An Informal Debate on Race Relations in the United States Including Its History

[MarcATL]

one of the biggest indicators of oppression is economic hardship .....is our capitalistic system a form of white supremacy ?

Was capitalism set up by whites for the benefit of whites?

 

[MarcATL]

i dont know any of these whites you speak of ....as the average white American the whites i know work their asses off just to pay the bills and put food on the table ! listening to you it sounds like you believe all whites are evil rich and racist and have been given everything ...thats a lie .

That's not accurate.

What the reality is, is that whites have historically been given every advantage possible to succeed in this country, and that benefits them to this day.

Whereas blacks were given the exact opposite, which hampers them to this day.

Is any of this a lie or some myth to you?

 

[IM2]

Two House theology[edit]
Like British Israelites, Christian Identity (CI) adherents believe in Two House theology, which makes a distinction between the Tribe of Judah and the Ten Lost Tribes.[40] However the major difference between British Israelism and CI is that British Israelites have always maintained that Jews are descended from the tribe of Judah.[41] In contrast, while also maintaining a Two House distinction, Christian Identity proponents believe that the true lineal descendants of Judah are not contemporary Jews, but are instead White Europeans whose ancestors settled mainly in Scotland, Germany, and other European nations, alongside the House of Israel. In short, Christian Identity adherents believe that instead of modern-day Jews, the true descendants of the Houses of Israel and Judah are the modern-day Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic, Nordic, and kindred peoples.[40][42] Some CI scholars teach the belief that many contemporary Jews are the descendants of Cain, citing Genesis 3:15, John 8:44 and 1 John 3:12 in support of their position; they also teach that Cain was the spawn of Satan.[43]

Christian Identity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Christian Identity, also sometimes called Israel Identity, is the only true conservative Christianity. It is true because it seeks to maintain the understanding – in accordance with Scripture - that the New Covenant was made only with those same people with whom the Old Covenant was made: the House (family) of Israel and the House (family) of Judah. These Israelite people are traceable through time to the Keltic and Germanic tribes of today. None of these people are Jews.

What is Christian Identity? | Christogenea.org

Christian Identity, also sometimes called Israel Identity, is the only true conservative Christianity. It is true because it seeks to maintain the understanding – in accordance with Scripture - that the New Covenant was made only with those same people with whom the Old Covenant was made: the...

christogenea.org

 

[IM2]

People like to think they can talk for black people. Unalienable, inalienable, absolute, and all the word salad used in post #290 ignores that whatever word you attach to rights, blacks did not have. A lawyer should have knowledge of the civil rights cases instead of talking about blacks and the 14th amendment .Besides what he's saying is not true.

Constitutional Myth #8: The 14th Amendment Doesn't Exist
GARRETT EPPSJULY 13, 2011

America today is what we call a democracy -- because of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Amendment has been called "the second Constitution," because of the number and importance of the changes it made. But to hear many of 21st Century's far-right "constitutionalists" tell the American story, the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't exist. Or, at least, not as something that affects the way we live today.

These people are what I call "Fourteenth Amendment deniers." Their radical right-wing agenda is much more attainable if the values of human equality, and basic civil and political rights, are read out of the document. So, like Sgt. Schultz in Hogan's Heroes, they look at the text and see "nothing -- nothing!"

The most radical of them simply proclaim that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't count; it wasn't validly adopted. Southern Senators and Representatives weren't seated in the Congress that proposed it at the end of the Civil War, they argue, so that body was illegitimate. In 1957, with the prospect of school desegregation staring it in its all-white face, the Georgia State Legislature went so far as to pass a resolution declaring that "the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are null and void and of no effect."

This old white-supremacist myth lives on, but only in the remote hills and hollers where militiasmen mingle with men in sheets.

Constitutional Myth #8: The 14th Amendment Doesn't Exist

Why do some on the right look at this basic guarantee of democracy and think nothing's there?

www.theatlantic.com

Ratification by the states

On June 16, 1866, Secretary of State William Seward transmitted the Fourteenth Amendment to the governors of the several states for its ratification. State legislatures in every formerly Confederate state, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify it. This refusal led to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.[20] It also prompted Congress to pass a law on March 2, 1867, requiring that a former Confederate state must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment before "said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress".[21]

The first twenty-eight states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment were:[22]

• Connecticut – June 30, 1866
• New Hampshire – July 6, 1866
• Tennessee – July 18, 1866
• New Jersey – September 11, 1866 (rescinded ratification – February 20, 1868/March 24, 1868; re-ratified – April 23, 2003)
• Oregon – September 19, 1866 (rescinded ratification – October 16, 1868; re-ratified – April 25, 1973)
• Vermont – October 30, 1866
• New York – January 10, 1867
• Ohio – January 11, 1867 (rescinded ratification – January 13, 1868; re-ratified – March 12, 2003)
• Illinois – January 15, 1867
• West Virginia – January 16, 1867
• Michigan – January 16, 1867
• Minnesota – January 16, 1867
• Kansas – January 17, 1867
• Maine – January 19, 1867
• Nevada – January 22, 1867
• Indiana – January 23, 1867
• Missouri – January 25, 1867
• Pennsylvania – February 6, 1867
• Rhode Island – February 7, 1867
• Wisconsin – February 13, 1867
• Massachusetts – March 20, 1867
• Nebraska – June 15, 1867
• Iowa – March 16, 1868
• Arkansas – April 6, 1868
• Florida – June 9, 1868
• North Carolina – July 4, 1868 (after rejection – December 14, 1866)
• Louisiana – July 9, 1868 (after rejection – February 6, 1867)
• South Carolina – July 9, 1868 (after rejection – December 20, 1866)

If rescission by Ohio and New Jersey were invalid, South Carolina would have been the 28th State. Rescission by Oregon did not occur until later. These rescissions caused significant controversy. However, ratification by other states continued during the course of the debate:

• Alabama – July 13, 1868

On July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that if withdrawals of ratification by New Jersey and Ohio were ineffective, then the amendment had become part of the Constitution on July 9, 1868, with ratification by South Carolina.[23] The following day, Congress adopted and transmitted to the Department of State a concurrent resolution declaring the Fourteenth Amendment to be a part of the Constitution and directing the Secretary of State to promulgate it as such.[24] Both New Jersey and Ohio were named in the congressional resolution as having ratified the amendment, although Alabama was also named, making 29 states total.[25][26]

On the same day, one more State ratified:

• Georgia – July 21, 1868 (after rejection – November 9, 1866)

On July 27, Secretary Seward received the formal ratification from Georgia.[27] The following day, July 28, Secretary Seward issued his official proclamation certifying the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.[25] Secretary Seward stated that his proclamation was "in conformance" to the resolution by Congress, but his official list of States included both Alabama and Georgia, as well as Ohio and New Jersey.[26][28]

The inclusion of Ohio and New Jersey has led some to question the validity of rescission of a ratification. The inclusion of Alabama and Georgia has called that conclusion into question. While there have been Supreme Court cases dealing with ratification issues, this particular question has never been adjudicated.

The Fourteenth Amendment was subsequently ratified:[22]

• Virginia – October 8, 1869 (after rejection – January 9, 1867)
• Mississippi – January 17, 1870
• Texas – February 18, 1870 (after rejection – October 27, 1866)
• Delaware – February 12, 1901 (after rejection – February 8, 1867)
• Maryland – April 4, 1959[29] (after rejection – March 23, 1867)
• California – May 6, 1959
• Kentucky – March 30, 1976 (after rejection – January 8, 1867)

Since Ohio and New Jersey re-ratified the Fourteenth Amendment in 2003, all U.S. states that existed during Reconstruction have ratified the amendment.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[IM2]

I don’t agree that the system hasn’t “changed much”. It has changed a great deal. It is not yet where it needs to be but itis far from 60 or more years ago.

And were I in the system you describe I still would not characterize all blacks as racist. People are individuals.

You really have to ask just how far have we really come Coyote. We don't see signs but the racism is still here. The attitude still exists. Blacks were called monkeys 100 years ago and I have been called a monkey here.

‘Not All White People’: A Definitive Disclaimer

Monique Judge
5/07/18 6:00PM


I wrote about white people gentrifying fried-bologna sandwiches last week.

I knew as soon as I hit publish on the post what type of response it was going to get, but I published it anyway because the kinds of white people who would turn a fried-bologna sandwich into some type of hipster happy meal, complete with a bag of chips and PBR, need to be stopped. We are super tired of those kinds of white people.

Notice that I said “those kinds” of white people. I specified exactly what types of white people I mean.

Here at The Root, we write about white people. To be clear, we write about white people and how the things they do impact black people. We write about racism, we write about issues affecting black people and we write about the everyday microaggressions that black folks often experience at the hands of white people. It’s literally our job to cover the news from a black perspective.

When we write about things that white people do, we use the generic phrase “white people” as a catchall (see also: wypipo). We use it to represent the type of collective whiteness that unites white people even when y’all aren’t all on the same page or following the same agenda or falling into the same category. It’s that “general you” versus “specific you” type of thing.

We know “not all white people.” We know that there are a great many of you who don’t exemplify any of the behaviors that we talk about, and we are proud of you.

OK, we aren’t necessarily proud of you or handing out awards for people being decent human beings, but we shouldn’t have to, much in the same way we shouldn’t have to specifically say “not all white people” every single time we write a story illustrating something ignorant, racist or otherwise damaging that white people have done. It is implied.

Have you ever noticed that no one ever has to say “not all black people”? When stories get written that generalize black people (and we all know there are plenty of them), you don’t see black people derailing the topic at hand by crying “not all black people” in the comments or in the Twitter mentions of the author.

We get that there is nuance. We get that while we may not be the type of black person who engages in that type of behavior, there are black people who do, and we don’t try to pretend that they don’t exist. We don’t deny your experience by lecturing you on how not all black people do this and it’s wrong for you to say “black people” when you really mean just Tyrone, Wayne and Junebug. There’s no necessity for that.

Basically, it’s like this: The “not all” in “white people” is silent like the “too” in “Black lives matter,” another phrase y’all seem to want to be willfully ignorant about.

Usually the people who want to come and argue “not all” are the type of people who are exactly the thing being described. They just want to be reassured that they aren’t bad people. Do your soul-searching on your own time, and stop derailing important discussions with your need to assuage your white guilt.

It’s funny how white people want it both ways. They are quick to come with the “not all white people,” but will also generalize about black people with statistics about crime, etc., when it suits them. You don’t get to have it both ways, baby.

But whatever. Just know that when we say “white people” here at The Root, we mean the white people who are engaging in whatever behavior or behavioral pattern we are discussing at the time.

In other words, not all white people.

‘Not All White People’: A Definitive Disclaimer

I wrote about white people gentrifying fried-bologna sandwiches last week.

www.theroot.com

 

[MarcATL]

you have stated that you are successful and retired ....... so havent you also benefited from living in this country .... i have worked very hard all of my life and so have my friends ....and none of us are rich .... we are just normal people trying to pay our bills and survive ....however i am happy for you that you managed to be successful and i am not resentful because you have fared better than me and my friends....America is truly the land of opportunity !congrats to you for achieving success in this great land of opportunity !

I'm in my early 40s, still working.

Wrong guy bub.

 

[MarcATL]

so what other system do you think would be more fair ?? do you think a socialist system of economics and governance would be better ?

We have socialism for the rich and corporations now.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

[delete]

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The forum is now closed. Thank you everyone who participated and thank you OldLady for refereeing our debate.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

i dont know any of these whites you speak of ....as the average white American the whites i know work their asses off just to pay the bills and put food on the table ! listening to you it sounds like you believe all whites are evil rich and racist and have been given everything ...thats a lie .

aa

whites stop listening as soon as they are called racist or privileged ... a question for im2 and MarcATL why did blacks have the lowest divorce rate and a lower drop out rate and a lower crime rate and a higher per capita small business ownership than they do now in the late 40s and 50s before they embraced the democratic party ?

Only people who were invited to this discussion are allowed to comment. For everyone else it's read only.

 

[IM2]

That was fun.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

First of all, if you can show me what in my opening statement is false, I'd appreciate it.

Secondly, does it matter if the people today are not the same people if they hold the same beliefs? Because we know that ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, that people have continued to violate it's provisions and engage in racial discrimination against African Americans among others and not just in employment, but housing, education, etc.

Yeah - good bye. You are just a nicer IM2

 

[iamwhatiseem]

HAHAHAHA - the forum is now closed.... only after the OP comes in blithering out hatred and intolerance.

Like I said - the thread was a joke from post #1

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I can see the merit here...the assumption that all blacks are the same,vote the same...or should...etc.

It seems to me peop,e I. Different economic sectors or areas of the country would, like the white population have different priorities.

Which is precisely why you cannot use arbitrary and generalized statistics and try to make claims of the whole.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So there was NOTHING that happened before 1950 that whites did to blacks, in this country, that severely hampered this?

American history begins in 1950 huh?

Hahaha..... way to take the entire meaning of what I clearly said and twist it into something completely different.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So as great as you claimed blacks were then, whites, aka the system treated them inhumanely, which includes MASSIVE death.

Now you claim that some different type of "inner city blacks" are immoral.

But nothing of the white society, and system, that SAVAGED them, while they were being, as you stated, so great a race.

Do you see the problem here?

Yes, you took what I said, reformed it to fit the narrative you wanted and then asked why would I think that.
Which is exactly what you do all the time.

 

[MarcATL]

do you favor capitalism or socialism ?

I favor a mixture of both. However the current mixture is advantaging the wrong people/corporations.

Do you believe socialism is evil?

 

[MarcATL]

Hahaha..... way to take the entire meaning of what I clearly said and twist it into something completely different.

No twist, I want you to respond to that time period.

 

[MarcATL]

Yes, you took what I said, reformed it to fit the narrative you wanted and then asked why would I think that.
Which is exactly what you do all the time.

I need you to address that time period sir. This is no trick, the only trickster is you for ignoring it.

I'd like to get your commentary on that time period.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No twist, I want you to respond to that time period.

I already did to the OP... you can read that one