All things Charlottesville (merged)

[Brad Sallows]

Nationalism is owned by (exclusively part of) neither the "left" nor the "right".

 

[mariomike]

Republicans are racist because they don't pick candidates by race?

Nobody called anybody a racist.

I was replying to this post comparing the two parties and African-Americans,

Republicans fought slavery and elected the first black US Senator, Hiram Revels, and first black House members, Jefferson Long and Joseph Rainey, in 1869. It took the Democrats sixty-six years longer to elect their first Congressman, Arthur Mitchell, and just shy of a century longer to elect their first black Senator, Edward Brooke in 1967

That's nice. But, the fact is, African-Americans tend to support Democrats,

"Clinton held an 80-point advantage among blacks (88% to 8%) compared with Obama’s 87-point edge four years ago (93% to 6%). In 2008, Obama had a 91-point advantage among blacks."
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

 

[PuckChaser]

Just because they only have one black senator, doesn't mean they don't pick/run black candidates. Its easy to find your message not resonating with a certain community when the Democrats are so readily willing to push political agendas solely to target votes and ethnic communities.

Sure, African-Americans vote Democrat. Where has it gotten them? Is life better for their communities since the Civil Rights movement? Is racial identity politics just reinforcing the notion that people are different because their skin is different?

 

[mariomike]

Is life better for their communities since the Civil Rights movement?

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

I don't know about you, but I believe ending segregation was a good thing.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

That's nice. But, the fact is, African-Americans tend to support Democrats,

It's especially irrelevant since the Republican party of the period = Democrats now and democrats then = republicans now. The issue is not a democrat/republican one. It's that the south lost the civil war and their fight to maintain slavery and has never really gotten over the social shock that was caused. The resurgence of the KKK in the 1920's aligned with the rise of southern nationalism and revisionism of the period (and the rise of statues apparently coincidentally).

 

[kkwd]

Ben Shapiro will speak at Berkley in a few minutes. You can see the advance protesting going on on twitchy.com. Sure you might have no respect for the source but it is there in black and white what is going on.

https://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2017/09/14/ready-to-rumble-ben-shapiro-dumps-more-cold-water-on-berkeley-snowflakes/

 

[daftandbarmy]

147 years later, there is still  only one Republican African-American US Senator - Tim Scott. *

SEPT. 14, 2017
Statement from Senator Scott:
"Antifa is bad and should be condemned, yes, but the KKK has been killing and tormenting black Americans for centuries. There is no realistic comparison. Period."

* In a subsequent news release, the White House misidentified Scott in a photo caption by calling him “Senator Tom Scott.”

And how many Irish Catholics?

Kennedy.

Reagan doesn't count. He was from California.

 

[mariomike]

And how many Irish Catholics?

Kennedy.

Reagan doesn't count. He was from California.

They were presidents. 

147 years later, there is still  only one Republican African-American US Senator - Tim Scott.

Historians agree that there was widespread sentiment against New York Governor Al Smith, who was Irish Catholic ( and, like Kennedy, a Democrat ), in the 1928 US presidential election.
https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/when-a-catholic-terrified-the-heartland/?mcubz=0

If your point is that Irish Catholics also suffered discrimination?

I would agree. But, I would not say that makes a moral equivalence to what African-Americans experienced.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would agree. But, I would not say that makes a moral equivalence to what African-Americans experienced.

That's laughable.  I truly hope you are just playing devils advocate.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Ben Shapiro will speak at Berkley in a few minutes. You can see the advance protesting going on on twitchy.com. Sure you might have no respect for the source but it is there in black and white what is going on.

https://twitchy.com/sd-3133/2017/09/14/ready-to-rumble-ben-shapiro-dumps-more-cold-water-on-berkeley-snowflakes/

Less than 1000 people (3% of student body, assuming they were all students) 9 arrests (.9% of protestors) and no damage to property or people. Democracy wins.

If some chalk and a sign is the worst that happens than I don't see any problem.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

That's laughable.  I truly hope you are just playing devils advocate.

Really? If you are referring to indentured servitude than its not equivalent to slavery .

 

[Halifax Tar]

Really? If you are referring to indentured servitude than its not equivalent to slavery .

I think you need to do some reading on the Irish experience from 1169 (English/Norman invasions) onward.  These people were violently; and with extreme prejudice, oppressed on their own land by a foreign power for hundreds of years.  The victimhood of racism isn't solely owned by races and colors other than white.

You cannot discuss the Irish in America with out digging into the roots of the emigration from Erin and the Irish diaspora.  Not to mention the Irish Catholics, during the Potatoe Famine and US Civil War, were not exactly welcome on the shores of the USA unless they were to be used as fodder for the US Civil War.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I think you need to do some reading on the Irish experience from 1169 (English/Norman invasions) onward.  These people were violently; and with extreme prejudice, oppressed on their own land by a foreign power for hundreds of years.  The victimhood of racism isn't solely owned by races and colors other than white.

You cannot discuss the Irish in America with out digging into the roots of the emigration from Erin and the Irish diaspora.  Not to mention the Irish Catholics, during the Potatoe Famine and US Civil War, were not exactly welcome on the shores of the USA unless they were to be used as fodder for the US Civil War.

A fine vernacular point- the definition of racism is, "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." So, no, there was no "racism" towards Irish as they were being prejudiced against by members of the same race.

I don't think anyone is saying that everything was always 100% peachy for the Irish, Italians, Ukrainians, and many other European nationalities. The assertion is that indentured servitude isn't equal to slavery. Indentured servitude started in the early 1600's (1607 according to some sources) as landowners in the Americas realized they had too much land to work on their own and only wealthy people could generally afford to travel to the new world. The system was based on medieval practices and allowed for poor people displaced by the trials and tribulations of the 30 years war (at first at least) to find employment. This is why 2/3 of the initial immigrants came as indentured servants. The new "boss" paid for the trip, clothes, room, board and "freedom" dues in exchange for roughly a 4-7 year contract. After the contract was complete, the indentured servants were often provided resources as part of their "freedom dues" and were free to move about.

The key difference between indentured servitude and slavery is the contractual agreement, the (relatively) free nature of the agreement, and the fact that the landowner didn't own the servants and couldn't sell them as desired. Slaves were generally not free to enter into the slavery agreement, considered property, had little to no hope of freedom, and treated far worse than the servants generally were (since landowners were aware that the servants would be free at some point, it behooved them to treat their servants with some level of dignity and respect as they would eventually be taking their leave.

As for the treatment of the Irish in Ireland there is no argument that it was poor and led to hundreds of years of low level (and sometimes not so low level) insurrection and antagony with the British. However, this isn't "racism" by definition as the British and Irish are both Caucasian... prejudice is a better modifier.

Undoubtedly the Irish experience was one of trials and tribulations. However, I disagree that it is the same as slavery.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Waaaaaaaaaah. ..my ancestors suffered more then your ancestors.

Humans are friggin' stupid...

 

[Halifax Tar]

A fine vernacular point- the definition of racism is, "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." So, no, there was no "racism" towards Irish as they were being prejudiced against by members of the same race.

I don't think anyone is saying that everything was always 100% peachy for the Irish, Italians, Ukrainians, and many other European nationalities. The assertion is that indentured servitude isn't equal to slavery. Indentured servitude started in the early 1600's (1607 according to some sources) as landowners in the Americas realized they had too much land to work on their own and only wealthy people could generally afford to travel to the new world. The system was based on medieval practices and allowed for poor people displaced by the trials and tribulations of the 30 years war (at first at least) to find employment. This is why 2/3 of the initial immigrants came as indentured servants. The new "boss" paid for the trip, clothes, room, board and "freedom" dues in exchange for roughly a 4-7 year contract. After the contract was complete, the indentured servants were often provided resources as part of their "freedom dues" and were free to move about.

The key difference between indentured servitude and slavery is the contractual agreement, the (relatively) free nature of the agreement, and the fact that the landowner didn't own the servants and couldn't sell them as desired. Slaves were generally not free to enter into the slavery agreement, considered property, had little to no hope of freedom, and treated far worse than the servants generally were (since landowners were aware that the servants would be free at some point, it behooved them to treat their servants with some level of dignity and respect as they would eventually be taking their leave.

As for the treatment of the Irish in Ireland there is no argument that it was poor and led to hundreds of years of low level (and sometimes not so low level) insurrection and antagony with the British. However, this isn't "racism" by definition as the British and Irish are both Caucasian... prejudice is a better modifier.

Undoubtedly the Irish experience was one of trials and tribulations. However, I disagree that it is the same as slavery.

I would agree.  The violent oppression and attempted extermination, in various insidious ways, of an entire culture/race/religious group of people for hundreds and hundreds of years is not the same as slavery.

Your debate about whether the treatment of the Irish was racism or prejudice is semantics and a red herring, and does nothing to further your position.

Again, I reaffirm my position that the victimhood of racism/prejudice/oppression (what ever word you choose) is not the sole property of races and cultures other than white/Caucasian. 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Waaaaaaaaaah. ..my ancestors suffered more then your ancestors.

Humans are friggin' stupid...

Not at all what I said.  Please read the last line of my post above and first line of my previous post.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Not in reference to just your post......just a lot of humans in general.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not in reference to just your post......just a lot of humans in general.

Fair enough.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I would agree.  The violent oppression and attempted extermination, in various insidious ways, of an entire culture/race/religious group of people for hundreds and hundreds of years is not the same as slavery.

Your debate about whether the treatment of the Irish was racism or prejudice is semantics and a red herring, and does nothing to further your position.

Again, I reaffirm my position that the victimhood of racism/prejudice/oppression (what ever word you choose) is not the sole property of races and cultures other than white/Caucasian.

Semantics yes, red herring no. It's semantics, but important semantics. Using the proper vernacular is key in advancing an argument.

As for the Irish, stating that the treatment of the Irish isn't the same as slavery doesn't somehow take away from the treatment of the Irish. Same as black people in Charlottesville being upset about a statue put up during a period of southern revisionism to celebrate or romanticize a slave culture doesn't detract from the Irish experience either. Both can co-exist without detracting from the other.

 

[mariomike]

That's the kind of BS identity politics that lost the Democrats the election.

In spite of everything, she got 3 million more votes than he did.

Barrack Obama won 2 elections shutting down the notion that white Americans are so racist they won't elect a black man.

No one said anyone is a racist. People are free to vote for the candidate of their choice.

43% of Whites voted for President Obama in 2008.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Voter_demographics

38% of Whites voted for President Obama in 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Voter_demographics

Discrimination suffered by Irish-Americans has been brought into this discussion of race in America.

I agree there has been discrimination against Irish-Americans.

But, in a discussion of race in America, it should be remembered that Irish are part of the White majority.

By the turn of the 20th century, five out of six NYPD officers were Irish born or of Irish descent. As late as the 1960s, 42% of the NYPD were Irish Americans.

Sadly, on September 11, 2001, 40% of the 343 firefighters and paramedics who lost their lives were of Irish background.

There were many men with Irish surnames on my department when I hired on.

The case of discrimination against the Irish in hiring for civil service jobs is not valid, in my opinion.