- Mar 11, 2015
- 89,197
- 63,129
- 3,645
Because I felt like it. And macro level has nothing to do with individuals.
It does if you're talking about a group of individuals. Hence the words "some blacks...".
You want to talk about blacks and racism at the macro level, then you must discuss racism, where it came from what it consists of, how it affects society and what would create whatever you think black racism is.
Okay, if you want to discuss where racism came from, let's do that.
Now, I'm no expert but I will offer my thoughts on the matter. Racism stems from an inherent idea that one's group is unique and special and a fear and mistrust of other groups outside of our own that may be a threat to our uniqueness or survival. It is one of the defining characteristics of mankind and is manifested in many ways, including the two most often seen throughout history: war and conquest; enslavement.
There are examples too numerous to cite but the ones that readily come to mind the Spanish conquest of South and Central America; the wars and enslavement between the Mesoamerican tribes before that; the Roman conquests; the warring tribes in Africa, including the more recent war in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi; the Holocaust; the Japanese invasion of China in the late 30s and of course the enslavement of Africans throughout the Western world.
Black racism in America stems from the same causes: fear and mistrust of whites. Sometimes it is misplaced, sometimes it is not.
No ghost what you call black racism doesn't stem from anything you say. You say this and ignore the years from 1641 until 1965 that blacks were either enslaved or treated as second class citizens who were denied rights by whites.
The Berlin Conference of 1884 assigned the territory to Germany as part of German East Africa, marking the beginning of the colonial era. The explorer Gustav Adolf von Götzen was the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894; he crossed from the south-east to Lake Kivu and met the king.[24][25] The Germans did not significantly alter the social structure of the country, but exerted influence by supporting the king and the existing hierarchy and delegating power to local chiefs.[26] [27] Belgian forces took control of Rwanda and Burundi in 1916, during World War I, beginning a period of more direct colonial rule.[28] Belgium ruled both Rwanda and Burundi as a League of Nations 'mandate' called Ruanda-Urundi; the Belgians also simplified and centralised the power structure,[29] and introduced large-scale projects in education, health, public works, and agricultural supervision, including new crops and improved agricultural techniques to try to reduce the incidence of famine.[30] Both the Germans and the Belgians promoted Tutsi supremacy, considering the Hutu and Tutsi different races.[31] In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutu to become honorary Tutsi, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the classes.[32]
This is what started the problems in Rwanda.
So you're telling me that the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa were not aware that they were the same race? That they allowed foreigners to dictate their social structure to them?
As wrong as it was for the Germans and Belgians to do what they did, obviously the Hutu thought themselves the superior tribe and chose to enjoy the advantages the whites were offering else they would have fought against their efforts. Plus, none of that excuses the Hutus and Tutsis slaughtering each other to the tune of 800,000 people killed.
Sorry bud, but those whites had no reason to be in Africa. That's where this discussion begins and ends. Until you recognize that, we have nothing to talk about.
Of course I recognize it you dimwit. Did I or did I not say it was wrong for them to do what they did?
Had those whites not done what they did there would have been no such slaughter. Stop making excuses for whites then telling me what doesn't excuse blacks..
So you're telling me that the actions of white men a hundred years ago are directly responsible for the Rwandan slaughter in 1994? You can't be so stupid as to believe that.
The rift between the two tribes dates back 400 years and was defined along class lines - the Tutsis being considered the higher class. The actions of the Germans and Belgians merely exacerbated an already established tension between the two groups. What's more, the Tutsis, rather than fight for equality for both tribes when the Belgians instituted their laws, chose instead to make use of the advantages the Belgians offered and relegate their fellow countrymen to second class citizenship.
Say what you will about the Germans and Belgians but there are absolutely no redeeming actions or choices on the part of the two tribes in this story. The Hutus chose to commit genocide on another tribe and no one forced them into it.
That's what I'm saying. And if you had actually studied what went on during the years of white colonization of Africa you would also. But you haven't. You seem to find it very difficult to understand that the whites didn't belong in control of that country. Rwanda had existed for thousands of years before whites decided they had the right to govern there. Whatever rival animosity they had was no different that the whites in Europe and we have had 2 world wars which have killed millions because of the long standing animosity white tribes had.