Why did you leave off "over-represented race in violent crimes"?
> Michael Jackson tried to turn himself white
So that makes him not black? Are the people who idolize him confused and don't realize he's black? People loved him before his transformation. One funny anecdote is Michael Jackson, refusing that he "turned himself white", said that his grandmother told him that the reason they called them colored people is that they come in all different colors. :)
> MLK Jr was conveniently murdered
Conveniently? I'd say tragically. Abraham Lincoln was also assassinated. I don't know how this changes that both are among the most admired people in America today.
> Muhammad Ali was persecuted by the state
As were many white people who openly violated the draft or spoke out against the war (I'm not saying avoiding the draft is a bad thing or that Ali wasn't a legitimate conscientious objector).
> Barack Obama is routinely called racist slurs despite being the president.
Not routinely by any major national publications or widely popular figures. Also, being the current president doesn't mean people don't call you mean things, if anything it means you're called more mean things. People said plenty of mean things about Bush or Clinton while they were president.
Obama doesn't face slurs "routinely from widely popular figures"? The fucking GOP Presidential nominee was the head of the birther movement!
For a guy with no interest in freeing slaves, he sure freed a lot of slaves.
-- Someone who might know a little bit about being a politician
Someone upthread provided a short list of African Americans who were murdered as a result of their notability.
In an attempt to refute the argument that to be a notable black in America is dangerous, Abraham Lincoln was introduced as an example of a notable white leader who was killed. There were any number of white leaders that could have been introduced as counterexamples, but, amusingly, the commenter chose one who was murdered because of white enmity towards blacks.
The question of whether Lincoln had any ambivalence about freeing slaves has little bearing on the question of why he was murdered. Had Lincoln not emancipated the slaves, he would not have been murdered. His death clearly belongs in the tally of "people killed because it's dangerous to be a successful black person in America".
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling."
Because those crimes are (for anything above the baseline for people in general at the same poverty levels) are results of centuries of being abused, held down and denied opportunities.
Even if all white people (and people in power) in some city X stopped being racist, it wouldn't automatically mean that the blacks there living in the wrong side of the tracks, in an underfunded school district, and working shit jobs, will suddenly have the same opportunities as the average white person. For one, as parents they will still be the same poor folks that didn't have a good education and can't afford (or know) to raise their kids properly and send them off to some good school. This things take generations to overcome, slowly trickling upwards (and in an era when the middle class is squeezed down and the working class is fucked, that's even less likely to happen).
If you believe in blacks being inherently more violent etc as a race outside of systemic causes (poverty, bad school districts, lack of opportunities, etc, caused by centuries of slavery, double standards and racism) then you might as well believe that they have inferior DNA.
>So that makes him not black?
No, that makes him an example of the kind of forces of American society towards blacks, where even idols can't be satisfied in their black skin.
>Conveniently? I'd say tragically. Abraham Lincoln was also assassinated. I don't know how this changes that both are among the most admired people in America today.
It's easy to admire a non-threatening murdered person, especially if you make him into a convenient sugary version of what he stood for. Unlike Lincoln he wasn't much admired by white American society in his day, and a black rights advocate in his vein wouldn't be that admired today.
>Also, being the current president doesn't mean people don't call you mean things, if anything it means you're called more mean things. People said plenty of mean things about Bush or Clinton while they were president.
About their race? Were they drawn as monkeys? Asked about being muslim?
Yet no matter where you look on this planet, no matter what the history of that location is, no matter how far back in history you go, the pattern (of violence such as murder and rape) stays the same - and even more so when those places are absent of the other races/groups.
I'm not sure I follow. What you mean by "the pattern (of violence such as murder and rape) stays the same"? The pattern of violence that black people do?
If so, that's absolutely wrong that it stays the same "no matter where you look on this planet, no matter what the history of that location is, no matter how far back in history you go".
In fact the amount of violence perpetuated by "white people", from the Crusades to the Holocaust, colonial wars, Cold War proxy wars, etc, and onwards, is so much higher, it's not even funny. And not even at their own house -- they pissed all over the world.
As far as medieval history and the other things you've mentioned go, every type of tribe on this planet has engaged in conquest and warfare. Some won. Some lost.
Well, checking for the crime rate between different races and attributing it to "race", instead of looking for the underlying causes, is the epitome of racism.
No different from 18th-19th century scholars, who concluded that blacks had inferior intelligence and reasoning skills etc, which they might indeed have as individual examples under study -- but those scholars also forgot to account for the fact that blacks didn't have the schooling and freedom to develop their personality, or that their original culture was stolen from them and they were abducted and had to operate in a hostile and foreign environment.
>As far as medieval history and the other things you've mentioned go, every type of tribe on this planet has engaged in conquest and warfare. Some won. Some lost.
And some caused endless bloodshed and massacre all over the world for profit and control, and those tended to be whites, from them, to the modern world and wars for oil and strategic interests...
> Well, checking for the crime rate between different races and attributing it to "race", instead of looking for the underlying causes, is the epitome of racism.
Unless that underlining cause is race. And there are quite a few studies backing this up, that did take into account all the typical factors (such as socioeconomic class).
I don't think we are ever going to agree, but I am curious of what you think a middle ground solution would be?...
I would gladly trade some type of payment (reparation) for absolute freedom of association (in all aspects of work and life).
> And some caused endless bloodshed and massacre all over the world for profit and control, and those tended to be whites, from them, to the modern world and wars for oil and strategic interests...
That is because white societies had the technological and strategic platform to do so... If you where to give that same platform to any African-country president/leader/warlord/etc, you would find the end result 10x worse.
Google redlining and tell me who else we've done that to without restitution.
Also the costs associated with absorbing the negative factors related to minorities (such as crime related costs, various social costs, etc) likely geometrically multiplies the above amount in various ways.
sandisk5 is been down voted en masse.
It might be a different place than in the era of KKK-cross-burnings, but it still ways from what a modern, racially just, society should be. Token black president or not.
I wrote above that blacks are for example over-represented in incarcerations, and somebody said that that's because they are over-represented in crime stats too.
Not understanding that that argument, far from being an answer ("see the law it's just doing its jobs, its just that blacks are more criminal") is a great example of racism itself.
It's a given to me, that blacks are not more criminal as a race (that is, in biological terms -- except if you agree with KKK and them having "faulty" criminal DNA etc.).
So if they are "more criminal" in actual life, this can mean mainly two things: (a) the white-dominated legal system has a prejudice against them (putting more of them in jail, giving them harsher punishment for the same crimes compared to whites etc) and (b) their life circumstances push them to commit more crimes.
And I say it's a combination of both (a) and (b).
So, let's put it this way: US would be non racist, not just when black people are less frequently shoot by the police, but when black people are less frequently participating in violent crime too.
Because that would mean that the systemic causes keeping them down and pushing them towards those means have finally been eradicated.
But it's still a place with an obvious problem with institutionalised racism, and every argument in the original holds true, so what does it matter?
It's being downvoted because it's irrelevant, as an interjection it reeks of apologism.
Try googling "over-represented race in incarcerations", "over-represented race in police shootings", "redlining", poverty stats, etc. too. Besides, of those popular people, Michael Jackson tried to turn himself white, MLK Jr was conveniently murdered, Muhammad Ali was persecuted by the state, and Barack Obama is routinely called racist slurs despite being the president.
Plus, it's easy to make popular idols of talented black artists and still view down on the majority of them. Louis Armstrong, boxers and other black entertainers were quite popular when the country was openly racist too.
>Many slavers were African
But none of them operated in the USA or kept slaves there.
The buyers of the millions of blacks that came to the US, those who used and abused them as slaves, and who made the trade profitable in the first place, were white Americans.
>Many slavers were African, and in 1946 very few Americans would have had ancestors who were either slave traders or slave owners.
No, but the majority of them had ancestors that were racist, enforcing double standards, unfair laws (segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc.), and in some cases violence (beatings, lynchings, etc.) to the black population. And most of them were racism themselves too.