BF2S Forums What really is holding back black progress in the US?

ATG wrote:

Q:   What really is holding back black progress in the US?

Blacks.

Example # 1 of Black not held back.

Example # 2 of Black not held back.

Example # 3 of Black not held back.
.
Example # 4 of Black not held back.

Example # 5 of Black not held back.

Example # 6 of Black not held back.

m3thod wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

from what I read in this forum Id say chavs would count as white trash

i thought chavs are european version of what we call 'wigger' in the US.  am i wrong?

Defo white trash.

here's what i based my distinction upon: 

chav http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav
redneck = white trash http://www.drbukk.com/images9/cebina.jpg

so in this case, at least based on the pictures, i'd say chav = wigger

Ok here is a crazy thought.  could palestinians who work with israelis and do well for themselves (i know quite a few people personally who fit this profile), be considered as sell outs to the palestinian cause?  that is, by working with the israelis in private business are you actually giving legitimacy to the enemy in that light?

i mentioned this in past posts but usually got poo-poohed about it or ignored.  i'm just wondering in the case of palestinians, are their political leaders, surrounding arab neighbors, and the 'group-think' of peers actually holding back the bulk of the population from progressing as well?

i'm curious if i can make this jump here.

waiting to get flamed by Braddock, Cam, and Serge in 3...2...

(hopefully not too bad). 

God Save the Queen wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 is holding back progress

love you too bro.    lol - good one

This article is laughably misleading. There is no social mobility, and barring the weak caveats in the article, it actually makes this point clear by failing to rebut what it posits.

But this whole matter of race is kind of stupid anyway. The forces keeping people down today are not racist as much as classist. The corporations do the same things (driving down prices and then choking supply to make cash) everywhere in the world, to pretty much all races. They just want to make sure that we are poor, dependent, and willing to follow their directions in exchange for some $ to put toward our next month of survival. They want your survival to depend directly on their decisions, not yours. They have had great success selling us into this position and in every sense, we love everything about the bread and circus. Its entirely un-PC to just execute people, but it's the way of this age to render societies dependent so that they are just as expendable and exploitable living in their own towns as they would be in a concentration camp with direct control. Just look at LA, who decides whether they get the torrent of water that keeps them alive on a given day? It would be easier to crash the currency and render the water supply unaffordable from the top reaches of power than it would be to hire an army to gas every house. The corporate empires we live under today are the new, more efficient fascism, and we have no other reason than blind faith to uniquely trust them with the future of our culture.

It was never possible in history to render people as dependent on trade structures as now, because of innovations in transportation and communication. The powerful world leaders even trashed Europe 70-90 years ago to generate the need for their modern super-states and to create a void for the new empire, the multinational corporations, to fill. The same powerful white governments that appear to oppress specific races in the US will dump cash on black dictators willing to wave the "capitalist" flag. They don't care about keeping one race down, they just care about solidifying the age-old world order of kings and queens ruling masses. They don't mind propping up dictators, and they do everything they can to let the corporations invade the markets of any country. They are happy to see a dictator impose a low standard of living on his people as long as the dictator will cooperate with the Western gov'ts and corporations. Their rule used to be by "divine right," but as we all are selectively taught environmentalism, globalism and the massive fallacy of "free-market capitalism" which is really just "communism", we will soon accept this kind of centralized rule as a form of "scientific," rather than "divine, right."

Anyway, the average black folks and white folks realize none of this, and frankly a lot of white folks probably secretly or overtly accept the overall structures of power because they assume that if there is some underlying racism, it will protect them. If I was black, I sure as hell wouldn't want to participate in our culture, and if I was trying to live in a poor urban area, I doubt I would really have the opportunity. You can't take that away from them, we live in a world with little social mobility, and in our country, minorities like blacks and mexicans are at the bottom, it's in part due to age old institutional racism, but racism is a low priority amongst the power brokers that write our laws and give us our mass produced cheap products. The people's decisions aren't going to get them out of poverty in a statistically appreciable rate any faster than a white resident of Hooverville, USA circa the depression. The people in power (mostly world bankers), don't care what color you are, they just want to be sure that nothing you do is going to seriously threaten any of their "capitalist" empires. They didn't build any of it with their own hands, they simply took most of it at gun point, in exchange for fragile currency, or under the siege of starvation in fledgling import cultures (so called "developing" countries). And even today the great corporations and banks which hold the largest fortunes, award a fractional splinter of their wealth to the masses of people that actually comprise the physical corporation. It is just a system of organization that serves to award ownership of a large enterprise to the small group of people at the pyramidal top of the corporate hierarchy.

As long as you have an economic system with such a low level of legitimacy, you can never expect the lower classes to rise from poverty, whether they are black, white, mexican or whatever, anybody that does is just the lucky minority. Thats why our borders are wide open. We are ruled by so few today that they can set up their towers of wealth anywhere and let the rest of the world slowly reach an equilibrium of perpetual poverty. You'll see a lot of drivel in that piece you posted arguing that blacks have it good in comparison to whites. The fact is, the average white person in America owns nothing of value because they've pretty much all sold out on the debt based, import based lifestyle that they watched on TV and in movies. All the banks have to do is put some of their vast stores of dollars on the market, and suddenly we each own roughly the same amount in assets as a Nigerian. As long as we waste our time quibbling about racial issues, we won't even discover our real enemies until it is too late and the middle class finally tips into extinction.

Marinejuana wrote:

As long as you have an economic system with such a low level of legitimacy, you can never expect the lower classes to rise from poverty, whether they are black, white, mexican or whatever, anybody that does is just the lucky minority.

so what do you actually propose as an alternative economic system that would fix said ills you quote?

by the way, it seems that you have animosity towards corporations and perhaps CEOs.  i wonder how you feel about movie stars, popular musicians, and sports stars in that they often make incredible amounts of money - so much so in fact that they are way up there in the upper-class economically, yet produce actually nothing of value.  One may argue that a CEO can make decisions that affect whether the company makes/breaks a profit.  in case making a 100 million dollar profit, why not award him some sort of beneift seeing as how the company (and its shareholders benefit from this).  perhaps you are against even the concept of shareholders to begin with.

i disagree with your assertion that the top is an 'evil entity' that keeps people down.  my contention is that a great many of them fall into two categories.  old money and new money.  The old money people inherited their wealth (Hiltons, Rockerfellers, Vanderbilts, Astors, etc) and the new money people (Gates, Mark Cuban, Yahoo founders, etc) made their money in the internet boom.  How is it that these people have kept you personally down?  how do they keep inner city youth down and prevent these people from attaining their own wealth? 

i find it hard to believe your beliefs that the 'system' is designed to keep poor people poor and rich people rich.  i just do not see real life examples that back up this claim.  i'm all ears if you have links from unbiased sources that back up your claims.

nukchebi0 wrote:

This is slightly OT, but is there white trash in other countries but the US?

YES, very much so.  We call them bogans here, but occasionally you hear them being called westies (west Auckland, and only in that city) or white trash...same shit, different country.

I didnt read all that but in Atlanta most of the city council people *such and such positions* are filled with black people. I don't know why they just do try for something higher up. So yea its basically their fault.

For one he doesn't cite any sources for any of his claims (save a single Gallup poll) which rest primarily on generalizations (notably the supposed "cult of black separatism" and accusing black academia of anti-intellectualism (?)). In reality most of his work can be boiled down to this: Most Blacks hold an essentialist view of Blackness, which is detrimental to Black people. While you can hold an individual personally responsible for a lack of drive or ambition, attributing these qualities to 30 million people is just another kind of utilitarian racism. Honestly, his point would be more direct if he were to simply say "All niggers are lazy".

If you're familiar with McWhorter's "work" regarding this topic, he rarely uses any concrete sources (for every single claim made in his article not a single source is cited; honestly you'll find better scholarship in some posts on this forum). His ACTUAL field of study is linguistics, not economics, or history, or political science, or sociology and he seems to have an aversion to providing empirical evidence for pop-sociological works like this.

Also, his pattern of work is incoherent. In the piece posted he decries what he decides is a strain of Black separatism in the Black community, but in this radio interview he argues that having all black schools is not that bad and the point of Brown v. Board of Education was not school desegregation.

The man is a hack that trades in the worst stereotypes about Black people for career advancement. Some have been outlined elsewhere, but chiefly include: Blacks as anti-intellectual, Blacks as lazy, etc.

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Is that really true? I mean ffs - I have a black friend from Zimbabwe who has a degree in engineering and is a National Control Centre shift operator for the Irish electricity transmission network. He probably earns about 100k more than me and he's in his mid 30s. He has a large network of like minded African progressive hard working buddies. They're all graduates and work in and around Dublin in various companies. Just checking his Facebook there it appears he has nearly 200 'friends' - the vast majority of which are black as can be. He hasn't been shunned. I find this sentence, almost the opening line, a very difficult position to swallow or take seriously.

Same here. Prior to today's discussions I had never really been aware of this supposed attitude. What the fuck?

You were unaware, so naturally you call me a racist for pointing out some of the issues relating to this....

No, I believe you were being called a racist for talking in general terms about whole communities rather than considering things in terms of the individual...that and the post where you presumed Cam was talking about a black family just because he used the words 'ghetto' and 'shooting up'.

Also lowing, I have argued in this post that America's apartheid history has CONTRIBUTED to the social problems seen in contemporary black America. When you take this assertion and look at the fact that the 'Uncle Tom' phenomenon doesn't exist in countries where an apartheid system was never a problem then it would appear to back up my theory. African Americans originate from Africa and yet, as backed up in other posts in this thread, indigenous Africans don't look down their noses at successful, upwardly mobile businessmen or doctors....hell, I can't think of the last time I saw a doctor that wasn't African.

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

i thought chavs are european version of what we call 'wigger' in the US.  am i wrong?

Defo white trash.

here's what i based my distinction upon: 

chav http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav
redneck = white trash http://www.drbukk.com/images9/cebina.jpg

so in this case, at least based on the pictures, i'd say chav = wigger

Chavs don't borrow from black culture.  They don't tend to listen to rap, or wear baggy jeans that are strapped around the bottom of their ass.  They'll prob racist cocks too.

Here is the exception chavs trying to rap...

Last edited by m3thod (2008-06-25 06:01:06)

m3thod wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Defo white trash.

here's what i based my distinction upon: 

chav http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chav
redneck = white trash http://www.drbukk.com/images9/cebina.jpg

so in this case, at least based on the pictures, i'd say chav = wigger

Chavs don't borrow from black culture.  They don't tend to listen to rap, or wear baggy jeans that are strapped around the bottom of their ass.  They'll prob racist cocks too.

Here is the exception chavs trying to rap...

ok - conceded.  must be a european thing.  thanks for the clarifications.