Understanding "Replacement Theory"....It's A Fact

[Curried Goats]

But you see the issue though, right? As you mentioned, that plantation class was the elite of the South. The average southerner was far too poor to own slaves.

By the same token, the average northerner didn't have any vested interest in having the South as part of the Union.

So, ultimately, the problem with the Civil War was the same as most wars -- the elites just wanted to pit their poor against each other for their own benefit.

The only saving grace to the war was the end of slavery. Had that not occurred, it would have been a war fought without any real positive change.

In some Southern states nearly 40% of households owned at least one slave.

 

[Uriel]

You mean the mainstream media never reported on it because he was white. Guaranteed Democrats and progressives care when police murder citizens, even white ones. Daniel Shavers murder at the hands of police was tragic and unavoidable and should of gotten a lot more attention.

I would argue that generally the Republican base does not. Not even now.

The leadership of police forces and police unions in this country is still largely white and conservative.

It is true that some progressives care when it happens to whites, but to use your previous terminology, they "disproportionately" focus on blacks and other minorities. This doesn't actually help the issue at hand, because it gives the false impression that it's only a racial issue.

In reality, police brutality is an authority issue. Whites are actually more likely to be killed by police when looking at this nationally. Roland Fryer even found that white cops were less likely to use lethal force on black suspects than black cops were.

If the focus on police brutality was less racial in rhetoric and presentation, you'd probably see more support from whites on this issue, including conservatives.

Establishment Republicans probably aren't as sympathetic to this cause in general due to their reverence for authority. I think you'll find that a lot of populist conservatives (or Trumpists if you prefer that term) are actually less trusting of authority than most.

A perfect example of where the left and the populist right can come together is on abolishing civil asset forfeiture (or at least thoroughly reforming it), for example. Trump supporters are not often "back the blue" types, because many of them have seen how the police in many blue areas will enforce draconian gun laws.

Which brings me to my next point. Historically, police have skewed conservative, but that's not as true today. In Democrat dominated areas, police are usually still at least left of center. DAs in Democrat cities are often far left, due to PACs that push far left agendas.

 

[Uriel]

In some Southern states nearly 40% of households owned at least one slave.

While that is true, most of the plantations involved were small and not the large ones people often think of. I'm not saying that makes it right, but it's a different picture from the stereotype.

 

[Uriel]

I was also addressing your comments about people learning to co-exist together. The 100 years of white terrorism weren't hypothetical. I could argue that they didn't really come to be okay with co-existing with blacks but rather accepted the fact that there was nothing they could do to change it. For those people though, when the end comes (their socio-politcal strangle hold on the south) they will reach for violence. It will be all they have left.

I'll put it this way. If violence breaks out in this country from rural whites, it won't likely be limited to the South, and it won't likely be due to race. What's much more angering for social conservatives today is what has happened to our education system and how it has targeted our children with certain ideologies that are evil and depraved.

 

[Uriel]

But slavery was NOT the only issue. Their were real economic conflict between the north and south in trade interests and real differences in culture, that lead to regional tension and strife.

The average southern might not own a slave, or even want to, but did want to see his state and fellow state citizens to prosper instead of being marginalized by hostile and unfriendly Northerners.





Regional identity and interests were real, similar to the South. AND Lincoln, a known Abolitionists, was ELECTED, by the voters. So, while the war was sold as being "to maintain the union", let's not ignore that there was long standing causes for tension and conflict.



Maybe.



Perhaps.

I agree that economics and culture were factors as well. However, some of that was tied to the Missouri Compromise.

From the beginning, slave states wanted to ensure that the expansion of the U.S. involved at least equal parts slave states and free states. This was foreshadowing of how slavery was already perceived as an existential issue for the U.S. as a whole.

 

[Curried Goats]

It is true that some progressives care when it happens to whites, but to use your previous terminology, they "disproportionately" focus on blacks and other minorities. This doesn't actually help the issue at hand, because it gives the false impression that it's only a racial issue.

Do they? Or is that simply the nature of police brutality being disproportionately against Black people?

In reality, police brutality is an authority issue. Whites are actually more likely to be killed by police when looking at this nationally. Roland Fryer even found that white cops were less likely to use lethal force on black suspects than black cops were.

Here's the gist of his findings: This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On nonlethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than 50 percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force—officer-involved shootings—we find no racial differences either in the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of whom have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.

There's a whole lot of disproportionate black and brown police brutality below the lethal level.

If the focus on police brutality was less racial in rhetoric and presentation, you'd probably see more support from whites on this issue, including conservatives.

I shouldn't have to pander to whites to get them to care about brutality against minorities. I rather shame and ridicule those people out of existence.

Establishment Republicans probably aren't as sympathetic to this cause in general due to their reverence for authority. I think you'll find that a lot of populist conservatives (or Trumpists if you prefer that term) are actually less trusting of authority than most.

They're less trusting of police and the federal government when they are the targets. When blacks are they cheer those same forces on.

A perfect example of where the left and the populist right can come together is on abolishing civil asset forfeiture (or at least thoroughly reforming it), for example. Trump supporters are not often "back the blue" types, because many of them have seen how the police in many blue areas will enforce draconian gun laws.

They are the blue lives matter crowd when police forces are initiating draconian policies on minorities.

Which brings me to my next point. Historically, police have skewed conservative, but that's not as true today. In Democrat dominated areas, police are usually still at least left of center. DAs in Democrat cities are often far left, due to PACs that push far left agendas.

That's a much more recent development and it's benefits won't be seen immediately. We still have a justice system that is particularly brutal to black and brown people on a whole.

 

[Curried Goats]

I'll put it this way. If violence breaks out in this country from rural whites, it won't likely be limited to the South, and it won't likely be due to race. What's much more angering for social conservatives today is what has happened to our education system and how it has targeted our children with certain ideologies that are evil and depraved.

Such as...?

 

[Correll]

I agree that economics and culture were factors as well. However, some of that was tied to the Missouri Compromise.

From the beginning, slave states wanted to ensure that the expansion of the U.S. involved at least equal parts slave states and free states. This was foreshadowing of how slavery was already perceived as an existential issue for the U.S. as a whole.

Oh yes. From the very beginning. Even more reason imo, to not dismiss that the average northern was somewhat motivated by that issue.


Imo, it would have been better, if Lincoln has been honest and open about hiss abolitionism.

 

[cnm]

Understanding "Replacement Theory"....It's A Fact​

You should tell Tucker, he seems confused.

 

[Uriel]

Do they? Or is that simply the nature of police brutality being disproportionately against Black people?


There's a whole lot of disproportionate black and brown police brutality below the lethal level.

I shouldn't have to pander to whites to get them to care about brutality against minorities. I rather shame and ridicule those people out of existence.

They're less trusting of police and the federal government when they are the targets. When blacks are they cheer those same forces on.

They are the blue lives matter crowd when police forces are initiating draconian policies on minorities.

That's a much more recent development and it's benefits won't be seen immediately. We still have a justice system that is particularly brutal to black and brown people on a whole.

If this is the way you actually feel, then I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this.

 

[Uriel]

Such as...?

Pushing gender identity concepts on elementary kids is one of them. The reason why Florida passed their Parental Consent Law was to deal with both education systems and individual teachers that try to cover sexual and gender topics with children under the age of 10.

 

[Uriel]

Oh yes. From the very beginning. Even more reason imo, to not dismiss that the average northern was somewhat motivated by that issue.


Imo, it would have been better, if Lincoln has been honest and open about hiss abolitionism.

Some northern elites were motivated by abolitionism, but it wasn't that widespread among working class northerners other than a few religious groups. Most working class northerners were more focused on making a living or dealing with the consequences of industrialization.

 

[Curried Goats]

Pushing gender identity concepts on elementary kids is one of them. The reason why Florida passed their Parental Consent Law was to deal with both education systems and individual teachers that try to cover sexual and gender topics with children under the age of 10.

What's evil about that? What if a student is suffering from gender identity issues? Should the school just ignore it?

 

[cnm]

If this is the way you actually feel, then I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this.

I bet you think white privilege isn't a thing.

 

[Uriel]

What's evil about that? What if a student is suffering from gender identity issues? Should the school just ignore it?

That's something for parents and psychologists hired by the parents to deal with. The state should not be involved.

 

[Uriel]

I bet you think white privilege isn't a thing.

It's a thing, but class privilege is far more significant.

 

[Curried Goats]

That's something for parents and psychologists hired by the parents to deal with. The state should not be involved.

What does that mean effectively? For instance let's say a gay child is being bullied in school. Should the teacher pretend not to see it? Should they not talk to the bully about treating others with respect? As a father and grandfather I recognize parents should have the only say (barring a court order) in the upbringing of their children, but it you loved your children, why wouldn't you want teachers to be able to comfort them and reassure them in those moments?

 

[Uriel]

What does that mean effectively? For instance let's say a gay child is being bullied in school. Should the teacher pretend not to see it? Should they not talk to the bully about treating others with respect? As a father and grandfather I recognize parents should have the only say (barring a court order) in the upbringing of their children, but it you loved your children, why wouldn't you want teachers to be able to comfort them and reassure them in those moments?

I don't have a problem with comforting and de-escalation, but what is often done in some schools is propagandizing about gender identity.

Children are highly impressionable, which is precisely why certain activists in the LGBT lobby target children. It's a numbers game for them. They pretend it's a matter of encouraging people to come out of the closet, but in reality, it's grooming when done to children.

What the left is reluctant to admit is that sexuality and gender identity are highly environmental and socially influenced. This is shown throughout history by cultural differences.

For example, we don't consider pedophilia to be acceptable, but it was acceptable for the Ancient Romans and Ancient Greeks. This was possible due to normalization of pedophilia by those cultures. By the same token, our culture took measures to stigmatize it.

Gender identity and homosexuality are no different. Influencing society to be more accepting of homosexuality, gender dysphoria, or non-binary identities for adults is one thing. Encouraging it among children is quite another.

Young children can go through strange phases for any number of reasons, but it's not usually a matter of gender dysphoria. And even when it is gender dysphoria, puberty blockers are an extreme measure that should not be taken 99% of the time. Sex reassignment surgery is completely absurd to perform on a young child as well.

But ultimately, this has become an issue because the LGBT lobby sees the power in converting future generations to their group. It's no different from what you'd expect from a political or religious group, but the consequences are far more severe.

 

[cnm]

It's a thing, but class privilege is far more significant.

Only if one is white.

 

[Uriel]

Only if one is white.

I'm pretty sure Michael Jordan has more privilege than me. Any racism he endures is surely resolved by his wealth and connections.