England thought they should had a hand in it, the colonists threw two fingers in the air and said “you don’t tell us what to do anymore”. Same goes for American civil war. And the same goes for modern American external politics and global corporations which sit above the nations now. It’s all about channeling and directing the specialized global commerce.
So, you can’t viably trace the history of that development apart from the corporate enterprise history. The history of transatlantic slave trade is a chunk of development of global commerce history of labor force shipped to Americas. The Colonialism was largely about agrarian and mining outposts, and organization and pacification efforts that would spill into dictatorial control to secure continuum of the commerce. The only rule that made anything viable… if you understand the reference … that “The spice must flow”. And each part of the world had their own version of “spice”.
The entire subsequent organization of local societies was driven by specialization of labor and product structured by Colonial enterprise. Subsequently nations that broke free of Colonial rule kept modeling that enterprise. That’s in essence, the history of transition from post-Feudal to modern world.
So, you could focus and trace the narrative of certain categorized scope of that process. I’m fairly certain that you will not be able to describe it accurately, if you merely focus on the skin color of people involved.
When I was in Ghana in 2006, I visited Elmina Castle just west of Cape Coast. Elmina Castle was built by the Portuguese in 1482 and became a base for trading slaves, gold, and ivory. Of course, the Portuguese did not go into the interior, which would have been a health death sentence. They provided/traded firearms to those tribes, clans, and individuals who had been warring with their nearby tribes for centuries. The weapons merely allowed one warring tribe to suppress another for financial gain as well as blood feuds and revenge.
I don’t know how those in Africa today prioritize mixed ancestry individuals. However, in the Elmina Castle museum, I read where (historically) the native populations envied and considered those of mixed blood with the Portuguese, of a higher social status. Nothing on the topic of race or racism is simple!
For me, it was a solemn time of reflection as I sat in the 2nd-floor chapel that was directly above the holding rooms just before The Door of No Return.
Yes slavery is still practiced today. Around the world and even in the U.S., human sex trafficking has been a blight on the human race. And taking advantage of undocumented workers to harvest and process our food is another.
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you. James 5:1-6 (NIV)
I’ve heard that there are cultures which are organized by these kinds of “rites,” in order to determine who is a member or not.
Usually, they are composed of people for whom intra-group loyalty is critical, and, as well, they are shaped by immense extra-group pressures. This is much, but very distantly, akin to the way that, for example, on The Walking Dead, to become part of the group, someone credible must vouch for you, or you must pass a trial by fire.
(I’m also inclined to think that whiteness, itself, may be like this, in a way.)
Of course, what you’ve outlined doesn’t directly, or even, really, indirectly counter-address racism in Eastern Europe. It “stylizes” it differently.
In July 2019, you and I had the following exchange about racist Ukrainian responses to Gaitana’s success in the 2012 Eurovision song contest:
Prove where I “grew up,” and what I "learned."
Outline my “conceptual framework,” using my writing, only. Show where I speak about “America,” or make statements that are only applicable to “America,”
I don’t fail tests about racism, and I don’t fail tests about how white people typically act, given the planetary reality of white supremacy.
You’ll know that, if you read what I’ve written, especially to you, over the time I’ve been in these fora. I don’t fail those tests. I write them.
Is that the test about which you’re speaking?
Or, are you talking about how Petrograd’s streets were laid out during World War 1, or what the Czar ate for lunch during the Siege?
I didn’t say anything about "African slave markets."
You said this:
To which, I said the following:
You have not answered this question.
You have a habit of avoiding questions, even multiple-choice ones, that weigh against your professed interpretation of world history.
Here’s another one you’ve literally ignored four or five times:
Q: A “British” ship is full of non-white slaves. The slaves don’t like the way the trip is going, so they start to attack the “British.”
Meanwhile, a “Spanish,” “French,” and “Portugese” ship, each also full of non-white slaves, come across the struggle going on.
Do the “Spanish,” “French,” and/or “Portugese” ships:
a) Ignore the “British,” and keep sailing?
b) Help the “British”?
c) Help the non-white slaves?
I first asked you this question on June 24, 2019. That is over a year ago. I’m still waiting for your answer.
Why do you keep avoiding it, hmmm?
So, the answer to your question is YES, because I asked a question about the primary projects of domination that you did not answer.
If it’s not B) non-white people, then, yes: I want you to show me slave ships filled with Norwegian future supermodels.
If you can’t, I want you to quit sticking words like “America” into our conversation. I’m only going to swat it away. You’ve been doing this almost since the beginning of these exchanges, and I keep saying, “I am not talking about ‘America.’”
Indeed, the only way you can safely assume I mean Black is as a synonym for non-white. I’m not necessarily even talking about “African-Americans” when I say “Black.”
Oh, my goodness! The "crew wasn’t exclusively “white people’”? Land, ho!
[A link about Annual Customs of Dahomey, then…]
Great. So, that’s what you assert.
This is a rather typical, politically conservative analysis of the slave trade; the kind that has been batted about for, really, decades at this point, and that is wildly out-of-date.
• It totally lacks any modern ideas about how race functioned in early Western societies, and especially when, exactly, racial notions become operative within it.
• It doesn’t explain, for example, why in the world “Europeans” were in “Africa,” anyway. How did they end up there, doing “trade,” to begin with? Why there, and not, say, Russia, or Italy?
• It equivocates between the “slavery” in which Africans engaged and that of their European customers.
The slavery of Angolans was not an act of dehumanization and depersonalization. What the Europeans did was such an act.
African slaves were victims of internal African wars. Africans did not have an internal infrastructure of chattel slavery, up to which white people just stuck their fuel filler line.
The awesome infrastructural machine that 15th and 16th century white people created, in order to dehumanize Africans, was a wholly different apparatus from the cultural practices of native, warring groups.
The white slave machine was, to use a biological term, a kleptoparasite, like cuckoo bees are, or the great skua is.
Wikipedia gives a good, simple definition of this phenomenon:
Kleptoparasitism [a] (etymologically, parasitism by theft) is a form of feeding in which one animal takes prey or other food that was caught, collected, or otherwise prepared by another animal, including stored food.
The slave trade was powered in part, especially initially, by cooperation of African groups with white ones. This is true.
What is also true is that you will not find a single ship, stuffed to the gills with captive Fon, that was piloted and docked by a Beninese sailor, under their flag, in the so-called New World, in order to fuel a Benin-run plantation.
This should tell you something about the nature of the European slave trade that is significant, but that you’ve left out. Beverly Johnson said it well, once:
The Angolans did not do anything she describes. The White Supremacists did. This falsifies any attempt to equivocate the roles “African Kings and tribal leaders, European Slave traders, Nobility and merchants that commissioned them, and Colonists” played in this brutally racist process.
Your model imagines Europeans as awesomely virtuous and naive. It makes me wonder what kinds of textbooks you got in Ukraine, and who wrote them.
Here’s what you’d have to prove, minimum, to buoy up your argument:
a) The act of chattel slavery did not have the effect of establishing, maintaining, expanding, or refining white supremacy.
In other words, effect of the act – the act being, the transatlantic slave trade — was negligible on the phenomena of white supremacy, as that system was established, maintained, expanded, or refined.
b) “The racial composition is coincidental.” Put another way, slave traders:
were color-blind, as it pertained to harvesting African people, and would have as readily done so to Scandinavians
faced no outrage, in any corner of their representative people groups; ones that took note, or made a point, of the fact that this trade was pointed at people who were not white;
engaged in no activities, as traders, which embodied, were accompanied by, or empowered through, any racial concepts
saw their captives, except for their captivity, as human equals to themselves
did not participate in an activity that, ultimately, would negate all your claims to equanimity and mere opportunity on the part of slavers.
And, like Michelle “The Rock” Obama said, “Good luck.”
I did answer your question. You scope it against the context of slave traders, and you don’t include… let’s say Arab Slave traders sailing there in your hypothetical scenario. Or Turkish slave-traders.
Anotherwords, in your hypothetical scenario there’s no viable way to falsify what you are assuming. Do you understand the problem with such “test”? You can’t test outcomes that you rig
You didn’t, and you never have. What the letter is it: A, B, or C?
You’re saying the only legitimate question one can ask about slavery are ones that involve Arabs and Turks? Are you serious?
You were educated very poorly on the history of the world.
It’s clear that, from your perspective, everything significant that happened took place in a bit more Easterly direction than many “Westerners” commonly hold. But it’s all sated by a logic that seems creaky and arcane, no disrespect.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha… You’re saying that, with your mouth, because you can make it move under your own control.
But you can’t find anyone who believes you, unless they also don’t believe racism exists. I consider such people to be either confused or liars.
Objectively, this is some of the worse historiography you’ve produced. I’m definitely about to jump off of your troll farm.
The only thread, the only thing that one pulls on, and the whole thing falls apart, is this:
There are no inferior people based on skin color
That is the only counter-weight, the only idea that, if asserted and believed, sends the Dutch back to tulips.
Tug on it, and your whole Jenga tower collapses.
From your perspective, one could look at the Holocaust of the Jews during the WW2 as an exercise in mercantilism, presumably, also. How else would one get that gold, those paintings, and those prudish, clunky, second-hand shoes?
However, an analysis so parochial borders on psychopathy. The Jewish one does, too.
You keep doing this, so I’m not sure any other way to explain it to you…
Please answer to me which one matches to closest to describe you:
A) I beat my wife
B) I murder children
C) I steal everything I own
Please only use A, B, or C. Which letter.
Again… that demonstrates that you have American conceptual framework of education in which you think multiple choice is the way we answer questions
All three are wrong in terms of what I was writing about
I’ve explained that they were in Africa as a result of maturity of the age of exploration, which was driven by commerce. I’ve actually specified commerce to be the reason why they were there.
Slavery doesn’t equivocate. I put it on a clear continuum. Some African slavery was better, some not. If you think that having one’s head cut off and draining the blood in ritual fashion is better… we shouldn’t talk
Again, you are looking at the best case scenarios. There were plenty of African cultures engaging in human sacrifices during that era. Slaves were used as such humans in those ceremonies. In other cultures, of course, slavery was more humane and integrated.
It doesn’t. They were cruel and opportunistic. But no more cruel or opportunistic than African kings who sold their own into exploitation.
I wouldn’t need to prove that, because you are are not reading me carefully enough before rushing to answer. Of course chattel slavery did play a big role. I’ve pointed that out. Read again. I’ve actually maid a clear case said that white supremacy ideology (not by yours, but dictionary definition) was a direct result of the chattel slavery in Americas.
In understanding of that era slaves were the lowest class of people. There were poor people. And then there were slaves. So, conceptually, all of the aggregated slaves in North America, for example… structured a scenario in which there were slave and master class. That’s the context in which American racism ideology was developed further. You don’t seem to understand that as you re-project the skin color and not the fact that these people were slaves as a dominant reason.
But, it wasn’t the ideology at the inception of that process. That’s what I’m pointing to. It’s a process that took about 400 years to achieve ideology of US racism in 20th century. But such ideology wasn’t pervasive in Europe. It was a a result and a subsequent tool of Colonial slave aggregation.
I’ve already explained why they were exported from Africa. It was closest. Slave markets already existed. And Africans were more fit to work in North American South, and South America.
Skin color is coincidental to those factors. But, it trained their mindset in the long-run.
I wouldn’t need to prove any of that. You don’t seem to understand. See the above.
Yeah… I think you just reminded me why discussions with you are pointless.
Again… good luck in your efforts, and I hope they have some positive outcome for humanity. I’m making @GeorgeTichy pledge from now on. And I really hope that someone else read my points and tried to understand these.
… I’m sorry that your schooling didn’t include this method, @Arkdrey, of addressing inquiry; one partially advanced by ancient Greeks.
Because of this, perhaps, you assume an “American conceptual framework” for multiple choice questions.
You seem to possess no actual skills in logic. Yours must be what they mean by a Soviet-style education.
The problem with your false analogy is that none of them may be true. For example, I can falsify all of them.
Meanwhile, in my question, unless you’re saying “Spanish,” “French,” and/or “Portugese” ships could wormhole through another universe at the site of a “British” ship full of non-white slaves attacking the “British,” they must do one of the three.
Comparing it to your sloppily-constructed “parallel” doesn’t cut it.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!
YES! That’s what I said!
Of course not. But you have not proved presentism re: race. You merely assert it, using outdated books that made it behind the Soviet bloc.
That’s a gloss. It doesn’t answer the extant question: Why were they there to do slavery commerce?
Africans weren’t the only ones with POWs. How did that turn into white guys crossing the Atlantic with boats full of raped women?
“Better, some not”…than what? Depersonalization?
No: You’re looking at best-case scenarios.
First, I want you to prove that “human sacrifice” was a common way Africans treated their captors. I want you to tell me which people groups did this, and when.
Then, I want to see a form of African human sacrifice that was comparable to, or required
Prove it. Show me, first, Africans considered the people they captured, “their own.” Prove this.
Then, show me how you prove the white kleptoparasites were “no more cruel or opportunistic than African kings who sold their own into exploitation.”
First: Show me an objective measure for doing this.
Second: Do it.
[…skip down to this…]
You would need to do so to prove your use of the word "coincidental."
Any one of them falsifies your claim of coincidence and makes it intentional. There’s no such thing as “an intentional coincidence.”
Sigh. In the future discussion with people, I hope you consider something.
No one owes anything to you. And the only person that can prove anything to you… is your own self.
I wish you best of luck on your further exploration of this subject in history and the present.
To Dr Mark Carr, author of review of
WHITE FRAGILITY by Robin DiAngelo:
Thank you for your excellent book review. You obviously did more than a superficial scan of the book.
“As a diversity trainer, DiAngelo “was taken aback by how angry and defensive so many white people became at the suggestion that they were connected to racism in any way” (2). The anger was coupled with refusal to “acknowledge any advantage to being white” (3).”
I would suggest that the underlying reason for the anger of some of these White people was the fact that they were coerced to attend DiAngelo’s diversity classes which were probably little more than a tirade against the “evil White man”. Ms. DiAngelo may or may not have suggested that other races in attendance to her indoctrination classes could be racist as well. But she almost certainly did not tell the darker ones that they were racists simply because of their skin color. I have reason to believe that she almost certainly did tell the White people that they were all (every single one) congenital racists by reason of their White birth, an obvious absurdity, that contradicts both science and common sense.
Besides suggesting that she get a real job that doesn’t require people’s forced attendance to an Orwellian style indoctrination day camp, I would also suggest that she be coerced to attend a lecture from the other side, and see if she gets angry. Maybe we could get Paul Kersey:
Here is an internet link that indicates that these classes are not benign, and not free of coerced attendance.
@Arkdrey: Who do you think I am? Do you consider yours words of wisdom to me?
I want you to consider something: You can construct an entire worldview around anything, including the omnipotence of capital.
Capital, itself, doesn’t do anything, though. Capital is driven by views of the world that must accompany it, beginning with the belief that there is such a thing as capital. Its vigor is not self-evident and its movement is never agnostic.
All the best, friend.
They absolutely are pointless if you believe that the fact you can spell words means I should believe what they say.
Thank you. I need all the help doing that I can get.
Whoa, whoa: Don’t do anything extreme, now!
I feel the same way. Maybe that person will explain them to me, as well!
It’s been my experience that taking the time to listen to the stories of persons of color is the pathway to insight, understanding and conversation. This is the thing many whites do not quite get: They know our stories pretty well because this society has taken those stories and created our culture. Our culture is certainly not “evil” or all bad, but it is flawed. They see the flaws better than we do because they live with them every day. Unless we ask them through their storytelling to share how they are affected by those “flaws,” we cannot connect. Persons of color who died in our many wars love this country, just as many of us love our families and our parents, even though they are flawed. We may never get to “perfection,” whatever that is, but can we do better? I think so.
WHITE FRAGILITY and WHITE SUPREMACY and SYSTEMIC RACIM:
Can we have both White fragility and White supremacy supremacy as claimed in the book?
When considering that question, honest inquirers will be led to the conclusion that it is unlikely that a people will remain supreme after they have become fragile.
I suggest that WHITE FRAGILITY is real because we have lost our hold (voluntarily) on WHITE SUPREMACY. We gave it up in our attempt to uplift Black people. But we have failed miserably in our attempt to uplift anybody through affirmative action. From the ongoing riots it is plain to see that affirmative action (reverse discrimination) is a failure, and has left the Black race as wretched and miserable as ever. But Whites no longer rule. We are left with WHITE FRAGILITY and BLACK WRETCHEDNESS.
We are also left with RACISM, both BLACK AND WHITE, which thanks to the destruction of property and loss of life at the hands of BLM and Antifa, has grown far worse these last few months. BLM is unlikely to get what it wants, which is Black supremacy. BLM will be left with the hatred they have so viciously sown.
White Supremacy is a thing of the past. Those days are long gone.
White People cower in fear as BLM gangsters and ANTIFA Communists continue to “protest” violently and viciously over the accidental death of George Floyd, who died from a drug overdose during his arrest. (Fentanyl and methamphetamine are an increasingly lethal combination.) White homeowners in Missouri are prosecuted for using a firearm to defend their home in a gated community while rioters “protest” on their lawn after breaking down the gates. (The homeowners didn’t shoot anybody.)
“In the last sixty years the United States has undertaken tremendous efforts to assist and uplift its black population. This undertaking took the form of financial and material assistance, of various types of reverse discrimination, racial quotas in employment and education, preferential treatment of various kinds, lowering of professional and educational standards for black people and a host of other measures. Most of this was motivated by a genuine desire to improve the lives and situation of African Americans.”
“The fact is that our current societal system is actually biased in favor of racial minorities. If truth be told, blacks in America today enjoy more protections, rights and advantage than white people do. American whites are the only ruling majority that has voluntarily relinquished its hold on power and made blacks the most protected, financially supported and privileged racial minority in history. This much is obvious to any objective observer.
(Below are links to the internet articles from which the above quotes were taken. If the links don’t work from this website you can copy and paste them to your web browser.)
ANOTHER OBSERVATION FROM VASKO, who quotes here from the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883
“In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.”
“Notice this: Fewer blacks die in the hands of police than would be expected given the crime ratios. Even though more than half of violent criminals are black, they constitute about one quarter of suspects shot by law enforcement. In other words, black criminals are disproportionally less likely to be killed than white criminals.”
You are of course right; but why do we assume that white people don’t do that. Many years ago they ran a series “Roots” and people were totally paying attention. More recently a book and also a TV presentation, “The Book of Negros” has been making the rounds. That’s just popular culture; but schools are also covering black history and lessons on the black experience, and have for a long time. I really don’t know what else the man on the street can do except vote people to office who will do something about the issues that impact the black community. After eight years of Obama you would have thought things would be better, seeing he had government filled with people who should have known the issues, and had the power to do something. The animosity grows the more we focus on the animosity - you become what you dwell on. Just my take.