White Student Union of Maryland

Original Post

Velair

Jun 14, 2013

Velair

ub3r

Join Date: Mar 2012

Jun 14, 2013

White Student Union of Maryland

I think what they are doing is stupid.
Whats your opinion ?

Oracle

Jun 14, 2013

Oracle

Chatterbox

Join Date: May 2007

Jun 14, 2013

He needs to check his privilege. Seriously.

Whites don't have equality because they're on the benefiting end of racial inequality. Whites are just as statistically likely to commit crime as every other race. The only difference is that White people are statistically unlikely to be in the situations which cause crime to arise. The majority of physical crimes are committed by males of lower socio-economic backgrounds. The majority of people in lower socio-economic backgrounds are people of color, in particular Blacks and Latinos.

And the reason for that is because Whites perpetuated centuries long worth of crime against other races, siphoning off the riches of countries of color (as Europe is relatively destitute of resources in comparison to other regions), but justified it as a moral and biological inevitability because of perceived White/European superiority. This was also proliferated in America with the enslavement of Natives and Africans, then exploiting the labor they provided to reap incredible wealth out of their slavery. And after centuries of stealing and hoarding wealth and maintaining the practices which support the economic divide between races, Whites then complain about how "Black crime" is such a problem. What they fail to realize is that it's not "Black crime" but rather poor crime. Poverty is the number one indicator for whether or not a population will commit a crime. What causes Blacks to be the predominant perceived race for criminality is both socio-economic barriers prohibiting their rise from the bottom rungs of society, and institutional racism in the justice system.

tl;dr: He's a massive asshat who doesn't recognize the benefits he receives from being a White, Christian, male in a society that rewards White, Christian males.

nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games

Agentmax

Jun 14, 2013

Agentmax

Forumite

Join Date: Dec 2010

Jun 14, 2013

Originally Posted by Oracle

He needs to check his privilege. Seriously.

Whites don't have equality because they're on the benefiting end of racial inequality. Whites are just as statistically likely to commit crime as every other race. The only difference is that White people are statistically unlikely to be in the situations which cause crime to arise. The majority of physical crimes are committed by males of lower socio-economic backgrounds. The majority of people in lower socio-economic backgrounds are people of color, in particular Blacks and Latinos.

And the reason for that is because Whites perpetuated centuries long worth of crime against other races, siphoning off the riches of countries of color (as Europe is relatively destitute of resources in comparison to other regions), but justified it as a moral and biological inevitability because of perceived White/European superiority. This was also proliferated in America with the enslavement of Natives and Africans, then exploiting the labor they provided to reap incredible wealth out of their slavery. And after centuries of stealing and hoarding wealth and maintaining the practices which support the economic divide between races, Whites then complain about how "Black crime" is such a problem. What they fail to realize is that it's not "Black crime" but rather poor crime. Poverty is the number one indicator for whether or not a population will commit a crime. What causes Blacks to be the predominant perceived race for criminality is both socio-economic barriers prohibiting their rise from the bottom rungs of society, and institutional racism in the justice system.

tl;dr: He's a massive asshat who doesn't recognize the benefits he receives from being a White, Christian, male in a society that rewards White, Christian males.

While he isn't wrong on how he is approaching such an act, I mean it could be way worse. At least he's civil in his march (way better then a lot of other white groups >_>) While I also realize that this is biased, I also see what he is trying to say. He wants to feel like an equal with everyone else rather then be dominant (heaven knows why). I myself am Hispanic, but I'm also white (Hispanic is an ethnic group not a race for all you slow folks) so coming from the minority side of things why would you want to give up help? I don't like help that much but I'm not so proud to where I won't accept it. But what I'm trying to get at, why are you being so hostile towards a person just because he wants to be treated like equals with the minorities? Is my only question, I mean sure he's giving up his privilages but isn't that a him problem? Why should you care? <---- basically what I'm asking those who are calling him a straight up idiot without trying to understand his point of view

But in all reality... I think I might be insane...

Oracle

Jun 14, 2013

Oracle

Chatterbox

Join Date: May 2007

Jun 14, 2013

I'm half White, half Asian. I know his viewpoint. He's still an idiot. Whether or not he realizes he is one is another question, and whether or not he intended to come off as one is another one as well. But is he an idiot? Yes he is.

If he wanted to be treated equally with other races, he would not be patrolling campus to stop "Black crime". He's already given crime committed by Black people a different label than if another race has committed it, so he's already tiered the system. If he was purely patrolling the campus to stop crime, it would be acceptable. But it's the fact he has to differentiate crime committed by Blacks and crime committed by others is what makes him an idiot. Crime is crime, it doesn't matter against what race or by what race. But he's made it a race issue, when it shouldn't be a race issue.

And it's the fact that he perceives a threat against Whites by "Black crime", when the majority of crime committed by Black people are directed against other Black people. He's done his research, but not all of it. He only looked as far as he wanted to justify his fears, and then acted on them. For that, he's an idiot.

And why should I care? I care because it's people like him that cause the worst hurts in society. He may be well-meaning, and he may not realize he comes off as a racist prick, but no matter how well-meaning he is, he is still a racist prick. And he will cause trouble and hurt because of it. I've experienced racial discrimination, and it is the most unpleasant experience I've ever had. And it's because of people like him that I experienced it. They mean well, but they don't realize just how wrong they are. As the saying goes, the Devil comes with praises to the Lord on his lips. He is no different.

nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games

ImmortalCow

Jun 14, 2013

ImmortalCow

NON-EXISTING!

Join Date: May 2012

Jun 14, 2013

I like how the professor defends the existence of the Black/Hispanic/Muslim Student Unions but thinks the White Student Union is completely racist. Encouraging disparity, so long as the dirty cisprivilieged whites aren't the ones doing it!

It reminds me of the feminists saying "men are pigs"...

Originally Posted by Oracle

He needs to check his privilege. Seriously.

Whites don't have equality because they're on the benefiting end of racial inequality. Whites are just as statistically likely to commit crime as every other race. The only difference is that White people are statistically unlikely to be in the situations which cause crime to arise. The majority of physical crimes are committed by males of lower socio-economic backgrounds. The majority of people in lower socio-economic backgrounds are people of color, in particular Blacks and Latinos.

Actually Asians are on the "benefiting end" in that case, since their income is above whites.

I think a lot of disparity is just myths. How can someone honestly say "all blacks and Hispanics (but not Asians) are just being discriminated against which is why the disparity exists"
Isn't it more likely to be because most white parents expect their children to go to college, where as blacks seem to value things like basketball, gangs, dealing drugs, etc... Looks like the stats are definitely skewed by a lot of people who are doing things other than working or studying...

Originally Posted by Oracle

And the reason for that is because Whites perpetuated centuries long worth of crime against other races, siphoning off the riches of countries of color (as Europe is relatively destitute of resources in comparison to other regions), but justified it as a moral and biological inevitability because of perceived White/European superiority. This was also proliferated in America with the enslavement of Natives and Africans, then exploiting the labor they provided to reap incredible wealth out of their slavery. And after centuries of stealing and hoarding wealth and maintaining the practices which support the economic divide between races, Whites then complain about how "Black crime" is such a problem. What they fail to realize is that it's not "Black crime" but rather poor crime. Poverty is the number one indicator for whether or not a population will commit a crime. What causes Blacks to be the predominant perceived race for criminality is both socio-economic barriers prohibiting their rise from the bottom rungs of society, and institutional racism in the justice system.

lol. Actually I think you will find white countries siphoned off everyone, no matter of their colour. Or are you saying European countries didn't fight each other?
I think you will find slavery of whites has existed since far before European conquest of Africa or North America...
Contrary to popular belief, poor people don't have to commit crime.

I wonder what your excuse is for Hispanics?
> Roots in Spain therefore European
So your whole argument should follow through, except that Hispanics should be at the top of the food chain right? So why is there so much Hispanic crime and why is their mean income so low? Spain's conquest is as extensive as England's, and they certainly carried off a lot of treasure.

I like how you take things that happened to EVERYONE and say "OH BUT IT HAPPENED TO BLACKS".

Soon you will be saying that blacks have it bad because they can catch a cold!

Originally Posted by Oracle

tl;dr: He's a massive asshat who doesn't recognize the benefits he receives from being a White, Christian, male in a society that rewards White, Christian males.

Actually society rewards Asian, Atheist, females, but whatever...
> Asian income highest
> Atheists income highest
> female lifespan longest

EDIT: The professor and the guy they talk to at the rally are both retarded as hell. Was this the best they could do?
> "He never actually says anything racist, he just says he wants to look out for European American interests"
> they couldn't find anything to show he was a racist or any black people who could refute him
> black student union rallies to shut down white student union.
> 20:00 professor talks about exactly what Oracle said lel.
Leader of WSU confirmed for master manipulator and extremely smart.

Last edited by ImmortalCow; Jun 14, 2013 at 03:11 PM.

Oracle

Jun 14, 2013

Oracle

Chatterbox

Join Date: May 2007

Jun 14, 2013

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

I like how the professor defends the existence of the Black/Hispanic/Muslim Student Unions but thinks the White Student Union is completely racist. Encouraging disparity, so long as the dirty cisprivilieged whites aren't the ones doing it!
It reminds me of the feminists saying "men are pigs"...

Because there's no need for a White Student Union. They have a majority population on campus. They have no need for a union to support white rights. They are literally in the position of power.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Actually Asians are on the "benefiting end" in that case, since their income is above whites.

It matters from where in Asia you come from. Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese have incomes above whites, but if you're from Vietnam, the Philippines, Mongolia, or basically any other Asian nation, you are statistically likely to be earning less than whites.

It's also important to note that the economic worth of a degree for an Asian is worth a couple tens of thousands dollars less than the exact same degree than if it were for a White individual.

AND it's important to note that their income is above whites if you take the median average. If you take the mean average, whites still eclipse every other race in economic income because they hold a disproportionate number of high power positions.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

I think a lot of disparity is just myths. How can someone honestly say "all blacks and Hispanics (but not Asians) are just being discriminated against which is why the disparity exists"
Isn't it more likely to be because most white parents expect their children to go to college, where as blacks seem to value things like basketball, gangs, dealing drugs, etc... Looks like the stats are definitely skewed by a lot of people who are doing things other than working or studying...

You can't take face value for problems that are rooted in history. First, college was originally in place to promote class segregation. The wealthy and the powerful would send their children to college, not for education, to socialize and establish connections to further increase their wealth and power. This has historically been a position dominated by Whites.

Second, Blacks don't value basketball or gangs and dealing drugs because that's what they perceive as good, but rather it's the only thing society portrays them as capable of being successful at. You aren't going to try to go to college and become a doctor or a scientist or a lawyer if all you see and hear from society is about Black criminals, Black musicians, or Black athletes. You have no role model to look up to. You ask any White child what they want to be when they grow up, and they'll tell you practically every job imaginable. You ask a Black child, and they'll almost always say either rapper or pro athlete, because that's the only role models they have among their race.

Third, if you look where the majority of Blacks live, it's in poorer neighborhoods. Poorer neighborhoods have worse schools, which results in worse education, which results in a lower probability of entering college. In addition, any attempts by Blacks to move into better neighborhoods results in White Flight, or where all the Whites in the neighborhood move out because statistically, the value of property in an area goes down the more Black people live there. And when White Flight happens, all the resources which have been funneled into the White race move to a different neighborhood, so the schools naturally receive less funding, so they receive worse teachers and materials, so they provide worse education. And they cycle repeats. This isn't something that's slippery slope either. This is documented from as early as the 40s when the G.I. Bill was passed, arguably the largest affirmative action program ever signed into law that benefited solely white, male veterans.

There is a system in place, though it is not on paper, that results in a glass ceiling for Blacks in particular from rising above the lowest rungs of society.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

lol. Actually I think you will find white countries siphoned off everyone, no matter of their colour. Or are you saying European countries didn't fight each other?
I think you will find slavery of whites has existed since far before European conquest of Africa or North America...
Contrary to popular belief, poor people don't have to commit crime.

Fighting among each other is different from going around and enslaving a population and denying the rights of its citizens. When European countries fought each other, they had rules they followed to protect honor and decency during their fights. When they went into "barbaric" countries (read as anywhere that wasn't Europe) they crushed the local population with whatever tactics they had, and gave zero shits about what happened to the population. And sure, slavery of Whites had existed long before conquests of any other nations occurred. But slavery of Whites also stopped long before slavery of people of color ended. And Whites were the ones who benefited from the slavery of Whites anyways, because the person who owned the White slave was pretty much guaranteed to be White.

And nobody HAS to commit crime. And I say nowhere that because somebody is poor that they are obligated to commit crime. I say that being poor increases the likelihood of committing crime.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

I wonder what your excuse is for Hispanics?
> Roots in Spain therefore European
So your whole argument should follow through, except that Hispanics should be at the top of the food chain right? So why is there so much Hispanic crime and why is their mean income so low? Spain's conquest is as extensive as England's, and they certainly carried off a lot of treasure.

I like how you take things that happened to EVERYONE and say "OH BUT IT HAPPENED TO BLACKS".

Soon you will be saying that blacks have it bad because they can catch a cold!

Hispanics is a very broad term to begin with. But I'll tackle it anyways.

First, Hispanic only means that the person is related to Spain or a Spanish-speaking country. This can mean you can be either talking about a citizen of Spain, except you wouldn't be because you're be calling them a Spaniard, or a citizen of a previous Spanish colony. The latter is more likely, as I'm sure most people would agree.

Now, let's look at the population of a typical Spanish colony. The vast minority of it's population would have been actual Spaniards. The vast majority of it's population would have been Natives or slaves, usually from Africa. So the vast majority of said colony's population will most likely be of descent from either Natives or Africans. Not Europeans. So please, tell me more how Hispanic is synonymous with European, or White.

Now, on to the next line, poverty can happen to everyone, sure. But it disproportionately happens to Blacks, for reasons listed above, and others that I can bring up if need be. And it's already proven that poverty is the number one indicator for likelihood of committing a crime. But rather than attribute crime to poverty, this Union attributes it to Blackness by saying they are patrolling against "Black crime".

Second, it may be that every race has experienced conquest or slavery at some point or another. But no other race has experienced more systematic and widespread abuse at the hands of other races than Blacks. The mere fact that it happened is not what's important. It's the magnitude of it's occurrence that's important.

And slippery slope Cow. You should be more than familiar with that logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Actually society rewards Asian, Atheist, females, but whatever...
> Asian income highest
> Atheists income highest
> female lifespan longest

Again, it matters what measure of the average you use. Mean average will give a different result than median average.

And female lifespan is linked to biology, not sociological influence. So it's a irrelevant piece of information for your intended purpose.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

EDIT: The professor and the guy they talk to at the rally are both retarded as hell. Was this the best they could do?
> "He never actually says anything racist, he just says he wants to look out for European American interests"
> they couldn't find anything to show he was a racist or any black people who could refute him
> black student union rallies to shut down white student union.
> 20:00 professor talks about exactly what Oracle said lel.
Leader of WSU confirmed for master manipulator and extremely smart.

You don't have to say anything explicitly racist to be racist. It's his practices and justifications that are racist.

European American interests do not need a public defender, or even an every day citizen to stand up for them. It's the same argument that Whites give about "oh, there's a Black history month, why isn't there a White history month?". Simple answer: Every other month in the year is White history month. You only learn about White history in school. You only hear about White accomplishments in school. You literally learn a White man's curriculum. There is no god damn need to protect Whites in a White society.

And again, a lack of blatant racism is not an indication for a lack of racism. There are three types of people when it comes to racism: Active racists, passive racists, and active anti-racists. He is a very annoying combination of both an active racist and a passive racist. He outright proclaims he's patrolling to prevent "Black crime", an active racist action, and he justifies it by saying he's protecting White interests, which is both unnecessary, and passive in the face of institutional racism.

He's a racist. And he's definitely not intelligent, or a master manipulator. If all it took to be considered a master manipulator was to piss off a large group of people, then every person in the KKK is a master manipulator.

nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games

ImmortalCow

Jun 14, 2013

ImmortalCow

NON-EXISTING!

Join Date: May 2012

Jun 14, 2013

Originally Posted by Oracle

Because there's no need for a White Student Union. They have a majority population on campus. They have no need for a union to support white rights. They are literally in the position of power.

Pretty sure I saw a black profesor...

Implying everyone who is white and in power only looks out for white people.
^ "Whites are not subject to racism"
^ "Whites in power only look out for white interests so blacks need their own advocacy group and whites aren't allowed to have one"

Originally Posted by Oracle

It matters from where in Asia you come from. Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese have incomes above whites, but if you're from Vietnam, the Philippines, Mongolia, or basically any other Asian nation, you are statistically likely to be earning less than whites.

It's also important to note that the economic worth of a degree for an Asian is worth a couple tens of thousands dollars less than the exact same degree than if it were for a White individual.

AND it's important to note that their income is above whites if you take the median average. If you take the mean average, whites still eclipse every other race in economic income because they hold a disproportionate number of high power positions.

I like how you imply this is due to race and not circumstances.
If I remember correctly, capitalism and industrialism come from the West.

The west had a head start.

> UK, Spain, Portugal, France combine has less billionaires than china
> All these "conquer the world, plunder all the countries, enslave all the people" white countries have poultry amounts of billionaires

At this point I assume when you talk about white people, you mean white Americans, since USA is the one with lots of billionaires.

But then again, HK has the largest proportion of billionaires per populus...
[spoiler]There are Asians in HK[/spoiler]

Originally Posted by Oracle

You can't take face value for problems that are rooted in history. First, college was originally in place to promote class segregation. The wealthy and the powerful would send their children to college, not for education, to socialize and establish connections to further increase their wealth and power. This has historically been a position dominated by Whites.

No, college was not put in place to promote class segregation.
Education costs money, people without money can't afford it. How is this hard to understand?

Originally Posted by Oracle

Second, Blacks don't value basketball or gangs and dealing drugs because that's what they perceive as good, but rather it's the only thing society portrays them as capable of being successful at. You aren't going to try to go to college and become a doctor or a scientist or a lawyer if all you see and hear from society is about Black criminals, Black musicians, or Black athletes. You have no role model to look up to. You ask any White child what they want to be when they grow up, and they'll tell you practically every job imaginable. You ask a Black child, and they'll almost always say either rapper or pro athlete, because that's the only role models they have among their race.

So their race can't be bothered dreaming outside their stereotype, and that's somehow everyone else's fault? We should just give blacks law degrees so that the future generations can say "oh I didn't know I could become a lawyer"??

CRAZY TALK.

Most people don't have specific idols they want to emulate when they get a job. Do you think sparkies think "golly I want to be like that famous electrician", or geophysicists say "gosh I wish I was like that famouse popular role model geophysicist"? That is a poor, unrealistic argument. Come on man.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Third, if you look where the majority of Blacks live, it's in poorer neighborhoods. Poorer neighborhoods have worse schools, which results in worse education, which results in a lower probability of entering college. In addition, any attempts by Blacks to move into better neighborhoods results in White Flight, or where all the Whites in the neighborhood move out because statistically, the value of property in an area goes down the more Black people live there. And when White Flight happens, all the resources which have been funneled into the White race move to a different neighborhood, so the schools naturally receive less funding, so they receive worse teachers and materials, so they provide worse education. And they cycle repeats. This isn't something that's slippery slope either. This is documented from as early as the 40s when the G.I. Bill was passed, arguably the largest affirmative action program ever signed into law that benefited solely white, male veterans.

> USA specific arguments again
I don't know what the policies are exactly over there, but if a school receives less funding for having students more in need but a different race, then obviously there's a problem.

Corollary: If blacks were actively seeking education and trying to correct their social injustice we would see an increase in blacks in college than previous years, and above the population growth.
Blacks enrolled in college 1990: 1.2 million
Blacks enrolled in college 2010: 2.9 million
Black population 1990: 30 million
Black population 2010: 42 million
College/population*100% 1990: 4%
College/population*100% 2010: 7%
Conclusion: Blacks are already taking steps to improve their situation

Originally Posted by Oracle

There is a system in place, though it is not on paper, that results in a glass ceiling for Blacks in particular from rising above the lowest rungs of society.

College enrollment rate for blacks has more than doubled in 20 years, looks like they are doing all right.
Compare median incomes to be sure, but I think increasing number of bill/millionaires and income should show it easily enough.

> compare incarceration rates too...

Originally Posted by Oracle

Fighting among each other is different from going around and enslaving a population and denying the rights of its citizens. When European countries fought each other, they had rules they followed to protect honor and decency during their fights. When they went into "barbaric" countries (read as anywhere that wasn't Europe) they crushed the local population with whatever tactics they had, and gave zero shits about what happened to the population. And sure, slavery of Whites had existed long before conquests of any other nations occurred. But slavery of Whites also stopped long before slavery of people of color ended. And Whites were the ones who benefited from the slavery of Whites anyways, because the person who owned the White slave was pretty much guaranteed to be White.

That's not at all true. Since Roman times there have been white slaves (probably even before). Whites owning slaves is situational, not as a rule. Most black slaves from Africa were already owned by black slave masters who then sold them to hispanic slavers who brougth them to the new world.

You already know this, but Africa has had slaves even before biblical times. Arab countries and Asian countries have had slaves for millennia, oh and so did central Americans :O

> Slaves existed on nearly every continent since before written history
> Slaves came from every culture and were enslaved by every culture

Whites coming out on top was situational.

Originally Posted by Oracle

And nobody HAS to commit crime. And I say nowhere that because somebody is poor that they are obligated to commit crime. I say that being poor increases the likelihood of committing crime.

And yet they could just /not/ commit crime instead...

Believe it or not crime is a choice, there isn't someone rolling cosmic dice to determine the chance that you will become a criminal...

Originally Posted by Oracle

Hispanics is a very broad term to begin with. But I'll tackle it anyways.

First, Hispanic only means that the person is related to Spain or a Spanish-speaking country. This can mean you can be either talking about a citizen of Spain, except you wouldn't be because you're be calling them a Spaniard, or a citizen of a previous Spanish colony. The latter is more likely, as I'm sure most people would agree.

Now, let's look at the population of a typical Spanish colony. The vast minority of it's population would have been actual Spaniards. The vast majority of it's population would have been Natives or slaves, usually from Africa. So the vast majority of said colony's population will most likely be of descent from either Natives or Africans. Not Europeans. So please, tell me more how Hispanic is synonymous with European, or White.

Spain and Portugal each conquered more than England and France.

This point was in response to your previous argument.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Now, on to the next line, poverty can happen to everyone, sure. But it disproportionately happens to Blacks, for reasons listed above, and others that I can bring up if need be. And it's already proven that poverty is the number one indicator for likelihood of committing a crime. But rather than attribute crime to poverty, this Union attributes it to Blackness by saying they are patrolling against "Black crime".

As stated in the video.
1. They are against all crime and will stop any crime they see
2. Their investigation indicates 90% of crime in the area is committed by blacks
3. Tackling the largest portion is only natural

When you see a big police sign saying "Now targeting speeding cars" they aren't saying that speeders are responsible for ALL the crime or that cars are automatically illegal or whatever.

The WSU made a bad choice saying it like that. They may be specifically targeting a large portion of crime committed by a self-admitted minority (which is logical, if 10% commits 90% of crime, you can eliminate much more by targeting this small portion -> crime density = 9 vs .1), but it's automatically bad because it's racist.

If it's an objective observation I don't see anything wrong with it.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Second, it may be that every race has experienced conquest or slavery at some point or another. But no other race has experienced more systematic and widespread abuse at the hands of other races than Blacks. The mere fact that it happened is not what's important. It's the magnitude of it's occurrence that's important.

> More USA specific
I guess I'll just counter with;
1. Australian Aboriginals
2. SEA Natives
3. American Indians
4. Sunni/Shia
But yeah, blacks are hard done by, hundreds of years ago (for USA -> 'a hundred') they were enslaved and taken from thier paradise homeland (/eternal warzone of rape and slaughter) and eventually became free citizens subject to much government funding and their education rates are rapidly increasing.
I think you exaggerate the comparative severity of the black situation...

Originally Posted by Oracle

And slippery slope Cow. You should be more than familiar with that logical fallacy.

Yup, it is slippery slope! I'm using reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the ludicracy of your argument!

Originally Posted by Oracle

Again, it matters what measure of the average you use. Mean average will give a different result than median average.

Why would we use mean income? You care more about 500 people than 5 billion?

If your argument has changed to "there exists a few whites that are richer than pretty much everyone" then feel free to use mean...

Originally Posted by Oracle

And female lifespan is linked to biology, not sociological influence. So it's a irrelevant piece of information for your intended purpose.

> Claim blacks are in a bad situation because of their race
> omg no not biology!!
> implying race is not biological

Originally Posted by Oracle

You don't have to say anything explicitly racist to be racist. It's his practices and justifications that are racist.

Just funny that the lengths the report goes to in order to be strongly negative, yet this is all they can come up with...

Originally Posted by Oracle

European American interests do not need a public defender, or even an every day citizen to stand up for them. It's the same argument that Whites give about "oh, there's a Black history month, why isn't there a White history month?". Simple answer: Every other month in the year is White history month. You only learn about White history in school. You only hear about White accomplishments in school. You literally learn a White man's curriculum. There is no god damn need to protect Whites in a White society.

> More USA specific
Why would you want a black history month anyway? Way to propagate disparity! If blacks didn't invent it, then everything would be for everyone. Completely idiotic idea...

> Implying schools don't learn about international history or national history
> Live in majority white country
> Complain about covering white history

It seems obvious that a country that was settled by europeans and dominated by europeans would teach a proportional amount about european culture and history...

I don't know USA curriculum but I would be surprised if they didn't cover topics like their settlement, war of independence, civil war, slavery, suffrage, WW1, WW2, etc.

Originally Posted by Oracle

And again, a lack of blatant racism is not an indication for a lack of racism. There are three types of people when it comes to racism: Active racists, passive racists, and active anti-racists. He is a very annoying combination of both an active racist and a passive racist. He outright proclaims he's patrolling to prevent "Black crime", an active racist action, and he justifies it by saying he's protecting White interests, which is both unnecessary, and passive in the face of institutional racism.

Black interests = good
white interests = bad
extremist anti-racist counter culture.

Originally Posted by Oracle

He's a racist. And he's definitely not intelligent, or a master manipulator. If all it took to be considered a master manipulator was to piss off a large group of people, then every person in the KKK is a master manipulator.

As above, he managed to make himself look good even when doing something retarded, and make the other side look idiodic.

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

Hahah yeah white people definitely need an advocacy group given their history of struggling with racism, oppression, and underpriveleged status that still ripples through the fabric of modern society.

Wait, no, maybe not.

> student union
> advocating against racism, oppression, underprivileged status (at a university)
YUP THIS IS WHAT STUDENT UNIONS DO. ROW ROW FIGHT DA POWA.

> implying whites do not have interests

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

EDIT: lmfao society favors women "because they live longer"

It favours white males because they are allowed to be born white and male!111

Originally Posted by Boredpayne

EDIT2:
Holy shit, you're literally a racist!

inb4 statistics on blacks in college sporting teams and gang membership

Agentmax

Jun 15, 2013

Agentmax

Forumite

Join Date: Dec 2010

Jun 15, 2013

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Pretty sure I saw a black profesor...

Implying everyone who is white and in power only looks out for white people.
^ "Whites are not subject to racism"
^ "Whites in power only look out for white interests so blacks need their own advocacy group and whites aren't allowed to have one"

I like how you imply this is due to race and not circumstances.
If I remember correctly, capitalism and industrialism come from the West.

The west had a head start.

> UK, Spain, Portugal, France combine has less billionaires than china
> All these "conquer the world, plunder all the countries, enslave all the people" white countries have poultry amounts of billionaires

At this point I assume when you talk about white people, you mean white Americans, since USA is the one with lots of billionaires.

But then again, HK has the largest proportion of billionaires per populus...
[spoiler]There are Asians in HK[/spoiler]

No, college was not put in place to promote class segregation.
Education costs money, people without money can't afford it. How is this hard to understand?

So their race can't be bothered dreaming outside their stereotype, and that's somehow everyone else's fault? We should just give blacks law degrees so that the future generations can say "oh I didn't know I could become a lawyer"??

CRAZY TALK.

Most people don't have specific idols they want to emulate when they get a job. Do you think sparkies think "golly I want to be like that famous electrician", or geophysicists say "gosh I wish I was like that famouse popular role model geophysicist"? That is a poor, unrealistic argument. Come on man.

> USA specific arguments again
I don't know what the policies are exactly over there, but if a school receives less funding for having students more in need but a different race, then obviously there's a problem.

Corollary: If blacks were actively seeking education and trying to correct their social injustice we would see an increase in blacks in college than previous years, and above the population growth.
Blacks enrolled in college 1990: 1.2 million
Blacks enrolled in college 2010: 2.9 million
Black population 1990: 30 million
Black population 2010: 42 million
College/population*100% 1990: 4%
College/population*100% 2010: 7%
Conclusion: Blacks are already taking steps to improve their situation

College enrollment rate for blacks has more than doubled in 20 years, looks like they are doing all right.
Compare median incomes to be sure, but I think increasing number of bill/millionaires and income should show it easily enough.

> compare incarceration rates too...

That's not at all true. Since Roman times there have been white slaves (probably even before). Whites owning slaves is situational, not as a rule. Most black slaves from Africa were already owned by black slave masters who then sold them to hispanic slavers who brougth them to the new world.

You already know this, but Africa has had slaves even before biblical times. Arab countries and Asian countries have had slaves for millennia, oh and so did central Americans :O

> Slaves existed on nearly every continent since before written history
> Slaves came from every culture and were enslaved by every culture

Whites coming out on top was situational.

And yet they could just /not/ commit crime instead...

Believe it or not crime is a choice, there isn't someone rolling cosmic dice to determine the chance that you will become a criminal...

Spain and Portugal each conquered more than England and France.

This point was in response to your previous argument.

As stated in the video.
1. They are against all crime and will stop any crime they see
2. Their investigation indicates 90% of crime in the area is committed by blacks
3. Tackling the largest portion is only natural

When you see a big police sign saying "Now targeting speeding cars" they aren't saying that speeders are responsible for ALL the crime or that cars are automatically illegal or whatever.

The WSU made a bad choice saying it like that. They may be specifically targeting a large portion of crime committed by a self-admitted minority (which is logical, if 10% commits 90% of crime, you can eliminate much more by targeting this small portion -> crime density = 9 vs .1), but it's automatically bad because it's racist.

If it's an objective observation I don't see anything wrong with it.

> More USA specific
I guess I'll just counter with;
1. Australian Aboriginals
2. SEA Natives
3. American Indians
4. Sunni/Shia
But yeah, blacks are hard done by, hundreds of years ago (for USA -> 'a hundred') they were enslaved and taken from thier paradise homeland (/eternal warzone of rape and slaughter) and eventually became free citizens subject to much government funding and their education rates are rapidly increasing.
I think you exaggerate the comparative severity of the black situation...

Yup, it is slippery slope! I'm using reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the ludicracy of your argument!

Why would we use mean income? You care more about 500 people than 5 billion?

If your argument has changed to "there exists a few whites that are richer than pretty much everyone" then feel free to use mean...

> Claim blacks are in a bad situation because of their race
> omg no not biology!!
> implying race is not biological

Just funny that the lengths the report goes to in order to be strongly negative, yet this is all they can come up with...

> More USA specific
Why would you want a black history month anyway? Way to propagate disparity! If blacks didn't invent it, then everything would be for everyone. Completely idiotic idea...

> Implying schools don't learn about international history or national history
> Live in majority white country
> Complain about covering white history

It seems obvious that a country that was settled by europeans and dominated by europeans would teach a proportional amount about european culture and history...

I don't know USA curriculum but I would be surprised if they didn't cover topics like their settlement, war of independence, civil war, slavery, suffrage, WW1, WW2, etc.

Black interests = good
white interests = bad
extremist anti-racist counter culture.

As above, he managed to make himself look good even when doing something retarded, and make the other side look idiodic.

> student union
> advocating against racism, oppression, underprivileged status (at a university)
YUP THIS IS WHAT STUDENT UNIONS DO. ROW ROW FIGHT DA POWA.

> implying whites do not have interests

It favours white males because they are allowed to be born white and male!111

inb4 statistics on blacks in college sporting teams and gang membership

On the usual basis of whatever Cow spews out his computer to be gut wrenching. I agree with everything he is saying.

On the basis of yes White AMERICAN'S (USA since I know that America has two sides North and South) did exploit slaves who happened to be black, I can still almost bet money on the fact they would of used slaves still even if they were white, they just had an easier time justifying it since they were a different color then them. (It's easy to pick out of the crowd when they are different then yourself.)

But seriously, the simple fact you can call him racist as a minority and when he tries to call you racist he can't (Not definition of racism but rather being a hypocrite, probably a better word out there but for now this will do) but his racist claims aren't without merit. When a minority blames a white man for being racist just because of what his ancestors did (was in the video) that's not only a little ignorant but racist for assuming all White American's are the same. Such as when a White male assumes a Black male is a criminal just because he's black. There's not difference and why do you tolerate one side but not the other?

Now I'm not defending the guy in the video I think I made that clear, but when you say he can't do something but others are doing the same thing, no matter how retarded his march might be, why aren't we calling bullshit on the others who are doing the same thing?

But in all reality... I think I might be insane...

Oracle

Jun 15, 2013

Oracle

Chatterbox

Join Date: May 2007

Jun 15, 2013

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Pretty sure I saw a black profesor...

I'm pretty sure we have a Black president. Does that mean that Blacks hold the majority position in politics? Fuck no. Likewise, just because there's one Black professor does not mean there is a majority of Blacks in power at the university.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Implying everyone who is white and in power only looks out for white people.
^ "Whites are not subject to racism"
^ "Whites in power only look out for white interests so blacks need their own advocacy group and whites aren't allowed to have one"

Whites are not subject to racism is a true statement. Whites are not subject to discrimination is a false statement. Racism = discrimination, but discrimination =/= racism. Racism is impossible to be perpetuated against the race in the majority position, majority being defined by having the majority of power. Discrimination is possible to members of the majority position.

And by being passive in a racist institution, you are supporting the racist practices of that institution. A large portion of Whites in America believe that racism is over, when it's not. It's that ignorance that allows the institutional racism in America to continue. And again, when you hold positions of power, you're already the advocacy group. Advocacy groups are formed to deliver power to people who have none. When your race already holds all the cards, they don't need to be dealt additional cards.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

I like how you imply this is due to race and not circumstances.
If I remember correctly, capitalism and industrialism come from the West.

The west had a head start.

> UK, Spain, Portugal, France combine has less billionaires than china
> All these "conquer the world, plunder all the countries, enslave all the people" white countries have poultry amounts of billionaires

At this point I assume when you talk about white people, you mean white Americans, since USA is the one with lots of billionaires.

But then again, HK has the largest proportion of billionaires per populus...
[spoiler]There are Asians in HK[/spoiler]

If race is part of the reason for circumstance, than an implication that race is a factor is a justified assumption.

If everyone assumes that all Asians are benefiting from being Asian, then the natural belief is that Asians don't need any help. But since Asians is such a large group, it's preposterous to assume that every Asian fits into this standard mold. The "model minority" label, which you are essentially describing, is a curse on every minority who receives it, because statistically they will have greater standards placed on them, even compared to Whites. There's a glass ceiling on Asians in the corporate ladder, because Asians aren't seen as good leaders, they're seen as good workers. Asians pay more for a degree that earns them less compared to a White person. Asians have higher admission standards into college because people assume that all Asians are brilliant, when the likelihood of intelligence is equal among all races. The exact same person who instead says they're White would get accepted, while saying they're Asian could result in denied entry. This is a system discriminating against a population solely because of race.

Where does China and HK do most of their business with? Europe and America. Where do most of their products and services go to? Europe and America. Who benefits more from the wealth that Chinese and HK companies develop from performing business? Europe and America.

If I remember correctly, China still has one of the highest poverty rates in the world because the majority of their population works for less than a dollar a day. But if you're going to let the worth of a couple billionaires who made their money exploiting such labor eclipse that, then go ahead.

But again, if you let the efforts of a minority within the minority be the example of the entire minority, then you're doing something horribly, horribly wrong. It's called tokenism, and it's incredibly racist.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

No, college was not put in place to promote class segregation.
Education costs money, people without money can't afford it. How is this hard to understand?

What dictates class? Having money.

What's required to get into college? Having money.

Who can't enter college? Poor people.

Who can? Rich people.

What do you get from going to college? The opportunity to make more money.

I'm sorry, but how is it so hard to understand that by putting a system in place where you need money to get more money is inherently designed to promote class segregation? The meritocracy that post-secondary education was originally designed for was crushed long ago.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

So their race can't be bothered dreaming outside their stereotype, and that's somehow everyone else's fault? We should just give blacks law degrees so that the future generations can say "oh I didn't know I could become a lawyer"??

CRAZY TALK.

Most people don't have specific idols they want to emulate when they get a job. Do you think sparkies think "golly I want to be like that famous electrician", or geophysicists say "gosh I wish I was like that famouse popular role model geophysicist"? That is a poor, unrealistic argument. Come on man.

Name as many black scientists as you can. Name as many white scientists as you can.

Now what would that say to the black child looking at the history of scientists? All you hear about is successful White scientists, but you never hear about a successful Black scientist. Why would that be the case? To a young mind, that could very well be assumed that it's because Blacks can't be successful as scientists. So why would you spend your entire life trying to become a Black scientist if all evidence seems to point towards a destined failure.

Role models are used as indicators of success. When more Blacks become successful scientists, you will almost certainly see a rise in Blacks applying to the field of science. Opportunity makes itself when people believe that opportunity exists.

As an example, Neil de Grasse Tyson, astrophysicist and Black man, was told in college to stop studying space and focus on boxing, because he was more likely to be successful as a boxer than a scientist (according to them, at least). And practically everyone he knew told him this, White, Black, whatever, you name it. What this indicates is that it is a cultural pressure to conform to where your race is perceived as successful. A few outliers will occur, and it's hopeful that those outliers will result in a change of cultural perception, but until then, Blacks will only have rappers and athletes as their only beacons of success.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

I don't know what the policies are exactly over there, but if a school receives less funding for having students more in need but a different race, then obviously there's a problem.

Corollary: If blacks were actively seeking education and trying to correct their social injustice we would see an increase in blacks in college than previous years, and above the population growth.
Blacks enrolled in college 1990: 1.2 million
Blacks enrolled in college 2010: 2.9 million
Black population 1990: 30 million
Black population 2010: 42 million
College/population*100% 1990: 4%
College/population*100% 2010: 7%
Conclusion: Blacks are already taking steps to improve their situation

College enrollment rate for blacks has more than doubled in 20 years, looks like they are doing all right.
Compare median incomes to be sure, but I think increasing number of bill/millionaires and income should show it easily enough.

> compare incarceration rates too...

First, increase in college enrollments still put Blacks well under-represented in post-secondary education. And it's definitely not for lack of intelligence, because it's been proven that there is no race difference in intelligence, only environment differences. And environment differences can be attributed to social stigmas placed on race. Again, see redlining and discriminatory practices against Blacks in real estate.

Second, median incomes are poor evaluations for distribution of wealth. Take the mean, and blacks are still well below everybody else. Heck, take the median anyways, and you'll see Black males earn even below White females in term of median income, and below them are Black females. So no, there is no change that has occurred. If anything, using median income, white females now earn more than Black males in recent years. So there's been a drop in equality among the races.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

That's not at all true. Since Roman times there have been white slaves (probably even before). Whites owning slaves is situational, not as a rule. Most black slaves from Africa were already owned by black slave masters who then sold them to hispanic slavers who brougth them to the new world.

You already know this, but Africa has had slaves even before biblical times. Arab countries and Asian countries have had slaves for millennia, oh and so did central Americans :O

> Slaves existed on nearly every continent since before written history
> Slaves came from every culture and were enslaved by every culture

Whites coming out on top was situational.

One, who was routinely on top in terms of slavery, even through out history? Statistically, if you were White, you were more likely to be the slave driver than the slave.

Second, even if the outcome was situational, does that justify the outcome? No, it doesn't. And maintaining the outcome when it is morally corrupt is just as bad as having created it.

You're arguing semantics about the entirely wrong point. It's not important whether people have owned slaves. It's the magnitude of which one race has taken advantage of another race, and how they still take advantage of other races.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

And yet they could just /not/ commit crime instead...

Believe it or not crime is a choice, there isn't someone rolling cosmic dice to determine the chance that you will become a criminal...

Again, semantics about the wrong thing. It comes down to choice, yes, but the important fact is that the choice is more likely to be made because of poverty rather than race. But he's attributing the cause to race by calling it "Black crime".

You're running circles entirely off the circuit. This is a race issue we are talking about, but you're trying to portray it otherwise.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Spain and Portugal each conquered more than England and France.

This point was in response to your previous argument.

And look at what happened to their colonies. They ravaged the environment, and most of their colonies have only just recently begun to fix the damage that blind colonialism caused.

It's not important what happened to the country of origin, because the country of origin benefited massively from colonialism at the expense of the colony. You're attributing the colony and the country of origin as though they are equal, when they are clearly not. Hispanic does not mean they benefited from Spain or Portugal's reckless expansionism. Hispanic, if anything, indicates that they were abused by Spain or Portugal, and then left to pick up the scraps of their country.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

As stated in the video.
1. They are against all crime and will stop any crime they see
2. Their investigation indicates 90% of crime in the area is committed by blacks
3. Tackling the largest portion is only natural

When you see a big police sign saying "Now targeting speeding cars" they aren't saying that speeders are responsible for ALL the crime or that cars are automatically illegal or whatever.

The WSU made a bad choice saying it like that. They may be specifically targeting a large portion of crime committed by a self-admitted minority (which is logical, if 10% commits 90% of crime, you can eliminate much more by targeting this small portion -> crime density = 9 vs .1), but it's automatically bad because it's racist.

If it's an objective observation I don't see anything wrong with it.

When you see a police sign saying "targeting speeding cars" they are targeting something that is already committing a crime. When you say you are targeting "Black crime" you are targeting a race for being assumed guilty at committing a crime. They are not equal comparisons because a speeding car is already breaking the law, a Black man is not.

And why would they need to target specifically "Black crime" if they are against all crime. What should be important, if it wasn't about race, was the fact that a crime was committed. But they are putting emphasis on the fact that it's Blacks committing the crime. THAT'S the racist part of it. Statistics can say that Blacks are committing the majority of crime, but to emphasize the Black part of the crime, rather than the actual crime, is what's racist. 100% of all crime is committed by human beings, so I don't see why he says he's targeting "human crime". That would be an even more effective blanket to cover all crime perpetuated.

It's an objective observation being used for a subjective, and intolerant, position. That's what's wrong with it. The observation is by itself not racist. It's what he's doing about it that's racist.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

> More USA specific
I guess I'll just counter with;
1. Australian Aboriginals
2. SEA Natives
3. American Indians
4. Sunni/Shia
But yeah, blacks are hard done by, hundreds of years ago (for USA -> 'a hundred') they were enslaved and taken from thier paradise homeland (/eternal warzone of rape and slaughter) and eventually became free citizens subject to much government funding and their education rates are rapidly increasing.
I think you exaggerate the comparative severity of the black situation...

USA specific is justified considering locale in question.

And guess what, I've already talked about how these other groups, except Muslims, experience discrimination, or have experienced slavery. Natives has routinely been subjected to slavery by an invading population, and Australia was no different. Now look at their situations. Speaking from my own knowledge, I have no idea what Australian Natives are going through right now, but I do know that Aboriginal "conversion" schools were still legal, and functioning, in Australia up into the 70s. The Australian government actively tried to convert Australian Natives into the "White culture" so that they would be more acceptable. Because that's not racist discrimination at all. In the process, countless Natives were displaced and, ultimately, discriminated against for looking Native despite whatever indoctrination they received.

South East Asian Natives are Asian, Cow. Did you know that? Because you seem to like lumping them up with other Asians, then saying they aren't discriminated against, and are actually benefiting from being Asian.

American Indians also are discriminated against just about as worse as Blacks are. But I'm not touching their situation, which is just as large, because otherwise I would literally have absolutely no time for anything else. As a brief overview though, they have reservations, rather than owning America, which is rightfully theirs, they are subject to environmental racism, as their lands are routinely exploited for their resources and used as dumping grounds for toxic waste, and earn less than Whites, and slightly more than Blacks.

Muslims are discriminated against in America all right. But again, entirely different situation, and it will be incredibly difficult to fit their situation in great detail. But again, overview. Muslims and people of Middle-Eastern descent have faced wide-spread discrimination through most of American history, considering there was a large population of Muslims brought over during it's early years to work as slaves. But what most people would recognize as modern discrimination has been occurring from as early as the 90s, when people of Middle-Eastern descent were unjustly spied on and harassed by the U.S. Government. After 9/11 shit got worse because, not only did government oversight increase, but public hate crimes skyrocketed. Said discrimination still occurs to this day for people of Middle-Eastern descent because Americans are idiots. It's also worth noting that only White people were surprised about 9/11. Blacks were not surprised that a symbol for White, capitalist, supremacy was attacked by a disgruntled minority who were upset about foreign intervention. Only Whites were shocked because their bubble of privilege prevents them from noticing the widespread misery to inflict on other people.

And a lesser of two evils is still evil. Justifying slavery because slavery is better than perpetual war is probably one of the worst arguments I've ever heard.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Yup, it is slippery slope! I'm using reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the ludicracy of your argument!

Again magnitude of occurrence is more important than the actual occurrence. You fail to recognize this, and then try to mock somebody because you can't understand it's importance. The fact that all races have experienced slavery is not as important as the fact that Whites have benefited more from slavery than any other race, while Blacks have benefited the least from slavery.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Why would we use mean income? You care more about 500 people than 5 billion?

If your argument has changed to "there exists a few whites that are richer than pretty much everyone" then feel free to use mean...

I care because the 500 people can hold more power individually than the 5 million (5 billion is definitely a hyperbole. Let's be logical here, if we took every Asian on the planet and took their median income, I can safely say that it will be well below every other race).

The fact that there is a disproportionate number of Whites in positions of power is what's important. Overall equality means that everybody has equal opportunity, but over representation of Whites in positions of power indicates a lack of equal opportunity. That's why mean is important.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

> Claim blacks are in a bad situation because of their race
> omg no not biology!!
> implying race is not biological

Do I honestly have to explain this again? There is more genetic diversity between Africans and other Africans than there is between Africans and any other race. Literally, you will find a more genetically different person among the same "race" than you will from a different "race". Race is a social construct, not a biological one. Race sciences have been debunked now for almost 40 years. Seriously, get with the times.

And a semantics argument, because you seem so fond of them. Which of these things are influenced by society: Income, Life Expectancy. If you say life expectancy, then you're an idiot. Yet you're arguing that society rewards females by giving them a longer life expectancy. Biology dictates it, not society. Likewise, society dictates income, not biology.

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

Just funny that the lengths the report goes to in order to be strongly negative, yet this is all they can come up with...

> More USA specific
Why would you want a black history month anyway? Way to propagate disparity! If blacks didn't invent it, then everything would be for everyone. Completely idiotic idea...

> Implying schools don't learn about international history or national history
> Live in majority white country
> Complain about covering white history

It seems obvious that a country that was settled by europeans and dominated by europeans would teach a proportional amount about european culture and history...

I don't know USA curriculum but I would be surprised if they didn't cover topics like their settlement, war of independence, civil war, slavery, suffrage, WW1, WW2, etc.

Black interests = good
white interests = bad
extremist anti-racist counter culture.

Do you know why they came up with that? Because it's already established that indirect racism is still racism. Using your logic, if I accidentally kill somebody, then I didn't actually kill them because it wasn't my intent.

And no it wouldn't be. You don't hear about anything about racial discrimination in American schools until you reach the Civil Rights Era in history class. And then you only hear about the most socially acceptable activist from the time, Martin Luther King Jr. You rarely hear about any of the other Black activists at the time, or any of the Black activists from before the Civil Rights Era. The history that is taught in American schools is a history that focuses exclusively on Whites, ignores minorities or mentions them as afterthoughts, and practically ignores international history outside of wars that America participated in.

I have no problems with teaching White history. It's the fact that you ONLY learn White history is the problem. Like I said above, there is no other side presented. You only hear about how Whites did everything in American history, and you basically only hear about Blacks as either slaves in early times, or activists in modern times. And you learn practically nothing about international history in American schools. The first time I was even offered a course on anything international history was college. Not even African history, or Australian history, or South American history. The closest I got to it was Western Civ. Which was basically a circlejerk class about how Europe was the test subject for American democracy and society.

> "Settled" by Europeans
> Built by Africans and Natives
> Told by Whites

Because that doesn't seem to be ignoring the big picture at all.

And again, U.S. history classes are jokes because they literally are just circlejerks. You barely touch upon slavery or the racial discrimination that plagued America throughout its history, and instead spend the vast majority of class time learning about how 'Murica won the wars hurr durr.

And again, White interests need no defender because society already defends them through institutional practices and social discrimination. Black interests are routinely pressured by said practices and discrimination. It's the fact that he proposes that Whites even NEED a defender for their interests that screams indirect racism. He believes Whites are on the receiving end for discrimination now, when Whites STILL hold all the keys to power and STILL oppress people of color.

nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games

Velair

Jun 15, 2013

Velair

ub3r

Join Date: Mar 2012

Jun 15, 2013

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

inb4 statistics on blacks in college sporting teams and gang membership

Ok I saw this and it made me mad.
Blacks in college sporting being basketball so what who cares,but then you went and said they have gang memberships.
So do whites,Hispanic and Asians. So wherever your getting statistics please show me.
ANNNNDDD Hispanic and Asian gangs are bigger in members being asian/hispanic than black gangs.

Closed Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Log in / Register

Inventory

Market

Clans

Ranking

Merch

Inventory

Store

Market

Clans

Community

Ranking

Merch