PDA

View Full Version : The Racial Tension Thread


PowerPuff Grrl
12-12-2005, 19:31
Because of the recent events in Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/12/11/1134235951313.html), what happened in France, Hurricane Katrina, and ugly soccer hooligans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/4476412.stm) in general I would to discuss something that is often overlooked (intentionally avoided?) here.

Perhaps it is too vague to discuss but regardless I would like to hear your opinions on these or other events.
Is integration and tolerance only applicable to North America, is the European identity too strong to include others?
I hear Britain is doing ok so far.

Or is this simply an overt overreaction to Islamic fundamentalism?

crni
12-12-2005, 19:57
i don't believe it's an overreaction to islamic fundamentalism... every country has it's nationalists that have the urge to spread hatred towards imigrants and "coloured" people... and it's up to government to take care of the situation so that violence doesn't escalate and we see what happens :(
but it's rather worrying when government fails to react properly, like with Katrina, sending the message that it's right to do wrong... :(

freddie
13-12-2005, 01:37
Racism in it's core is of course fear of the unknown. Yet basically I think there's one essencial difference between racism in Europe and former British colonies such as the USA or Australia. In "colonies" the reasons for racisms stem from the following: former slave-trade history (which would indirectly and inadverently make blacks seem less worthy people in minds of average americans), surpressed guilt over old sins which would make the existance of certain people a "painful reminder" for todays white generations (Indians in the USA, or Aborigines in Australia), the fear of smarter and more adaptable people coming over to take their jobs (mostly orientals), while this new found hatered between muslims and (mostly) white christians is a current fad among racists all over the globe for obvious reasons (I think racists all over the world are totally in love with G.W.Bush and his clumsy crusades for getting them a new toy to play with IMO.)

Much of the same racial bigotry exists in Europe as well and though it's equally stupid there's a vital difference to it's collony-based counterparts - Euro racism stems from European nations being nations of "extended families". If you know what I mean. Unlike the US, Canada or Australia, where white people consist of a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds (Irish, English, Slavic, German... you name it), Euro nations are predominantely still nations where people of a country are basicly from the same gene-pool. You can totally spot a typical french guy. Or an italian guy. Most of the white french have a very similar genotype and it's the same all over Europe. People consider their nations as their extended families cause in a broader sense they ARE genetically related to eachother (unlike Americans and Australians who are melting pots of different cultures). This is imo the cancerous wound of Europe - it's slowly becoming a melting pot of different cultures (which is extremelly good), but an average European probably wouldn't like to see this happening. It's probably the same feeling as an average mildly racist white guy would get if his daughter married a black guy. People feel like their "families" are getting wiped out by floods of immigrants. Now all it would take to remedy this situation is to somehow educate their KIDS (yeah, everything starts with next generations), that cultural mixing is actually the best thing that could happen to humanity and that it won't neccesary mean annihilation of their own culture and genetic family, but rather enrichment of it.

As for Hurricane Katarina it's my personal opinion that the goverment's inability to act had more to do with economic rather than racial factors (which is just as sad). Those people in New Orleans - black, white and all the colours in between - were just too poor and insignificant for a wealthy corporate giant such as the USA to get an immediate-response reflex.

But to get back to the original subject. Those hard-core racists - ones who feel it's a worthy enough cause to commit hate-crimes and such - those are using racism strictly as means of an excuse... racism is fear and no one fears something THAT much. They're doing it from completely different reasons from the ones I described above - eventhough they HIDE behind them as an excuse. These hard-liners are in it for one thing only - they have a physical need to hate something. It's the core of their existance. And people who're different (that's where the hidding behind excuses comes in) are perfect targets. I don't believe these people really believe different racists will do harm to them in the same sense as I don't really believe Osame Bin Laden has faith in Qu'oran.

Lux
13-12-2005, 04:12
i get the sense that Europeans cling to history and culture as fundamental parts of their identity, especially in eastern Europe. many of these different cultures and groups have clashed in the past and because of these conflicts, there is a heightened but subtle sense of racism. in this sense, people are racist no longer primarily based on skin color more on language and culture. racism is essentially recognition of those who are different from you. it is in human nature to fear those who are different but it is also part of the evolution of humans to a civilized level to realize the difference but to judge not based on it. in other words, people recognize difference but do not act or base judgment solely on it. it is natural for racism to always be present but the way people react to differences changes as society and law evolves.
in the United States, racism is subtle in many ways in that people are sensitive to race but in general, do not act overtly based on it. there are of course, exceptions to that, as there are everywhere. people will hate or learn to hate everywhere and act on that hatred, so it is no surprise that even though the US is a country of immigrants, many people are tolerant, many are tolerant and accepting, and many are neither. however, racism in the US between whites and blacks is a raging problem. it takes many words to clarify this but i want to say that the dynamic is very real and very problematic. in contrast to another racial dynamic is that of the whites and the asians. asian stereotypes are generally taken in a positive light so whites don't treat asians with much hostility. anyway.
i think there are many factors that play into the Hurricane Katrina reponse. first and foremost, the US budget is not a pleasant plan, as much of it goes towards defense and intelligence. alot of it goes towards funding governmental agencies to fight drugs. how much that trickles down to helping natural disaster victims is a tiny amount, miniscule at best. it is unfortunate for those who lost their homes and jobs but i think the US and many private donors tried hard to help. needless to say, the phillipines disaster happened earlier and that was terrible as well. it has not been a good year and all factors considered (i havent mentioned many, or clearly), it would be rather ignorant to section race as the primary factor for the reaction to hurricane katrina.
it's funny i always start these posts with a point in mind but sometime through it i get sidetracked through and through...and lose my original idea. however, the above mentioned is how i skim the pool of my opinions in an effort at coherent discussion. or not.

EDIT: i've been semi out of loop with current events but this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051213/wl_nm/australia_beach_dc) article covers the events in australia

madeldoe
13-12-2005, 09:19
id have to agree that racism in the US is much more subtle. but i wouldnt go as far as calling it racism anymore, i much prefer using essentialism. where as racism is defined mainly as the idea of domination and privilege on the basis of race; essentialism talks about a more subtle racial ideology where many associate characteristics with inborn traits. so much of the stereotypes we have in our schemas about blacks,whites,asians,blonds,gays..it most probably has essentialist roots to it. so when it comes to the US i am far less worried about "racism" but much more, concerned about essentialism. racism is easier to spot..essentialism, not so much.

as far as the katrina issue goes, i think the cause of the delay has not one, but many contributing factors. although i do think that race was a side issue, because if an area inhabited by wealthy white folk like say the hamptons, were to suffer a "natural disaster", im sure response time would be 10x that of NO. and ofcourse theres that issue of who was the head of FEMA at the time and his highly questionable credentials and so on and so forth.


EDIT:i didnt even see that you mentioned the philippines lux :) its kinda sad theres close to no coverage at all. funny how almost all of the pics shown are of US troops and their choppers :rolleyes:

thank god my family is okay, but i pray for those who arent..

Lux
15-12-2005, 02:53
domination and privilege on the basis of race..inborn traits..let me get this straight.

if traits are inborn, or essential to whatever characteristic is singled out and judged (race, homosexuality, et al.), that is to say that these traits have nothing to do with socialization in the US. that is, learning, adapting, and assimilating into American culture has nothing to do with the formation of these stereotypes. people treat others based these characteristics because they think certain traits are essential to the characteristic as a whole, and nothing to do with the experience of the groups based on culture, experience, etc. so a devoutly religious homosexual mormon is judged the same way as a liberal, metropolitican homosexual. or, a non-white person growing up in the boroughs of NYC is judged the same as someone who grew up in a predominantly white, suburbian neighborhood in the Midwest.

i have one question regarding essentialism, as you put it:
if traits are essential, and in the US, essentialism has replaced racism in a subtle sense, how do you explain the acts of violence that are blatantly overt as compared to the subtle treatment of businesses and corporations to prefer whites to fill executive positions?

nath
15-12-2005, 07:17
I don't have time right now so I'll come back later this week end to discuss about what happened , for exemple, in France.
I'm really upset that all was mixed and manipulated by some media and a lot of Poiltic Men!

I have just 2 questions-ideas:
every country has it's nationalists that have the urge to spread hatred towards imigrants and "coloured" people...
I don't think it's so simple crni...I even think what you say could be VERY dangerous...
I explain : of course , I know you aren't dangerous but to spread systematically this idea is dangerous in the way that : for exemple in France, a lot of associations as "Touche pas à mon pote!" have spreaded , have pushed , have amplified such ideas: take care French hate all what is coloured and won't respect you!....

It's so easyyyyy....of course we are all afraid by all wwhat is different.but people adapt themselves with time and WITH WHAT THEY SEE!!!

So the problem is that with all this brain wash and MANIPULATION from POLITICS to get votes for elections, we have some persons from immigration who arrive in France and immediately situate themselves as VICTIMS!!! ..;I mean BEFORE they even learn to speak french they have in their brain, by all the propaganda, that they are VICTMS!!!

So first I would ask: Are you sure that ALL people really want to integrate a country?
I mean when you arrive into a country , at the origine it's because you have choosen this country...it "fits" to your choice...so may be you have to make some effords to try to INTAGRATE yourself....and when i say that no confusion.....France is a country where people have a Loooooooooooooottttt of freedom and a looooottttt of respect for the traditions of other countries...

Now if you come into France because your own country doesn't even know that the word "freedom" exits in a dictionnary , mostly for economical reasons, and , just exited from the plane you become to claim.. "France is a Sh*t, all people here are just Racists....we are treated Badly....."
I just ask to them....are you really sure that you want to integrate this country ?and I just have to say to them: "You are just fucking liers!!""...

Sorry but i'm really upset. France isn't The States, France isn't South Africa!!!
A LOT of things are made for immigrated people....for people , in general , who have not too much money....

Okay i know this incomplete post could look very HARD....but i have really no time now to developp...andd i'm upset by the manipulation of all this bombing problem by Intellectual journalists or unhonest politic men who absolutely BLIND they eyes from the reality.
Ideology is good but haas its limits too.

I just give you 2 exemples:
I have in my class a little pupil. He is originary from Mali. I think they are 6 children in the family with one mum who isn't working.
He lives with another wife who has too 6 or 7 children.
Do you know where these kiddies were during the riots in Paris? The week end, they took the subway to go to 30, 25 km in other suburbs to watch as a spectacle the riots....because "dixit" they thought it was great and funny to look the cars burning...okay it's their right to chhose a such show to show to their children.

During the next holidays, they will all go FOR FREE in the Mountain , for skying....
All will be paid by the social side of the town..
Me I'm in the middle class...if i want to send my kiddie in the same place , with the town, I would have to pay for one week between 500 and 700 euros.
So they are 6 children X 500 euros= 3 000 euros.

They have no work, they have a free flat, they don't pay taxes, they live with social indemnities and they go in holidays for free to the snow and ....they complain....i don't say other people I say THOSE specific persons.
I've never seen such wonderful smiles on the faces of these kiddies than when they explain how their friends are burning the bins for the fire men come and they could launch stones on them for fun!!:D :( :(

Yesterday evening I was in a shop to buy food in Paris ; A blond woman was shopping ...3 young guys -around 13, 15 years old- entered in the shop...
Not to buy something, just to have fun in disturbing people...so they have pushed FREELY and voluntary the woman...and after they were playing ti hide themselves from the security guards...the woman tried to speak with them..and told them "Why are you acting like that? You want to be respected and you don't respect yourselves other people"...she was 40 years old, she spoke to the kiddies in saying "VOUS" ( it's the polite way of you in french)
They answered to her in a very threating and agressive way and said "You're just a dirty racist!! Take care of you , we are waiting you outside the shop, Bitch!" (they used the "tu" which is the way of "you" you use with friends , damily or people you know).
The woman was scared and asked if a security guard could bring her to her house...

2 years ago, NO SECURITY GUARDS were in this shop...now they need it cause they have agresssions from teenagers all the days. and the cashers are themselves immigrated people but they are disgusted by a such behaviour.

So I don't think you can speak about "IMMIGRATION" in a general way in France.
You have several KINDS of immigrations.
The ones who have made the riots in France are a part of delinquant younth of immigration (they are almost teenagers in gangs) BUT this phenomen was USED by the media and politics to translate a problem linked to ALL the IMMIGRATED PEOPLE.

So I'm sorry to tell that but the ones who've made the riots in France belong to the criminal part of immigration ( sorry for my english I mean the teenagers or people between 13 and 30 years old but who live thanks to SOCIAL AIDS + steal (mobile phones, we call that in french :'tombé du camion" 'fallen from the truck"..it means all the brand clothes or computer or tv or camera which are stolen whe they are brought by trucks to the shop and are sold after "hand" to "hand" with a shorte price" ) .

It isn't the one who try to integrate the society by their studies or even simple jobs.

BUT the first part indeed, by its actions for FUN ( to be a hero as in the american movies) or for its own financial interests BRINGS PREJUDICE To THE IMAGE of the other immigration which really wants to be integrated!!!

crni, I've said "no" at the beginning of this post to you ...but indeed I have the same fears as you;..
DO you know what they say right now at the radio???
They say that these last months the potential people who could Vote for FRONT NATIONAL ( Extreme Nationalist Party) has increased!!!!

That's why I'm fucking UPSET!!!.... Because people here are AFRAID.....not about the difference of culture....but because of the criminality which has increased a LOOOOOOttttt these last years....
And they mix the criminal part od immigration with the all immigration!...

I'm fucking UPSET because i don't want this party drives my country!!!

So people claims we are such racists....the sentence of France is "Liberty,Egality, Brotherwood"
about EGALITY.....some complain it doesn't exisst here...I agree that it mght be more difficult to find a job when you have an arabic name than a french name....but in the same time, if a young teenager-30 years old -the style who was in the previous riot- breaks freely telephone places, windows, burns cars for fun , steal sradios in breaking car...he will get LESS problem with the justice than if ME I do 10% of what they do...
I would get a lot more problems with the LAW..here.

SO I could ask myself, is there EGALITY here?

To resume:
1/France isn't SOUTH AFRICA about respect of the human rights and social aids
2/ You can't speak about ONE IMMIGRATION IN GENERAL: you have sevral different types of immigration
3/WHen you arrive into a country you have RIGHTS..I agree.....BUT YOU HAVE DUTIES TOO.....one of this duty is just to respect the Law.

The problem is that a part of immigration wants the RIGHTS without aplying themselves the DUTIES.
ANd this is THIS PART(issue from the immigration and who prefers the money won easely than the efford of job or studies) who BRING the most negative aspect , sight on GENERAL COMMUNITY of IMMIGRATION.

I'll come back....cause it's very long to explain and I think France has a specific mentality so a specific problem with immigration.

madeldoe
15-12-2005, 10:30
domination and privilege on the basis of race..inborn traits..let me get this straight.

if traits are inborn, or essential to whatever characteristic is singled out and judged (race, homosexuality, et al.), that is to say that these traits have nothing to do with socialization in the US. that is, learning, adapting, and assimilating into American culture has nothing to do with the formation of these stereotypes. people treat others based these characteristics because they think certain traits are essential to the characteristic as a whole, and nothing to do with the experience of the groups based on culture, experience, etc. so a devoutly religious homosexual mormon is judged the same way as a liberal, metropolitican homosexual. or, a non-white person growing up in the boroughs of NYC is judged the same as someone who grew up in a predominantly white, suburbian neighborhood in the Midwest.


maybe cuz im running on 4 hours of sleep, but i didnt quite get yoru point. so let me see if i can clear up what i said. an essentialist ideology suggests that race is a matter of innate characteristics, of which skin pigmentation or other inborn traits are key indicators. so when we laugh at dumb blonde jokes, we are showing our essentialist asses. and even discussing the word race is a bit tricky because the concept of race has nothing to do with the color of one's skin, but has everything to do with the social significance put on skin color.

i have one question regarding essentialism, as you put it:
if traits are essential, and in the US, essentialism has replaced racism in a subtle sense, how do you explain the acts of violence that are blatantly overt as compared to the subtle treatment of businesses and corporations to prefer whites to fill executive positions?


well it depends on which acts of violence your are referring to. i never stated that extreme racism doesn't exists, becaue im sure it is still quite prevalent in the south and other lil dots but not to the extent of essentialism.

crni
15-12-2005, 14:01
nath, i respect everything you said about france, of course you know the situation perfectly...
but i was speaking in general, and i don't see what i said wrong... it's just how things are (the way i see them, but of course i don't support them!). i might be wrong, of course...
i just want to emphasize that (just about) everything is in the government's hands... it seems france is very social country... but the problem with that "sociality" is that (bad) immigrants rather choose not to work and do some criminal work instead because they know they'll get financial support by the government anyway... they could say: "why would i integrate? i like the way it is!" and government doesn't do anything to make them get a job and work! i don't see where that leads (form the governments point of view). it's ok to help immigrants for a couple of months to settle, but in this way they are just getting the message that's it's cool to get in france and do nothing, or even better, make riots and such... WRONG!! :mad:

you said you're worried about increased supporters of nationalist patries... but that's pretty much the general image of europe today... sadly,in croatia is the same situation... :(

at the end i must say that i disapprove any extremist actions in any way and will never participate in such... so, nath, you don't have to worry about me ;)

nath
15-12-2005, 19:19
so, nath, you don't have to worry about me
I've never even thought about that from you crni...don't be afraid....:love:

crni
15-12-2005, 21:59
I've never even thought about that from you crni...don't be afraid....:love:
i'm glad :rose:

KillaQueen
15-12-2005, 22:19
well, i dunno what happens in your countries, but here the majority of people absolutely hate gypsies (moi included), because i dunno why the hell they have settled in our country (turning it into "Gypsyland") and, if they did, why the crap they don't find decent things to do except dig in the garbage, roam the streets in their horse drawn carts, live in their tents in the outskirts of all the bigger cities, steal and all that. we have created a good environment for them: they can attend schools, universities on taxpayer's money, yet i don't know how many do that. and not only that, but they also go abroad (illegally, duh) and beg for money and ask for political asylum saying they were being discriminated over here. of course, Spain, UK, France and all those countries GIVE THEM the asylum. heck, what i wouldn't give to go live in those countries. but no, i'm just a regular romanian working my ass off for a crappy sallary in order to save money to go ONCE A YEAR abroad LEGALLY. while the gypsies can go live there whenever they please (even get citizenship). and i bet they make MUCH MORE money by begging in the west than i do working. and i am NOT kidding.

moreover, westerners are of course sick and tired of getting our gypsies over there requesting asylums and all that, and so they impose rules on us, restricting romanians access abroad. the uk still require visas (as if that ever stopped gypsies from going there. they do it ILLEGALLY, hello!), while the rest of europe requires a certain amount of money and an obligatory voucher or invitation from the person you're going to abroad. so thank you very much, but this ONLY makes it harder for normal people like me to travel outside the country, NOT for the gypsies (and all the other idiotic thieves, for that matter).

anyway, that being said, i wouldn't say we are racists (except when it comes to the gypsies). but after the revolution in '89, we got to see black people on our streets and asian people and of course that was something new (it still is), so we're trying to get used to that. i've noticed people's tendency to stare when they see a black person mostly. but it's more of a curious stare if anything. like i said, we're still working on it.

Lux
15-12-2005, 23:46
why that's just good plain ol' prejudice :p

PowerPuff Grrl
16-12-2005, 07:20
As far as my understanding of immgrants go, being one myself, I think it is safe to assume that all immigrants leaving a country for another do so with the innate understanding that in order to fully integrate/succeed into an accepting society they are going to have lose a bit of their culture/identity. Not they themselves, per se, but rather their children's because honestly I can't see any possibility of a fully formed adult totally abandoning their initial nationality. Adult immigrants also lose high prestigious jobs for low-paying jobs no longer occupied by white people (e.g. cab drivers). Seems like a lot but any immigrant would do that in order for their children to gain opportunities not possible in their home country. And their children do gain that opportunity, or at least they should.
See, it is like a give/take situation, but it doesn't only apply to immigrants but also to the host country. That country should leave room over time for the other generations of children of immigrants to grant them upward social mobility. These children have to have the chance to aim higher. To do that would involve the country losing/sharing some of the monopoly it has over the culture, identity and even power it once had. And naturally the country would change dramatically, for the better IMHO.
The US is exemplary in this, their identity has changed over the last hundred years. The children of Italian/Irish/Jewish/Polish/etc. immigrants eventually becoming millionaires, politicians; some even becoming presidents, shaping identity of the nation. Keep in mind though that many of those immigrants' worth was considered beneath that of Black people way back when. Of course it was/is easier having them integrate than having Black people integrate, but even though the US has criminally delayed their admittance into getting opportunities others have enjoyed (and still do, but more of that later) the contribution the Black people have made to American culture says a lot.

I don't think the problem in France lies mainly with the immigrants but rather with the government. I sorry, but giving rent-free apartments, gov't provided vacations and no jobs is pretty much the shittiest social plan I have ever of. Immigrants don't come to start a new life by becoming freeloaders (and they certainly don't come to bitch about their adoptive country), they come to work hard and earn a decent living for their children. That money for vacations and free rents should be redirected to give businesses incentives to employ immigrants. The impression that is coming from Europe is that most countries are not offering opportunities for first and second generation immigrants. It was the second generation immigrants that started and participated in the riots. As history dictates, it is the second generation that personifies the success stories. nath, you briefly mentioned that it is harder for people with non-French names to get jobs than it is for people with French names even when they are both qualified, but perhaps this deserves a lot more focus. These people are not getting the opportunities they deserve, they aren't getting the very thing they solely came to the country for. What is the point of getting an education when you do can do nothing with it?
Are they even starting to participate in French discourse?
Is there a fair immigrant representation of French politics?
If they isn't any of those, then honestly I think the riots were justified; all other means to get these issues to the surface were exhausted and proved ineffective. There is nothing like a riot to make people pay attention and act.

The question, I think, really is if France (and other European countries facing the similar situation) willing to give up a part of themselves, their identity for the sake of their immigrants?
Do you dread, or look forward to having the national music of France with a strictly North African rhythym to it? Can you see having a Turkish German Chancellor, and voting for him/her? The most succesful high-paying actor/actress in Sweden being Somalian and people lining up to see all of her/his movies?
These are all superficial examples but basically what I trying to say is if Europe is willing to change their identities as much, and maybe moreso as the US has changed.

You may say yes nath, but I don't think too many Europeans would like that.

PS: And just a question, because I have heard this from a few German and French people, but are immigrants actually considered French/German/Italians/etc. or are they just "Citizens of France/Germany/Italy/etc?

PPS: KillaQueen, usually I'd jump all over that but so many people I know who are sooo not racist have those very same sentiments when speaking of gypsies. I swear to God, for the longest time I didn't think gypsies still existed and the only gypsy I could conjure up in my head was Esmerelda. Horse drawn carts? Seriously? Like what, are they race or something?

KillaQueen
16-12-2005, 08:22
My dear Powerpuff, now i realize this may not be the best image for my country (it's not that i hate it or anything - well, i do, but that's another story lol), yet here you go. hopefully you believe me now: pictures of those lovely gypsies (and let me tell you you are SO lucky for not being around them - don't worry, me and some millions of other 'lucky' people have already filled that spot, thank you very much).
typical gypsy tents (http://www.badorgood.com/detail.php?id=4899) - that's where the poor ones live.
the so-called "gypsy palaces" (http://www.fotografii.ro/laca.php?name=Start&op=show&id=2) - where the rich ones live (wonder where did they get all their money from).
you can see this scene in Bucharest every day, in metro, busses, trams, you name it (http://www.photomills.co.uk/images/Romania%20copy/Tiganca-si-Copi.jpg)
look at this one. the ones looking like this usually want to read your palm and shit. (http://www.diasporaro.com/nr_curent/poze/tiganca91.jpg)
hello, mr. typical gypsy man! (http://www.photomills.co.uk/images/Romania%20copy/Gypsy-Man-Cirta.jpg)
and saving the best for last: the blasted horse drawn carts! (http://www.tase.ro/media/1/2004/caruta1.jpg) - these are usually filled with a whole gypsy family going out for a 'drive', sometimes in our capital's CITY CENTRE (luckily we got a new law saying they cant come here with those 'wheels', but that doesnt stop them). i mean just imagine THIS among those brand new bmw's, peugeots, fords and what not. whoever said USA was the land of all possibilities was wrong. :none:

coolasfcuk
16-12-2005, 09:11
well, i dunno what happens in your countries, but here the majority of people absolutely hate gypsies (moi included), because i dunno why the hell they have settled in our country (turning it into "Gypsyland") and, if they did, why the crap they don't find decent things to do except dig in the garbage, roam the streets in their horse drawn carts, live in their tents in the outskirts of all the bigger cities, steal and all that. we have created a good environment for them: they can attend schools, universities on taxpayer's money, yet i don't know how many do that. and not only that, but they also go abroad (illegally, duh) and beg for money and ask for political asylum saying they were being discriminated over here. of course, Spain, UK, France and all those countries GIVE THEM the asylum. heck, what i wouldn't give to go live in those countries. but no, i'm just a regular romanian working my ass off for a crappy sallary in order to save money to go ONCE A YEAR abroad LEGALLY. while the gypsies can go live there whenever they please (even get citizenship). and i bet they make MUCH MORE money by begging in the west than i do working. and i am NOT kidding.

moreover, westerners are of course sick and tired of getting our gypsies over there requesting asylums and all that, and so they impose rules on us, restricting romanians access abroad. the uk still require visas (as if that ever stopped gypsies from going there. they do it ILLEGALLY, hello!), while the rest of europe requires a certain amount of money and an obligatory voucher or invitation from the person you're going to abroad. so thank you very much, but this ONLY makes it harder for normal people like me to travel outside the country, NOT for the gypsies (and all the other idiotic thieves, for that matter).

anyway, that being said, i wouldn't say we are racists (except when it comes to the gypsies). but after the revolution in '89, we got to see black people on our streets and asian people and of course that was something new (it still is), so we're trying to get used to that. i've noticed people's tendency to stare when they see a black person mostly. but it's more of a curious stare if anything. like i said, we're still working on it.
Well, KillaQueen, basically described BULGARIA as well... and i mean that 100% ... and the pic she posted above could just as well be taken in BULGARIA ... so Killa dont you think you are alone in this... though, Romania is bigger and i think might have just a tiny bit more gysies, but that might be questionable .... believe me when i travel around europe with bulgarian passport it ISNT easy, because the gypsies have 'set' perfect example 'round the west .. i constantly had to prove I have $ and return ticket (honestly, having green card is the only thing that made it easier).

oh yeah, one last thing you didnt mention that we have (and believe me all the people that come to visit me DIE when they see, esp. sasha) ... BEARS in the city's center! :laugh: a papa gypsy has the bear on a leash or rather chain, that connects to a hoop that goes through the bears nose (yeah, nice piercing) ... and the gypsy has a string musical instrument... when he starts playing it the bear gets on its back feet and starts DANCING!!! THe gypsy is doing that hoping the tourist would give him $$$ :rolleyes: but the tourists are simply astonished and run far away,, as they arent used to seeing a bear 10cm from them! so do you have that as wel Killa?

lemme see if i can dig couple of pics that i took 2 summers ago while i was back home visitin

edit: BINGO I knew i had uploaded some on webshots long time ago, here are couple of bear pics from Sofia CENTER, and i mean, the center center, on one of the busiest streets with ALL the expensive stores like gucci and so on :eek:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/94596985/94597094aaIuBs - here he is, i was filming with video camera (those are screen shots), so he thought i was a TOURIST :rolleyes:, so of course he started playing.. the bear here is about to get on the back feet...he is staring at me hoping for $..
http://community.webshots.com/photo/94597110/94597110eWBOFb - to which i was like ... "NO" motioning with my head, so he stopped playing and kept going down the sidewalk
http://community.webshots.com/photo/94597085/94597085hgSYTw - yep, he is about to walk through that sidewalk cafe with the fucking bear!

edit2: blah, i cant find the pics of the hourse carrage i took that same summer .. on my STREET, like 3 min walk from my apartment! i will surely post it when i find it thought... :heh:

haku
16-12-2005, 15:43
The question, I think, really is if France (and other European countries facing the similar situation) willing to give up a part of themselves, their identity for the sake of their immigrants?You mean more than going from a Celtic nation to a Roman province, adopting the language and the culture of the conquerors in the process? I think we have been more than willing to give up a part of our identity for the sake of our immigrants, otherwise we would still be a pure Celtic nation like Ireland, France would still be called Gaul and we would still be speaking Gaulish.

France, like any other European country, has always had an evolving identity and culture, it has assimilated many immigration flows during its history. Europe has a whole has known countless population movements and various invasions throughout its history, change is a constant in European history.
Like i said, France went from being a Celtic nation to a Roman province, and later to a Frankish kingdom. Celtic to Italic to Germanic, talk about evolution! The original Celtic population of France (which is actually not 'original' since like all Indo-Europeans, Celtic tribes came from Eastern Europe) has seen many flows of immigrants, Greek colonists in Southern France (Marseille was a Greek Colony), many Roman colonists after the Roman conquest, Germanic settlers after the fall of the Roman Empire (the main tribe, the Franks, becoming the new rulers and giving their name to the country).
My own region, Normandy, saw another massive flow of immigration during the 10th and 11th centuries when many Scandinavians settled there following the Viking conquest.
Of course this is old history, but this is Europe. Europe is not the US, Europe has a long and complex history that can't be denied, and its modern population is the result of a complex mix up of many different populations. I live in a region populated by people who are a mix of Scandinavian, Celtic, Frankish, and Roman people, i live in a city that was founded by the Romans over 2,000 years ago over a Gaulish village whose foundation is lost in time, our identity and culture has evolved a great deal in 2,000 years, it's not something that was frozen a long time ago and has never changed.
But even in more recent history (18th-19th centuries), France has seen many new flows of immigrants, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and Russian people to name a few, all those people are now fully integrated in French society and can't be told from 'older French' people.

Nicolas Sarkozy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy), one of the most prominent political figures in France at the moment and leader of one of the 2 main parties, is of Hungarian origin (and even a quarter Turkish), and even though his family is of recent immigration (it's his father who immigrated), they are fully integrated in French society and totally considered as French. I have never ever heard anyone, not even among his political opponents, mentioning anything about the fact that his family has only been French for 50 years.
So integration of immigrants in French society does work, and has been working for over 2,000 years.

The only troubles are recent, and they come from African immigration, African people do not integrate, they never have and probably never will (or at least not in the foreseeable future), it was a mistake to allow so many African immigrants in France and in Europe in general, it simply does not work.
Plus, Europe is currently undergoing a difficult process, the European integration within the European Union. Borders no longer exist within the European Union, and people from the 25 member states are considered EU citizens, they can travel, work and live anywhere they want within the European Union. All EU nations already have to give up a part of their identity to build something greater and go toward European unification.
It's a difficult enough process as it is, one that has already caused 2 world wars and countless regional wars in European history, but this time we are trying to achieve continental unification peacefully.
In my opinion, adding external immigration to an already stressful process of continental unification is too much to ask to European people. External EU borders should be almost closed to external immigration for the time being, to let the time to European people to come to terms with the population movements within the EU and the changes it's causing in our national cultures.

freddie
17-12-2005, 01:06
There's a question arising here: what do people consider as "integration" these days? Getting a job and learning the langauge of a host country? Or complete cultural embrace of new surroundins and gradual decay of original heritage? I'm sad to see that this is exactly what many Euro nations would like when it comes to the question of immigrants. They want Europe to become a melting pot of nations where immigrants (or at least their children) would eventually ceased to embrace their original culture, becoming completely assimilated into the new one. Imo, Europe as a continent should be all about celebrating diversity.

I agree with Ppgrrl about the social side of the immigrant issue. I think being unemployed, especially in a foreign environment is bound to make a person estranged from it's surroundings, up to that extent when you start considering the state, goverment and people around you as your enemies.

Regarding gypsies - same problem is Slovenia. I'm split in my opinions as far as it comes to them. On one side, yes, every person deserves basic privileges, guaranteed by the UN charter on human rights, yet on the other these gypsies are trying their hardest to EXACTLY match every bad stereotype people have about them. As in: they're given an opportunity to have jobs, yet they don't want them, since they live well of wellfare (especially since they almost as a rule have more than 4 children per family - which automatically grants them max goverment aid), they steal, cause riots, threaten locals with knives, their children evolve sooner than average western white children do (this is scientifically proven), which means girls get married at 12-14 - a 15 year of gypsy girl usually has her first child already - yet this brings another inconvenience: 12-15 year old gypsy boys who think white girls they go to school with develop just as quickly as tehir gypsy counterparts, so they start badgering them sexually... it came up to a point where Slovene parents in a school near the Hungarian border (that's where most of the gypsies are concentrated), demanded gypsies to have a separated classes from their white mates. This issue even came up to the European Commission as a breach of human rights. I do admit that seperate schools idea is taking it a bit far. It has a kind of a nazi-flavour to it.

I'd say that as human beings they still deserve to be respected and treated with dignity, yet Euro goverments (especially in Eastern Europe where this problem is most serious) should start indirectly forcing them to gradually adapt to the surroundings they're living in (getting a job, sending their children to school - many gypsy kids are never sent to primary school, or they drop out before finishing. If they can't assimilate or even adapt then they should at least RESPECT habits and traditions of a host nations, if they want to live with them in harmony. Where do they come from Killa asked... well scientists have not figured their historical migration routes precisely, yet by now it's almost proven that their original homeland was infact - India. They share a common genotype structure to some castes of Indians and their langauge Romany is lingusitically tied to some languages of India - namely Punjabi. They became nomadic around 9th century, when they left their ancient motherland India and headed towards Europe through territories of today's Iran and Pakistan. Why they became nomadic in the first place is still a puzzling issue.

KillaQueen
17-12-2005, 06:14
coolies, holy cow, we don't have bears like that! :eek:
i mean i have NEVER seen this here lol. ok, that's just pure shocking. thanks for making me feel better :gigi:

freds, yeah, i imagine they are spread everywhere in eastern europe, but i saw a percentage board at some point, and it seems we have the most gypsy percentage in ALL of europe :bum:
oh i didn't ask where did they came from lol. i very well know where they came from, shit, don't you think i wish them to go back every single day? :laugh:

coolasfcuk
17-12-2005, 08:19
coolies, holy cow, we don't have bears like that! :eek:
i mean i have NEVER seen this here lol. ok, that's just pure shocking. thanks for making me feel better
no ffffffffffkin way! so your gypsies are WAY better behgaved then ours! :rolleyes: .. i have a video of a bear somwehre from last summer when i was at the seaside.....:luagh: .. the man played under our balcony ... so fkng lovely

freds, yeah, i imagine they are spread everywhere in eastern europe, but i saw a percentage board at some point, and it seems we have the most gypsy percentage in ALL of europe
yeah, freds, i think Slovenia has almost none compared to romania and bulgaria... i remember something like aht Killa is saying... most in Romania, then Bulgaria in second place :blabla:

oh yeah, and killa, do yours still the ELECTRICITY Cables? cause ours do and some of them burn up there... or a whole neighborhood goes black for a while... and then they sell it for recycling :rolleyes:

thought id add some photos of OUR, haha Bulgarian, gypsies:

Gypsaaaaaaaaaaaa (http://www.csc.depauw.edu/~dharms/BulgarianWeb/images/2004-11-17/Gypsies/CAM_1605.htm)
http://miss-information.net/blog/archives/001503.html - here they tell you how poor they are...
Gypsies

Gypsies (or roma) are everywhere in Bulgaria and Eastern Europe, and it's been interesting to observe the attitudes Bulgarians have toward them. Gypsies can be seen everyday going through the trash bins on the street collecting items others have discarded. Several times I've seen entire families sifting through trash. I wonder what it's like being a teenage boy helping your parents rifle through a dumpster in front of the school where other children your age can see you; I imagine it's humiliating. People will often leave "good" items such as shoes and clothes next to the trashcans for gypsies; I suppose this is similar to donating things to Goodwill in the US.

Gypsies seem to live in houses, while most other Bulgarians prefer to live in the concrete apartment buildings that have central heating and other modern amenities. Although there are some sections of town that are populated almost entirely by gypsies, they live throughout town; we have gypsies living behind our apartment building. Gypsies seem to have their own culture and social status that is separate yet integrated with mainstream Bulgarian culture.

Most Bulgarians seem to stereotype gypsies as beggars and slackers, find nothing positive to say about them, and blame all problems on them. If street signs disappear it's the gypsies; if the government doesn't have enough money it's because the gypsies are freeloading; all petty theft is caused by gypsies; the list goes on and on - practically all problems are caused by gypsies. Gypsies are considered to be lazy bums, even though they seem to have to work quite hard to survive; for example, the gypsies behind our building are chopping wood right now for heat, whereas the rest of us are warm in our centrally-heated apartments. Go figure.

There is a gypsy woman who begs everyday in the center of Rousse. One day a friend and I were walking though that area when she approached us. After we left my friend told me that if the beggar didn't bring back enough money at the end of the day she would be beaten; since then I often give her some loose pocket change when I see her in the square.
:lol: this is what a fucking American visitor had to say about gypsies.... honey, what they fuck do you know, go back to your bubble, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/07/asteroid_honour/ .. oh yeah... see, some can make it big if they just know how to work it! :laugh: this is the biggiest selling Bulgarian music artist in the last few years - Azis - the gypsaaaaaaaaaaa

KillaQueen
17-12-2005, 09:31
no ffffffffffkin way! so your gypsies are WAY better behgaved then ours! .. i have a video of a bear somwehre from last summer when i was at the seaside... .. the man played under our balcony ... so fkng lovely
how romantic :laugh:
yeah, we get them at the seaside as well, but they usually have monkeys and tiger cubs :bum:
oh yeah, and killa, do yours still the ELECTRICITY Cables? cause ours do and some of them burn up there... or a whole neighborhood goes black for a while... and then they sell it for recycling
yeah, they do the crappy fuckers. they ALWAYS steal metals (steel, mostly). even railroad tracks! i mean heck,i remeber a train going off the tracks because of this. and where my mom works (she's an engineer), they always see from their office window how they come and steal the metal bars the workers keep outside, cos they dont fit inside the warehouse. mom has even photographed them and send the photos to the police, but hell, they are UNSTOPPABLE.
Gypsaaaaaaaaaaaa (http://www.csc.depauw.edu/~dharms/BulgarianWeb/images/2004-11-17/Gypsies/CAM_1605.htm)
:eek: this looks like a scene depicted near my appartment block! lol.
Most Bulgarians seem to stereotype gypsies as beggars and slackers, find nothing positive to say about them, and blame all problems on them. If street signs disappear it's the gypsies; if the government doesn't have enough money it's because the gypsies are freeloading; all petty theft is caused by gypsies; the list goes on and on - practically all problems are caused by gypsies. Gypsies are considered to be lazy bums, even though they seem to have to work quite hard to survive; for example, the gypsies behind our building are chopping wood right now for heat, whereas the rest of us are warm in our centrally-heated apartments. Go figure.
LMAO! this HAS GOT to be the funniest thing i've read in a while. allow me to: :laugh:
There is a gypsy woman who begs everyday in the center of Rousse. One day a friend and I were walking though that area when she approached us. After we left my friend told me that if the beggar didn't bring back enough money at the end of the day she would be beaten; since then I often give her some loose pocket change when I see her in the square.
now, see, we should teach the foreigners. people, DO NOT give money to beggars, especially not gypsies. they dont get beaten up, they act all handicapped and shit when i saw one buying CIGARETTES from the money she's begged, while she had gypsy kids hanging hungry from her tits. puh-lease. and after qutting tit, they pick up smoking as well, at the tender age of 4 or 5.
this is what a fucking American visitor had to say about gypsies.... honey, what they fuck do you know, go back to your bubble, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease!
yeah, no shit! :none:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/07/asteroid_honour/ .. oh yeah... see, some can make it big if they just know how to work it! :laugh: this is the biggiest selling Bulgarian music artist in the last few years - Azis - the gypsaaaaaaaaaaa
:lol: oddly enough, gypsy music is the most popular here for a few years now :confused:

PowerPuff Grrl
17-12-2005, 15:27
Are you saying that the only way France will integrate is if the country is invaded and ruled by some foriegn force or that France will allow opportunity if the immigrants are white?

Amber, African immigrants aren't conquerers, there aren't going to takeover France and call it "New Algeria" or call Paris "Senegaltown" or anything. Is that how you see all these immigrants as because that ultra-defensive mentality will get you nowhere.

As you might know, many Africans aren't from Europe, aren't Christian, and mostly importantly aren't white. So it's easy for those past immigrants to be successful and for you to accept them when they pretty much are all three of these things.

It's pretty much jobs. Good jobs that they are qualified for, that is all these new immigrants need. That and better living conditions.
Jesus Christ here people, there are human beings you know. They have dreams and aspirations that can't possibly be achieved from those ghettos. They aren't asking for free shit, just opportunities and that is something a country is obligated to give its citizens. They deserve a safe environment to live out ambitions, not some community where the only policing it gets are are cops in riot gear.

Stop telling me you aren't the US or South Africa. I know that. At least those countries accepted some, if not all, of the blame.
Maybe France isn't as overtly prejudiced as those countries once were and maybe your gov't has some good intentions, but painting all of those immigrants as villians is not proving your point.

haku
17-12-2005, 18:18
As you might know, many Africans aren't from Europe, aren't Christian, and mostly importantly aren't white. So it's easy for those past immigrants to be successful and for you to accept them when they pretty much are all three of these things.I said Africans for a reason, to me it's not a question of skin color and religion. First of all, to me North Africans are white, i know that in the US even Latin people are considered 'non-white' which always leaves me totally stunned, in Europe Latin people are of course considered white and so are Arab people. There is little difference in skin color between people who live on the European Mediterranean coast and people who live on the African Mediterranean coast, of course they can easily be told apart because of obvious differences in facial characteristics, one group being of Indo-European descent and the other of Semite descent, but the skin color is similar, mainly caused by the local climate and not by their ethnic heritage. Many Italian, French, and Spanish people have actually been detained and questioned by US customs because they 'looked Arab', if those officers had been correctly trained they could have easily made the difference between people of Indo-European descent and people of Semite descent but whatever, i guess that anyone darker than a Scandinavian person looks Arab to them.

So anyway, North Africans are white, but obviously not christian. As for black African people, they are actually generally christian, even more so than French people, only 10% of French people attend church, the percentage is much higher among African immigrants. Whether they be Christian or Muslim, religion itself is not the problem, it's the level of zealotry displayed by those African immigrants that causes trouble, most French people don't take religion seriously at all, and the deeply conservative religious views of those African immigrants are seen as a threat to the rather liberal French society. We already fought religion 200 years ago after the French revolution, and we are not going to let them drag us back to religious conservatism.

But the core reason why African immigrants do not integrate into European societies is simply because they belong to different civilizations. Black people in the US are not really 'African', they were brought there as slaves and lost their languages and cultures, 'African-Americans' are essentially Americans, they speak English and they share the same basic culture as 'European-Americans', skin color is indeed the main barrier in the US because culturally there's not much difference.
But contrary to the US, African people who immigrate to Europe are true Africans, they speak African languages and have African cultures, North Africans even though they are white clearly belong to the Arab civilization, and black Africans even though they are christian clearly belong to one of the African civilizations, and this is why they can't integrate into the European civilization, it simply doesn't work.

coolasfcuk
17-12-2005, 19:29
how romantic :laugh:
yeah, we get them at the seaside as well, but they usually have monkeys and tiger cubs
ok, i just woke up, so this might be a dumb question, but whats 'tiger cubs'?
we also have the ones with the snakes at the seaside :lol: the swedes always get trapped by those!

:eek: this looks like a scene depicted near my appartment block! lol.
lol

LMAO! this HAS GOT to be the funniest thing i've read in a while.
i knooooooooooow, this is my FAV part as well.... i read again now and i am still cracking up! LOL 'they are working hard chopping wood' :lol:

now, see, we should teach the foreigners. people, DO NOT give money to beggars, especially not gypsies. they dont get beaten up, they act all handicapped and shit when i saw one buying CIGARETTES from the money she's begged, while she had gypsy kids hanging hungry from her tits. puh-lease. and after qutting tit, they pick up smoking as well, at the tender age of 4 or 5.
:laugh: ohhhhhhhh, i have stories about that...
1st one: you know what you are local and pass by the same place every day you get familiar with things.. well, in the center of Sofia i used to pass by this underground every day in my high school days.... and there was a Gypsaaaaaaaaaa (sorry, i like the sound of that) begger.... who sits on the ground and appears to have one leg chopped off @ the knee... but it is conviniently covred up with his JACKET! the problem is, one day it would be the left leg, and another it would be the right one :lol: what a fucking... yeah!
2nd story... there is another 'famous' one, always in the ceter again.... and one day i saw him leave his 'spot' in the evening and a fucking MERCEDES pulled up and picked him up! hellooooooooo, do you see ME driving a MERCEDES!?

ohhhhhh, and your description of the gypsaaaaaaaaa kids is so accurate, except you forgot to say that around 6 they also pick up the art of sniffing GLUE from plastic bags.....by 12-13 they start having babies... by 20 they have a family of 7 and so on ....so watch out, they are gonna take over in no time with such rates, as bulgarians for example rarely have kids and usually not before they are in their 30s

ohh, and when sasha was in bulgaria and we were walking downtown, a gypsaaa kid tried to slteel shit from her bag ....lucky for her i wasnt fast enough, because she would've been in trouble!

haku
17-12-2005, 19:33
whats 'tiger cubs'?Tiger babies, lol. ;)

coolasfcuk
17-12-2005, 19:34
Tiger babies, lol. ;)
oh, thanks :gigi: [ok, im on my way to get coffee, i think its needed!]

sooo, i am sorry, but i think i prefer bears to Tigers! :rolleyes:

PowerPuff Grrl
18-12-2005, 07:51
But the core reason why African immigrants do not integrate into European societies is simply because they belong to different civilizations. Black people in the US are not really 'African', they were brought there as slaves and lost their languages and cultures, 'African-Americans' are essentially Americans, they speak English and they share the same basic culture as 'European-Americans', skin color is indeed the main barrier in the US because culturally there's not much difference.
But contrary to the US, African people who immigrate to Europe are true Africans, they speak African languages and have African cultures, North Africans even though they are white clearly belong to the Arab civilization, and black Africans even though they are christian clearly belong to one of the African civilizations, and this is why they can't integrate into the European civilization, it simply doesn't work.

By your reasoning then I can assume that it doesn't work because Europe is inherently intolerant to people of other cultures.
Bold statement I know, but not as bold as the statement you just made that Africans can't integrate because they're just different. France isn't the only country with African immigrants, believe it or not but the US has black people that are immigrants from the Carribean and all parts of Africa, and they are well integrated into their surroundings and are doing just fine. I'm from Eritrea (that is in East Africa) and I am a little more than integrated into Canada, I am straight up Canadian. I have cousins in Australia and they are doing just fine.
Perhaps it is because it just different in Europe, history and culture is just too strong there to really compare to Australia and North America. But then I remember relatives living in the UK and knowing they are doing ok. I am also aware that they had a rocky experience with integration during the 1980s but that they have grown from it.

Africans can, in fact, integrate. We don't have to become slaves and have our language, history, and culture removed from us, or least I hope that isn't what is expected from us. (Slice of advice, don't use slaves as examples of good integration). We can willingly, even enthusiatically, adapt into our new surroundings as long as it is accepting. We are doing it now, we'll do it again.

PS: Thank you KillaQueen, coolasfcuk, and Freddie I have really enjoyed reading about gypsies.
So educational!

coolasfcuk
18-12-2005, 10:09
PS: Thank you KillaQueen, coolasfcuk, and Freddie I have really enjoyed reading about gypsies.
So educational!
well, i just hope you dont think we are bunch of racists, as i dont concider myself one, in fact id like to think that i am pretty open minded (though i do realize that humans are hypocrits to lesser or greater degree)...i just et angry when some westerner that knows nothing about the culture judges without any understanding of what is actually going on...:rolleyes:

i also wanted to add that my best friend (from high school)'s mom was a techer at a gypsy schoo (yes, they are dispersed among us, but they also like to stay in their comunes)... from her i know that gypsy culture is chategorized by:
1.) learning how to STEAL - it is concidered a disgrace if you dont learn how to being $ or goods home without having to work for them like other people
2.) if you are a woman and you arent married by the time you are 13-14 you are concidered a society 'drop out' ... and the brides are still usually sold
they choose to live in the conditons they live (for the most part)... i have this GREAT bulgarian callendar from my aunts work (its full of pictures from the companies emplyes and the theme is 'bulgaria through the lense of GloBul workers) ... i should scan a oic from it - a house in the gypsy neighborhood - a typical one, run down and NASTY... but... there is a mercedes parked in front :laugh: .. wonder if it is the SAME guy from my previous post now that i think of it! LoL

Rachel
18-12-2005, 10:11
but... there is a mercedes parked in front :laugh:Let me guess, a respray and number plate change after stealing it?! :laugh:

coolasfcuk
18-12-2005, 10:21
Let me guess, a respray and number plate change after stealing it?! :laugh:
:lol: thats a possibility... but really, i think its more like... they steal, make whatever deals (not like bulgarians dont, lets not start talking about the damn mafia...), but he(i would say she as well to be politically correct, but that is NOT true about bulgaria.. and esp. gypsies) could actually afford a benz :eek: .. but they still chose to live in a NASTY house with no plumbing for example! ...cause his comune is all there ..habits you know

Rachel
18-12-2005, 10:29
That is so strange :none:

I will never understand that mentality :none: I'd rather be clean, live in a nice house and have some self respect than give all that up for a Merc :bum: It doesn't make sense LOL

Oh well, I guess you have to be one to understand the madness they are thinking LOL

Lux
03-01-2006, 00:57
people think differently. no point in trying to understand *why* steal. some do it for $ and some do it cause they are starving. either way, i don't do it. and...well frankly i don't really like benz so i wouldn't steal one.

KillaQueen
03-01-2006, 01:09
ohhhhhh, and your description of the gypsaaaaaaaaa kids is so accurate, except you forgot to say that around 6 they also pick up the art of sniffing GLUE from plastic bags.....
YEAH! they especially do that. we call them 'aurolaci' [aurolach], dunno if there is a word in english for this. probably not :laugh:

Rachel
03-01-2006, 01:12
people think differently. no point in trying to understand *why* steal. some do it for $ and some do it cause they are starving. either way, i don't do it. and...well frankly i don't really like benz so i wouldn't steal one.I didn't mean that Lux, re-read my post ;)

cirrus
03-01-2006, 03:52
Every place and country has it's dumb-ass people with stereotypes and prejudices too ingrained in themselves to accept others. And while it may seem like things get better, I agree with madeldoe that in the US, it's just less obvious and much more complex.

But what is obvious and i'm so fcking TIRED of is being treated different because i'm WHITE! :mad:
If you criticize somebody hispanic or black, you're a racist, but if you criticize someone white and you aren't white, you get away with it (in the SOUTH atleast...damn this place has racial tensions....) so i'm tired of people not understanding "RACISM": having prejudices to anybody of a different race than your own.


I've seen it too many times where people of other races treat white people differently and think it's perfectly ok when treating ANYBODY differently is plain wrong in any circumstance.



living in the South just drives me crazy sometimes. :ill: too many people with too much drama.

Lux
03-01-2006, 04:04
that's a very interesting perspective cirrus, as it comes from the opposite end of the spectrum. disenfranchising as it may be, the south is viewed to be racist, prejudice, discriminatory and the list goes on. that is, jokes so run about how many of the people with these characteristics reside in the south. it doesn't mean there aren't people like that in the north, but that most of them are in the south. it reminds me of the republicans who didn't agree with bush, and how that disenfranchised them from the party itself. sucks.

cirrus
03-01-2006, 04:50
Lux, yep, the South is a strange place. Lots of bad history. Thankfully there's a variety of open and welcoming people in Atlanta from all backgrounds and walks of life, but out in the country.........even i feel scared!!! :gigi: damn rednecks whatever skintone they may be.

YLuelniaa
04-01-2006, 00:15
I would say the racial tension is the same in both the North and South....one is just more obvious then the other....

rosh
04-01-2006, 23:44
racial tensions ... i could write reams about this, living in south africa. racism is still very prevalent here. i cant really say which groups are most racist towards each other since there is so much between black and white, coloured and indian, black and black [indigenous black people vs nigerians/zimbabweans/kenyans/angolans/zambians who emigrate to here], black and coloured, black and indian, white and coloured, white and indian etc etc you get the picture.

people here also have a tendency to think its ok to be racist if they were a previously disadvantaged group. [reminds me of what cirrus said]

apartheid wasnt made illegal that long ago, so i still remember what the segregated beaches / buses / trains etc were like. but funny, when youre young ... you dont really realise how unfair a specific systems is. then you get a little older and the full force of it hits you. one of the first things the last apartheid govt did was make certain previously "all white" schools into something they called "model c" which meant that coloured/indian/black children who could afford the school fees [i.e. middle to upper class non white people] would be allowed to attend schools with white children. this lead to an exodus of rich white children from these model c schools into impossibly expensive private schools -- many white parents didnt want their children mixing with the "others" you know.

the saddest part is, non white people rushed to send their children to model c schools and craved the acceptance of the white parental counterparts. keeping up with the joneses reached a whole new level.

i remember terrible things about apartheid. my sisters being blacklisted from their teaching posts for being pro ANC. my dad and i spending weekends tearing up anc pamphlets and anc member lists because his house was going to be raided by the security branch of the sap [south african police] since my sisters were suspected of treason against the [apartheid] goverment. my cousin being thrown into jail for 11 months for having a poster of nelson mandela on his bedroom wall.

anyway, its bed time. more stories at another time if anyone is interested.

Lux
05-01-2006, 06:11
i think the racial tensions b/w north and south are not the same at all. even if people in the south are vociferous about it, i don't think they are just doing what the people in the north are thinking...in the north things are quieter yes but people are also far more liberal. and liberal thinking means more open mindedness and tolerance.

PowerPuff Grrl
21-01-2006, 08:16
This is in response to spyretto's post (http://forum.tatysite.net/showpost.php?p=270236&postcount=80) in Iran's Nuclear Facilities (http://forum.tatysite.net/showthread.php?t=9769&page=4):

For one thing, I’m not even going to try to disprove your notion that the Jews control the global economy not only because it isn’t true, but even if it was true your argument in the “Iran’s Nuclear Facilities” thread isn’t completely false, I’ll admit that. In fact, I’ll even go so far as to say your post precisely maps the origin of the common stereotype that Jews control the world economy. I don’t agree that the stereotype is true, however this post is not meant to illustrate why believing this stereotype is bad/good, but rather why the stereotype is there in the first place and why that in itself is problematic.
Let's begin with some common stereotypes Black people have about White people in the States:

-Whites would deal with the devil were there a dollar in it
-Whites are neurotic and mentally weak and that the women especially are prone to insanity
-White men are sexual wimps. (This accounts in part for their cruelty and for the women’s proclivity to go insane)
-White children are spoiled
-Whites are so jaded, they can’t feel anything. That’s why they have to jump out of airplanes and climb mountains. And they just have to force themselves on every thing, every one, and every place
-Whites are sexually kinky, prone to perversions like incest, kiddie porn, and extreme masochism

The list goes on and on.
Some of it sounds just about ridiculous but others (you can’t help but feel) that they have a grain of truth in them just like some of the stereotypes you listed for Jews. But even if I were to post some articles here and there and provide photographic evidence that the person who wrote it, proving these stereotypes are true, is White just so I can declare to the world “I am not a racist,” would you believe all of them? Does that mean one White person represents every White person in the world, or would it help if I got a handful of more White people, perhaps if I referenced 50 White writers agreeing with the statements above, would that sway your opinion, would that sway anybody’s?
If so, why aren’t we hearing random Non-Whites making statements that because Bush is an asshole, every white person is. Or perhaps I should list every evil leader for the past hundred years; Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Milosevic, Rhodes, etc, etc.
Why is it that I constantly hear Jews are in control of the US because of people like Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz, or the top people in corporations?
Would it be better if it they were White people? Would I be hearing the same criticisms except this time applied to Whites?
Why is it that these White stereotypes aren’t universally known like the Jewish stereotypes, the Black ones, the Hispanic ones, the Asian ones, etc?

The way I see it is that it is meant to reinforce the notion that Whites are the standard and that everything else is just a mere deviation. The standard is that Whites control the world economy, the Security Council, and the fate of virtually every nation in the world because it is natural for Whites to do so. Never mind the fact that Whites do so at a grossly disproportionate ratio to the world’s population because it is only when other races rival the White monopoly on power then it becomes a problem. Only Jews can have disproportionate power, not Whites. And thus, a stereotype is born.

This doesn’t only apply to Jews. Black people, obviously, have felt the White scorn when they began rivaling White athleticism. Asians too when they rivaled White intellect, etc, etc…
You can see how these stereotypes have been formed.

I am not at all implying that all White people, therefore, are innately racist despite how I come off. Rather most are simply displaying something that is perfectly human. Enjoying all of the privileges that history has bestowed on them, White people are realizing that these privileges are slowly eroding due to the leveling of the playing field. There is more competition coming from other groups now that racial barriers are falling and White people aren’t getting things as easily as they used to, it’s a classic example of survival. Had this of happened to any other group of people, be it Black, Jew, Asian, Hispanic, or even Women the very same thing would happen.
Case in point; a couple of years ago a big issue in North America was the declining performance of boys in elementary schools. Writers were arguing that the structure of the classroom, sitting all day in class listening to the teacher, was restrictive to their learning abilities. They argued that the classroom should be more activity-oriented so that boys could learn with their hands. Of course, what they fail to mention was that fifty years ago it was girls that were being neglected, obviously there wasn’t any kind of uproar towards that. And the environment of the classroom, if anything, became more and more activity-oriented during those fifty years. What changed was that the playing field was being evened out; girls were no longer neglected and as a result simply performed better. It was only when girls and even women began challenging men’s monopoly in school and university campuses and later on into professional fields that the controversy began. Soon, campuses were “overpopulated” with women. Professional fields like Medicine and Law were accepting more and more female recruiters. But yet nobody complains when MBA schools still remains as virtually an all-boy’s club.
Another example; The rise of African immigrants and their success rate in the US has established some tension between the African community and the Black community. Africa bashing is becoming very common with Black-Americans.
So on and so forth.

So to get back to your point spyretto, I refuse to rebut your implication that Jews control the world’s economy because then that it would imply that I myself would find something wrong with that. It would imply that I would find it more comforting if White people were in control. And I don’t. That doesn’t mean I would settle for anybody other than a White person. It just means that I want a qualified person, who hopefully has good intentions and acts on them.

I don’t want to negate the fact that Jews aren’t self-interested in only Jewish affairs by stating how Jews were one of the most significant contributors to the Black civil rights movement in the 50’s and 60’s, that they willingly gave their lives being lynched along with Black people in the Southern States, that they were the first and only group in the States that lobbied for US intervention during Bosnian genocide. I don’t want to prove that Jews are angels or have to be angels to avoid stereotypes and that the only people that can be excused for not being angels are White people because that would be anti-White.

I want to point to people like Roy Cohn and Henry Kissinger and Paul Wolfowitz etc and say that they are superior assholes simply because they are and not because their Jewish heritage had something to do with it.
Just as I would to Bush, Hitler, Rhodes, etc.

PS: In case this has not been made clear before, I am not claiming anybody in here of being anti-semtic, including you spyretto. I am merely refusing to conform to believing in any stereotypes mainstream society has taught me to believe in.

haku
15-11-2006, 20:56
Polish supremacist discovers he has Jewish ancestry (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6151420.stm)

Don't you just love when that happens? :laugh:

Valito
30-01-2007, 22:58
:lol: great article haku!

PowerPuff Grrl
28-03-2007, 05:44
Protester halts slavery service commemorating end of Slave Trade (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6512308,00.html)
Video Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb8Caf1ofGc) (shitty quality)

Can anyone say awkward?

haku
28-03-2007, 15:50
Well, neither Tony Blair nor Elizabeth Windsor are responsible for slavery, that kind of outburst leads to nowhere.

freddie
28-03-2007, 18:26
Slave trade's been gone for ages. Some people just need to let things go. Our generations have NOTHING to do with sins of the past. I always considered it ludicrous when leaders are forced to appologize for something they had absolutely nothing to do with (same thing with Chinese-Japanese old sores from WW2). What happened was a terrible tragedy, but hopefully we've all learned something from it and now we can move on.

Talyubittu
28-03-2007, 19:58
i LOVE you freddie.

PowerPuff Grrl
28-03-2007, 22:49
I respectfully disagree.
It isn't slavery in itself that people are angry about, its the legacy of slavery.

I can't really say for the UK, I really have no idea how blacks were treated like post-slavery (though I imagine it can't be all that good) but for countries like the US or Brazil one cannot tell blacks to move on when they still experience those legacies.

I too think apologizing is pointless but because of this.
In fact I kind of find it insulting.

haku
29-03-2007, 04:09
I don't believe in collective guilt, and even less in inherited guilt. Nations are not collectively responsible for the actions of a group of people, and nations or people are not responsible for what was done a thousand years ago. Every nation, state, or civilization has been guilty of something at some point in its history anyway.

Countries don't have to apologize for slavery because slavery has existed pretty much everywhere, everyone would need to apologize to everyone.

Slavery is older than written history itself, all ancient civilizations had slaves. In Europe during Antiquity, Rome, Greece, and the various Northern "barbarians" all had slaves, slavery was the result of incessant wars, and prisoners of war were generally turned into slaves by the victors.

With the spread of Christianity and feudalism in Europe, slavery was replaced by serfdom, which was only a slight improvement for those people at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Serfdom won't be abolished up until the18th and 19th century.

It makes no sense for a modern European country to apologize for slavery when most of its modern population descends from serfs who were themselves exploited for centuries by a small number of aristocrats. Old feudal regimes were eventually overthrown by the people and that's the end of it, even the modern descendants of aristocrats are not responsible for what their ancestors did.

And similar things happened in other civilizations on other continents, Egyptians, Arabs, Ottomans, Persians, Indians, Chinese, Amerindians all had plenty of slaves for centuries, that's a lot of people to apologize to.

PowerPuff Grrl
29-03-2007, 06:14
Oh I completely agree with you haku but there is one thing that you are leaving out that makes the African Slave Trade stand out a little in that it was the first instance in which slaves were reduced to things, to property and not as human beings. The very concept of race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism) was not conceived until the emergence of the African Slave Trade; racism was used as justification to continue the practise of slavery even though it opposed Christian values (of course, those values would also be manipulated to excuse slavery). Creating an ideology that gave license to people to treat a certain group of people a certain way because they were of a lesser species had lasting ramifications. Tell me of any exmaple you mentioned above, any civilization that kept such an exclusive and permanent status of slaves that low for that long.

Slavery did exist in the past (still does) but it was not ruled on the colour of one's skin but rather on the the acquiring of slaves in war or quite often, turning your enemies into slaves, as you said. The descendents of those slaves though often assimilated to the victor's society as was the case with Gallic slaves to Rome--eventually becoming senators--and, what I'm more familiar with, the Mamluk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluks) of Arabia--eventually becoming conquerors in their own right. That obviously was not the case with African Slaves in this particular instance*. Descendents of the African Slave Trade are very far from integrated in their respective societies, particularly in countries like the States and Brazil (I'm leaving out the UK out of ignorance) where segregation still exists with social structures offered to inhabitants are in dismal array with persistent resistence to repair them leaving most blacks perpetually in the lower echelons of society. (Admittedly the US has really improved in the past 20 years).

Institutional Racism, what is being experienced now, is a lasting and destructive legacy of slavery and is still with us today. A government cannot apologize for slavery and wash their hands clean of its legacy while still practising institutionalized racism; it comes off as being a little insincere, IMHO.

*In this instance; History of Blacks in Britain (http://www.bunchecenter.ucla.edu/diaspora/research_topics/british_blacks.htm). Interesting, Blacks were not always seen as lesser than, they too must have assimilated into Roman society for them to be trusted to defend Roman interest in Britain.

freddie
30-03-2007, 09:35
Slavery and racism are two different things though. Sure racism was used as an excuse in the case of North American slaves, but stilll it basically has nothing to do with the concept of slavery. I support black people who're protesting when they feel they're being discriminated against, because I know it probably still happens, but I don't support them refering to slavery as a crowd-gathering catch-phrase. Just as I don't support when today's modern Native Americans use the tragedy that happened to their ancestors as a valid political point. Imo today's racism has nothing to do with slavery, because racism is a much broader term. Blacks hate whites, Persians hate Arabs, Arabs hate Whites/Jews, whites hate pretty much everybody... it's the language of intolerance and ignorance. Slavery is just one excuse they used to propagate their agendas. In the same way I'm sure War on Terror will be used as an excuse against people from the Middle East for decades, maybe even centuries to come.

PowerPuff Grrl
30-03-2007, 17:37
Blacks do not ever protest against slavery, it is usually against racism obviously since there is no slavery in the States nowadays. You're only hearing of any protests now because of the British anniversary of the end of the Slave Trade and that is with British blacks.
Same with the Natives.

To say that racism and slavery are two completely different things is just far too dismissive. You make it sound as if racism existed before slavery, it didn't. Xenophobia did, but not racism. Never did anybody think that a group of people were less human, more animal, than another (savage yes, just not biologically animal-like). That blacks were not given rights, immediately after the Civil War because they weren't socially, mentally, and just innately developed enough, people actually felt that blacks were incapable of absorbing these things. (The Republicans of the North tried at least). Health, education, or any form of recognition of blacks as people, like the vote, were therefore denied completely. Entire institutional systems were set up to implement these beliefs of inequality, particularly with segragation and the Jim Crow Laws.

This was only questioned in the 60s and enacted in the 70s. That is only thirty years ago and guess what? These institutions were not fully reformed. Is it surprising that the same power relations between whites and blacks that existed two hundred years ago, exists today?

PS: If there is anybody treated worse than blacks in the States and South America, it is the Natives.

freddie
22-04-2007, 15:58
Yeiks! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A751xJbumnU&NR=1) *hides*

Edit:
To say that racism and slavery are two completely different things is just far too dismissive. You make it sound as if racism existed before slavery, it didn't. Xenophobia did, but not racism. Never did anybody think that a group of people were less human, more animal, than another (savage yes, just not biologically animal-like).

Sure there was. How about the jewish enslavement in Egypt?

PowerPuff Grrl
24-04-2007, 02:07
That was kinda scary, whoever taped this should've also caught the people that were clapping, like WTF stop clapping, did they even hear what he said. I'm not going to make excuses when I say this however, I understand where the man is coming from. At the time of Hurricane Katrina there was a current of quasi-racist sentiment flowing; like the hurricane succeeded where the KKK and Jim Crow failed or some shit.
But this may be the same guy that actually published some straight up racist diatribe of how inferior Whites are or something. His arguments had something to do with the sun. It wasn't convincing to say the least.

To answer your question though, the concept of race wasn't concieved until the time of the African Slave Trade. My knowledge of Biblical history is quite shitty, but were the Egyptians racist?

Did they feel that Jews were not even human? Less cultured, less worthy, less entitled, and perhaps even less human for sure, but Jews, IIRC, were still considered human beings nonetheless. Otherwise they would've killed the shit out Moses once they found out he was a Jew.

Talyubittu
24-04-2007, 03:01
Blacks do not ever protest against slavery, it is usually against racism obviously since there is no slavery in the States nowadays. You're only hearing of any protests now because of the British anniversary of the end of the Slave Trade and that is with British blacks.
Same with the Natives.

To say that racism and slavery are two completely different things is just far too dismissive. You make it sound as if racism existed before slavery, it didn't. Xenophobia did, but not racism. Never did anybody think that a group of people were less human, more animal, than another (savage yes, just not biologically animal-like). That blacks were not given rights, immediately after the Civil War because they weren't socially, mentally, and just innately developed enough, people actually felt that blacks were incapable of absorbing these things. (The Republicans of the North tried at least). Health, education, or any form of recognition of blacks as people, like the vote, were therefore denied completely. Entire institutional systems were set up to implement these beliefs of inequality, particularly with segragation and the Jim Crow Laws.

This was only questioned in the 60s and enacted in the 70s. That is only thirty years ago and guess what? These institutions were not fully reformed. Is it surprising that the same power relations between whites and blacks that existed two hundred years ago, exists today?

PS: If there is anybody treated worse than blacks in the States and South America, it is the Natives.



I think your statements are far to dimissive. If it were such a big concern of yours, you'd refer to them as they are actually supposed to be which is an "African". A small majority of "blacks" and "navites" are treated badly, and you know what, it's sad when it happens but yeah, but it's not exactly like they put out a great image of themselves.

A majority of alcohol and tobacco sales in my state are from Native Americans. They also have the highest rate of being arrested because of their habits when under and not under the influence. My brother is a gas station attendant, and he said that the majority of people who are arrested in the store are of Native or African descent. I've been in the store when a man has walked in with a screw driver throught his mouth because he couldn't pay of drug debt to natives. - Thats not racist. Thats fact. And I've seen it. I'm not saying white people are perfect, because they're not. I'm only saying what I know to be an average here of people responsible for crime.



Racism and Slavery however, are completely differen't and can be identified as such by definition.

Racism: The act of discrimating against a person/establishment based upon race.
Slavery: The act of enslaving another for laborious work.

Not just black people can be slaves. So your entire case about how they are "closely related" is tossed out. Slavery can be set in upon anyone. It's just that it was Africans that it was done to in America.


The Republicans of the North tried at least

And no, you're wrong on that. The North was only better in terms of slavery.

Slavery did not exist in the North, but Africans were still not allowed to be educated and were only allowed to have jobs that paid extremely low wages. So how did the North have the right idea in your opinion?

PowerPuff Grrl
24-04-2007, 05:27
Heh, ok I'm going to apologize in advance for sounding condescending but I really need to tell you how to debate properly. There seems to be a pattern with you where you tend to post with such confidence that fails to accurately reflect how much you know of the subject. I'm going to play that up to your debating skills.

If you disagree with somebody (which is awesome) do so but also provide as many references as possible. You can't simply state that "blah, blah, blah, your points are wrong so therefore my point is right" and not provide any arguments or references to refute my point and back yours up. In this case, if you do not agree that racism and slavery are somewhat connected then provide references to how my arguments (posted above if you have actually read them, which I doubt you have) are wrong while proving how your arguments instead are correct. Case in point:
Not just black people can be slaves. So your entire case about how they are "closely related" is tossed out.
Try listening (or reading) to earlier posts, there could be something worthwhile in them because pre-African Slave Trade slavery has already been discussed. My "entire" case isn't "tossed out" because you still haven't proven why they aren't related.
Definitions could be the launching pad of your argument, but never the summation.

Another important thing, quite possibly the most important thing to know is to have sufficient knowledge of the topic at hand. Stating that slavery did not exist in the North is only indicative to how ignorant you sound. Yes, slavery existed in the North (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SlaveSale.jpg), this picture is of a slave market in state of Maryland. It just ended a lot earlier than the South. And to mention that the Northern Republicans were as bad as the Democratic Southerners obviously needs explanation from you. Many, if not all, of the abolitionists were Northerners. Sourtherners attempted to reinstate slavery through sharecropping. The Ku Klux Klan were composed of wealthy Southerners who tried to prevent the emancipation of blacks in the South. They were pretty much terrorists killing blacks and Northerners that helped blacks. And they were successful enough to have passed Jim Crow Laws to make sure whites remained dominate in society. Northerners were hypocrites in that the didn't fully practice what they had preached, blacks didn't get the vote, among other things... but they at least were paid and had some rights! Now I would provide reference to all of this, some can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#Northern_states), but really look no further than in history of Reconstruction in South, it's all there. I mean, no offense, but this should have been taught to you or something, it's your country's history afterall.

One last thing that could help, when arguing such an unbelieveably complex issue try your best not to sound so glib. Simple, over-generalizing answers to totally difficult issues are not only always wrong, they are downright irritating. So try again. I'll give you hint, the way to totally disprove me is provide references that racism existed before the African Slave Trade.

You can start off with expanding on this:
A small majority of "blacks" and "navites" are treated badly, and you know what, it's sad when it happens but yeah, but it's not exactly like they put out a great image of themselves.
WTF?!

Talyubittu
24-04-2007, 05:51
I belive I gave a sufficient explination as to why they portray a "bad image" of themselves. Not all do, but you understand what I mean.

I'd also like you ask you how you figure I did not read your post, when I clearly quoted certain parts and responded to them?


If you disagree with somebody (which is awesome) do so but also provide as many references as possible. You can't simply state that "blah, blah, blah, your points are wrong so therefore my point is right" and not provide any arguments or references to refute my point and back yours up. In this case, if you do not agree that racism and slavery are somewhat connected then provide references to how my arguments (posted above if you have actually read them, which I doubt you have) are wrong while proving how your arguments instead are correct. Case in point:
Quote:
Not just black people can be slaves. So your entire case about how they are "closely related" is tossed out.
Try listening (or reading) to earlier posts, there could be something worthwhile in them because pre-African Slave Trade slavery has already been discussed. My "entire" case isn't "tossed out" because you still haven't proven why they aren't related.
Definitions could be the launching pad of your argument, but never the summation.

Erm. I did. Racism and Slavery however, are completely differen't and can be identified as such by definition.

Racism: The act of discrimating against a person/establishment based upon race.
Slavery: The act of enslaving another for laborious work.

Not just black people can be slaves. So your entire case about how they are "closely related" is tossed out. Slavery can be set in upon anyone. It's just that it was Africans that it was done to in America.



If you need an example:

"You are a fucking nigger" - This would be a case of racism. Nowhere have I forced someone to perform a task of laborious work. Or any work at all for that matter.

(Please note that I'm using this JUST as an example and that I'm not trying to offend anyone)

For further more proof of why racism and slavery are completely different, I suggest you look back into American history. Remember the black slaves that eventually bought their own freedom? Many of them turned around and purchased their own black slaves to do work for them. I find it illogical that a black man/woman, can be considered racist against his/her own race, but if slavery and racism are the same thing, I guess this does make sense? But as a whole, no, it does not.

And continuing on what freddie said about the Jews in Egypt. I'd like to point out that being Jewish, and the philosphy of Judaism - are not a races. Thus providing even more reason as to why racism and slavery are different.

And while we're talking about my lack of knolwedge on slavery in the North. I'd also like to point out that I said

The North was only better in terms of slavery. When I said "there was no slavery in the North, I was implying that it wasn't HARSH slavery.




_________________________________________________-

Heh, ok I'm going to apologize in advance for sounding condescending but I really need to tell you how to debate properly. There seems to be a pattern with you where you tend to post with such confidence that fails to accurately reflect how much you know of the subject. I'm going to play that up to your debating skills.

I believe when debating. It's prudent to be OVER confident than it is to be under confident. Obviously I have some detail of "the subject". I think some people just have a problem with debating with a 16 year old.


:)

PowerPuff Grrl
24-04-2007, 16:10
I still think you haven't read some of these posts, which are posted on the same page, that discusses slavery in general. There you will find that I haven't said that all forms of slavery were linked to the racism of today, just specifically the African Slave Trade. Post number 49 (http://forum.tatysite.net/showpost.php?p=345692&postcount=49) and 50 (http://forum.tatysite.net/showpost.php?p=345695&postcount=50) or you can just read the discussion from the beginning which starts on this page, it isn't that far behind. A lot of you said has already been explored.

"You are a fucking nigger" - This would be a case of racism. Nowhere have I forced someone to perform a task of laborious work. Or any work at all for that matter.
Nowhere have I ever said that racism=slavery. If you read earlier posts (or at least read them thoroughly) you would find that I have said that racism is a legacy of the African Slave Trade. So think of it this way; why on earth would a black person even be offended by the word "nigger." Nigger is a word that harks back to slavery and operates as a way to dehumanize black people as back to the time of slavery. The word nigger didn't exist before slavery because racism didn't exist before the African Slave Trade.

And continuing on what freddie said about the Jews in Egypt. I'd like to point out that being Jewish, and the philosphy of Judaism - are not a races. Thus providing even more reason as to why racism and slavery are different.
Precisely my point, racism was not used at that of time slavery. Thank you!
:coctail:

When I said "there was no slavery in the North, I was implying that it wasn't HARSH slavery.
Slavery is slavery. Trying to compare which is better is like comparing the treatment of Jews between Auschwitz and Dachau. Blacks didn't work in the fields as often as blacks did in the South doesn't mean they were treated any less harsh.

I belive I gave a sufficient explination as to why they portray a "bad image" of themselves. Not all do, but you understand what I mean.
You are talking about stereotypes that are created by white people. I'm not saying that blacks and every single non-white groups are complete angels but why the hell are we supposed make a "good image" for ourselves. Why can't we just base our opinions on the impressions an individual makes, not a race. White people are often perpetrators of serious sexual offences, especially with children in my city, does that mean that whites in general have given themselves a "bad image" of being perverts?
I hope not.


And it isn't your age but I hope you become a better debater with age.