Diversity in America, why Liberalism is like a Religion

[Quatermass]

Kaltros

Quatermass

Kaltros

Quatermass

I think I should go on a few points-

White Privilege is a thing, and white folk need to accept it. Accepting White Privilege is not the same as giving in to White Guilt. Because our fathers, grandfathers, ect. Had a better place in society than those of other races, we were able to inherit certain things. Better access to education, sometimes money. Many of us start out middle class. It's just a fact.

Our white ancestors had very little privilege at all. They built the United States from the ground up, and worked to pass on a better world to their children. Over enough generations, that produced what you call 'white privilege'. Do you have something against whites giving their children a world better than the one they found?

Wait, white folk built it? I thought the Native Americans were here, we stole it from them, then brought in a bunch of slave labor to ACTUALLY build it.

Same difference. If the whites hadn't colonized, they couldn't have brought slave labor either. Though in the north and the west slave labor was not as widespread anyhow.

Not the point. The point is that this land was not built by "White Settlers" who were "Unprivileged" . It was taken by natives, colonized by the wealthy first, and then populated by people who came in as indentured servants, who were basically slaves, who were exploited by the wealthy elites of the. Also, slaves. Still, with the exception of the servants and slaves, colonization was a rich man's game.

Quote:

Quote:

And no, there is nothing wrong with leaving a better world for the next generation. There is a problem, however, with denying that same thing to others. And that's the problem.

Who's denying anything to others? Inheritance isn't a gift you catch you catch out of the sky. It's something you build and work for for your children. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results.

Except when there is an inherent inequality that's built into a society that isn't being addressed, that is the problem.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

This is because of the segregated housing market. Government sponsored acts which were made with the intention of giving our soldiers a home after world war two had racial language that labelled blacks as being detrimental to a community, often times forcing them into smaller, lower income, communities.

You know, there might have been some truth in the claim that blacks were detrimental to the community. Look at Detroit, or Chicago, or New York City, or Seattle? Know who shows up in the criminal justice system more often than not? Far more often than their numbers in the general population would predict?

Of course, there is also truth to the fact that in many areas we had a segregated job market that had already created income inequality. The connection is economic class, not race. This is why, before hand, you could argue that the same information pointed to Irish and Italians as being a major source of crime. Because they lived in a lower social class as well.

When the prejudice between different groups of white ended, so did the violence attributed to those groups.

There are still plenty of lower-class whites around. But they seem to be less criminal on average than blacks and latinos. It's probably a better argument to look at marriage and illegitimacy rates. Blacks and latinos have lower rates of marriage and higher rates of illegitimacy, which leads to broken homes and psychological damage to children who are later more inclined to become criminals. Blacks currently have the worst illegitimacy rates of all.

There are lower class whites around, but far fewer, hence fewer crimes.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

After the racial language was removed, we had white flight. Racist and conniving real estate dealers playing off the fears of white people, making them sell their homes for less then market, so they can be resold. Jobs dried up. And all this is over, but it's an inherited problem. It becomes less of a problem every generation, but this ******** in the video needs to stop denying it.

White flight is pretty natural, if misguided. Sooner or later whites will run out of places to flee to.

Though it is an interesting assumption buried in that paragraph. Are whites integral to civilization? Is that why white flight is apparently wrong? Why can't the minorities pick up the slack after whites leave?

Simply put, you can't pick up slack that isn't there. If the businesses leave, there are no jobs. If there is nobody making a substantial amount of money in the neighbourhood, there are no businesses.

Chicagoans are all Americans, aren't they? Why don't they start their own businesses to fill in the gaps?

Lack of money, from this inherent inequality that I've been describing.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Also, there are benefits to diversity. It ENRICHES our culture. It's not just food and music, but rather, how they interact with others. I mean, I'm from Chicago. This is a hell of a city for diversity. We've created a unique culture for ourselves, based on the Polish, Irish, and Italian Immigrants, based on the African American Population that came, and the Puerto Ricans that were flown in to work slave labor jobs, who were just as soon forgotten.

And how about Chicago's horrendous gun violence despite having some of the strictest gun control laws around? That's one of the unmentioned benefits of diversity, I suppose. Not to mention other types of crime.

Don't pretend you know what the ******** is going on in Chicago. As I said, this is an economic problem. If there is no money, people find other ways to get it. It's also an issue of police. A bloody night in the Ghetto last summer meant more cops on the ******** Gold Coast.

Also, our Gun Violence comes mostly from Guns purchased legally in Indiana and brought over the border. It has nothing to do with strict- or lax- Gun Policies here. There is a high crime because there are few opportunities open to the people who need them the most.

Aren't there still poor whites in Chicago? Why don't poor whites commit crimes as often as blacks?

They do. There are, however, far few in the city of Chicago. Hence, lower crime rates.

Quote:

Quote:

Meanwhile, well, there is the lead issue- Lead Paint and lead runoff is poisoning people in communities where they can't afford to clean it up. This has actually been LINKED to violence in people, low test scores, ect. Besides being, well, poison. Poison the city isn't doing a damn thing about.

That's one factor, but does lead poisoning always lead to more violent behavior? Or is that a more sporadic effect of lead poisoning?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073.html

There you go.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It's also a necessity. If one group has all the money, all the power, we have a problem. It needs to be shared, it needs to be spread, or else there isn't justice. Also, there just isn't enough Goddamn room.

If there's not enough goddamn room, how does it solve the problem cramming even more people together, people that are sometimes antagonistic to each other?

Nobody's cramming people together. Rather, we are learning to live with one another. Because we ******** have to.

That's not the wisest idea. racial/Ethnic tensions of people forced to live close together have ended in violence again and again in previous instances. Irish Catholics versus protestants, Tamils v. Sinhalese, Hindu v. Muslim, Black v. white africans in South Africa, Chinese/Japanese, and so on.

The idea of national self-determination of peoples was motivated in part by noticing the unending strife between different ethnic/linguistic/social groups in places like Austria-Hungary.

I think other people handled this issue, so I'm going to leave it alone.

[Kaltros]

Wendigo

Kaltros

That may be, but loyalists getting more privileges wouldn't be such a big issue if the two groups lived on two separate islands. Close proximity just added more fuel to the fire, insult to injury.

But they wouldn't live on two separate islands, since they're two separate political groups among the same general population.

The real issue is that unionist/loyalist Irish and separatist/republican Irish had diametrically opposed goals for the future of Ireland. Geographical isolation between mostly Catholic republicans and mostly Protestant unionists actually contributed to the friction between the two groups, as the unionists were seen to dominate the Northeast while the republicans were dominant in the Midlands, so a Catholic in the Northeast would be persona non grata, and ditto for the Protestant in the Midlands. Only the Protestant in the Northeast had the government, therefore police and military on his side of the issue, so the Catholic in the North was particularly badly off.

I don't see how any of that contradicts the idea that proximity is a big factor, in this case two conflicting groups trying to live on an island called Ireland.

[Kaltros]

Quatermass

Kaltros

Quatermass

Kaltros

Quatermass

I think I should go on a few points-

White Privilege is a thing, and white folk need to accept it. Accepting White Privilege is not the same as giving in to White Guilt. Because our fathers, grandfathers, ect. Had a better place in society than those of other races, we were able to inherit certain things. Better access to education, sometimes money. Many of us start out middle class. It's just a fact.

Our white ancestors had very little privilege at all. They built the United States from the ground up, and worked to pass on a better world to their children. Over enough generations, that produced what you call 'white privilege'. Do you have something against whites giving their children a world better than the one they found?

Wait, white folk built it? I thought the Native Americans were here, we stole it from them, then brought in a bunch of slave labor to ACTUALLY build it.

Same difference. If the whites hadn't colonized, they couldn't have brought slave labor either. Though in the north and the west slave labor was not as widespread anyhow.

Not the point. The point is that this land was not built by "White Settlers" who were "Unprivileged" . It was taken by natives, colonized by the wealthy first, and then populated by people who came in as indentured servants, who were basically slaves, who were exploited by the wealthy elites of the. Also, slaves. Still, with the exception of the servants and slaves, colonization was a rich man's game.

Indentured servants signed up for a specific term, maybe five years, maybe ten, but after the years are up they were free. After that settlers commonly bought tracts of unsettled land for dirt cheap, turned it into farms, and so on.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

And no, there is nothing wrong with leaving a better world for the next generation. There is a problem, however, with denying that same thing to others. And that's the problem.

Who's denying anything to others? Inheritance isn't a gift you catch you catch out of the sky. It's something you build and work for for your children. Equal opportunity does not mean equal results.

Except when there is an inherent inequality that's built into a society that isn't being addressed, that is the problem.

What inequality?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

This is because of the segregated housing market. Government sponsored acts which were made with the intention of giving our soldiers a home after world war two had racial language that labelled blacks as being detrimental to a community, often times forcing them into smaller, lower income, communities.

You know, there might have been some truth in the claim that blacks were detrimental to the community. Look at Detroit, or Chicago, or New York City, or Seattle? Know who shows up in the criminal justice system more often than not? Far more often than their numbers in the general population would predict?

Of course, there is also truth to the fact that in many areas we had a segregated job market that had already created income inequality. The connection is economic class, not race. This is why, before hand, you could argue that the same information pointed to Irish and Italians as being a major source of crime. Because they lived in a lower social class as well.

When the prejudice between different groups of white ended, so did the violence attributed to those groups.

There are still plenty of lower-class whites around. But they seem to be less criminal on average than blacks and latinos. It's probably a better argument to look at marriage and illegitimacy rates. Blacks and latinos have lower rates of marriage and higher rates of illegitimacy, which leads to broken homes and psychological damage to children who are later more inclined to become criminals. Blacks currently have the worst illegitimacy rates of all.

There are lower class whites around, but far fewer, hence fewer crimes.



Far fewer? How do you figure? Chicago is what, about 40 percent white?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

After the racial language was removed, we had white flight. Racist and conniving real estate dealers playing off the fears of white people, making them sell their homes for less then market, so they can be resold. Jobs dried up. And all this is over, but it's an inherited problem. It becomes less of a problem every generation, but this ******** in the video needs to stop denying it.

White flight is pretty natural, if misguided. Sooner or later whites will run out of places to flee to.

Though it is an interesting assumption buried in that paragraph. Are whites integral to civilization? Is that why white flight is apparently wrong? Why can't the minorities pick up the slack after whites leave?

Simply put, you can't pick up slack that isn't there. If the businesses leave, there are no jobs. If there is nobody making a substantial amount of money in the neighbourhood, there are no businesses.

Chicagoans are all Americans, aren't they? Why don't they start their own businesses to fill in the gaps?

Lack of money, from this inherent inequality that I've been describing.

You've mentioned inequality, but so far haven't pinpointed it. What is it exactly?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Also, there are benefits to diversity. It ENRICHES our culture. It's not just food and music, but rather, how they interact with others. I mean, I'm from Chicago. This is a hell of a city for diversity. We've created a unique culture for ourselves, based on the Polish, Irish, and Italian Immigrants, based on the African American Population that came, and the Puerto Ricans that were flown in to work slave labor jobs, who were just as soon forgotten.

And how about Chicago's horrendous gun violence despite having some of the strictest gun control laws around? That's one of the unmentioned benefits of diversity, I suppose. Not to mention other types of crime.

Don't pretend you know what the ******** is going on in Chicago. As I said, this is an economic problem. If there is no money, people find other ways to get it. It's also an issue of police. A bloody night in the Ghetto last summer meant more cops on the ******** Gold Coast.

Also, our Gun Violence comes mostly from Guns purchased legally in Indiana and brought over the border. It has nothing to do with strict- or lax- Gun Policies here. There is a high crime because there are few opportunities open to the people who need them the most.

Aren't there still poor whites in Chicago? Why don't poor whites commit crimes as often as blacks?

They do. There are, however, far few in the city of Chicago. Hence, lower crime rates.

About what percentage of Chicago whites are poor?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Meanwhile, well, there is the lead issue- Lead Paint and lead runoff is poisoning people in communities where they can't afford to clean it up. This has actually been LINKED to violence in people, low test scores, ect. Besides being, well, poison. Poison the city isn't doing a damn thing about.

That's one factor, but does lead poisoning always lead to more violent behavior? Or is that a more sporadic effect of lead poisoning?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073.html

There you go.

So it's a problem. But not the only problem when it comes to crime.

[Kaltros]

N3bu

Kaltros

N3bu

If were going to be simplistic about it, the Balkans survived for decades in unity and then dissolved into utter chaos and violence when ethnic groups decided to not live together any more.

Which decades are you referring to?

How about everything between 1920 and 1990?

Which coincides, after WW2, with Soviet domination of the area. It's a lot easier for an empire to force different ethnic groups to get along. The ethnic tension never really went away. Just the strong imperial hand keeping it under control.

[N3bu]

Kaltros

N3bu

Kaltros

N3bu

If were going to be simplistic about it, the Balkans survived for decades in unity and then dissolved into utter chaos and violence when ethnic groups decided to not live together any more.

Which decades are you referring to?

How about everything between 1920 and 1990?

Which coincides, after WW2, with Soviet domination of the area. It's a lot easier for an empire to force different ethnic groups to get along. The ethnic tension never really went away. Just the strong imperial hand keeping it under control.

I'm sorry, I though we were being simplistic.

[Wendigo]

Kaltros

I don't see how any of that contradicts the idea that proximity is a big factor, in this case two conflicting groups trying to live on an island called Ireland.

You argued that separating the "ethnic groups" would have solved the problem, when in essence they were as separate as they could get while still being in Ireland, which they were because they were Irish.

[Chain Banning]

Wendigo

That's a mischaracterization of the violence in Northern Ireland. It's hard to separate religion, politics and geography in Ireland during the Troubles, but it wasn't about close physical proximity. It was about the loyalists being afforded more privileges by the British government, in an area where they were more numerous.

It wasn't really about the loyalists gaining more privileges by the British government. It was them terrorising innocent Catholics and denying them the privileges. For example, there was talk of a university of some sort being built in Northern Ireland just before the troubles, and instead of the obviously populated area of Derry (Republican & Catholic), they moved it to some Unionist area in Antrim.

As for the birth of the troubles, it was mainly a bunch of Unionist thugs parading through Catholic areas and throwing petrol bombs at houses, beating people as they returned from Catholic mass. This never happened until the Official IRA gave up it's armed campaign, you see, before when the OIRA were around, they were able to protect Catholics in NI. After a Unionist attack on Catholic Bombay street, a few Republican's decided to form a new force arising from the ashes of Bombay street, the Provisional IRA. They swore they would never leave their people unprotected again. After gaining weapons and attacking the Unionist gangs that were lurking in Catholic areas, the British army was called in to help the Unionists and hereby the "Troubles" started.

Wendigo

The real issue is that unionist/loyalist Irish and separatist/republican Irish had diametrically opposed goals for the future of Ireland. Geographical isolation between mostly Catholic republicans and mostly Protestant unionists actually contributed to the friction between the two groups, as the unionists were seen to dominate the Northeast while the republicans were dominant in the Midlands, so a Catholic in the Northeast would be persona non grata, and ditto for the Protestant in the Midlands. Only the Protestant in the Northeast had the government, therefore police and military on his side of the issue, so the Catholic in the North was particularly badly off.

Geographically speaking, by the British government's logic, at least 4 of the 6 counties of Northern Ireland should join the Republic. The British government often state that the wish of a 'United Ireland' is down to the people of Northern Ireland. Likewise with the Anglo-Irish treaty, the 6 counties of Northern Ireland in 1922 wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom, and so it was agreed these would remain. However, recent polls have suggested that the overall view on a united Ireland in Northern Ireland are close to 50/50, with the Unionists winning by something like 5% or 10%. These Unionists particularly from Antrim, east Belfast area, very populated. However, the majority of counties such as Tyrone, Fermanagh & Derry wish to become part of the Republic. So technically, shouldn't these counties be allowed to join the Republic under the terms of the Irish-Anglo treaty? The British are playing this political game to suite themselves.

[N3bu]

Chain Banning

the British army was called in to help the Unionists and hereby the "Troubles" started.

They weren't sent IN to help the Unionists, they were sent in to essentially replace the RUC which was clearly pro-loyalist. After the Bloody Sunday however it became clear that the British commanders on the ground help no desire to do the Catholics a favour.

[Wendigo]

Personally, I'd rather that Ireland were truly independent just on GPs. The idea of a foreign monarch controlling your country because of a military conquest in the distant past is pretty repulsive.

Both sides did some pretty despicable things, of course. Bombings and arson and worse.

[N3bu]

Wendigo

Personally, I'd rather that Ireland were truly independent just on GPs. The idea of a foreign monarch controlling your country because of a military conquest in the distant past is pretty repulsive.

Both sides did some pretty despicable things, of course. Bombings and arson and worse.

I'm still not sure how the British Army managed to massacre a bunch of Irish civilians twice within 50 years.

It must be a sport these days.

[Chain Banning]

N3bu

Chain Banning

the British army was called in to help the Unionists and hereby the "Troubles" started.

They weren't sent IN to help the Unionists, they were sent in to essentially replace the RUC which was clearly pro-loyalist. After the Bloody Sunday however it became clear that the British commanders on the ground help no desire to do the Catholics a favour.

Oh please, you actually believe that? Catholics finally able to defend themselves and the British army THEN comes in to "help" them? It's always been the same, the British have always been keen on the genocide of the Irish.

Wendigo

Personally, I'd rather that Ireland were truly independent just on GPs. The idea of a foreign monarch controlling your country because of a military conquest in the distant past is pretty repulsive.

Both sides did some pretty despicable things, of course. Bombings and arson and worse.

All the PIRA's actions were justified. Shame they were sold out though, things were just kicking off.

N3bu

I'm still not sure how the British Army managed to massacre a bunch of Irish civilians twice within 50 years.

It must be a sport these days.

Eh worked out well for us, boosted the number of people in favour of the IRA and those joining us. Warrenpoint was pretty sporty, not everyday you take out 20 terrorists with ANFO explosives. And on the same day, killing a royal family member.

[Kaltros]

Wendigo

Kaltros

I don't see how any of that contradicts the idea that proximity is a big factor, in this case two conflicting groups trying to live on an island called Ireland.

You argued that separating the "ethnic groups" would have solved the problem, when in essence they were as separate as they could get while still being in Ireland, which they were because they were Irish.

Which is not really that separate. If all the loyalists stayed in Northern Ireland while all the republicans stayed in the south, with no overlap, the troubles as we know them wouldn't have happened. But that wasn't the situation at all. Even in northern Ireland there was a lot of mixture.

[Wendigo]

Kaltros

Which is not really that separate. If all the loyalists stayed in Northern Ireland while all the republicans stayed in the south, with no overlap, the troubles as we know them wouldn't have happened. But that wasn't the situation at all. Even in northern Ireland there was a lot of mixture.

The situation you propose just wouldn't happen. It'd be like all Republicans moving to Texas, even though they've got homes and families where they are, and they gain nothing by making the trip.

[Chain Banning]

Kaltros

Which is not really that separate. If all the loyalists stayed in Northern Ireland while all the republicans stayed in the south, with no overlap, the troubles as we know them wouldn't have happened. But that wasn't the situation at all. Even in northern Ireland there was a lot of mixture.

Northern Ireland belongs to republicans. It's Irish land. The Irish were forced out of Northern Ireland during the Cromwellian conquest. If you want to separate, why don't we transplant loyalists in Northern Ireland back to Britain? Considering they love to see themselves as British. Then there would be peace.

It's no longer a Protestant VS Catholic conflict, both religions are standing together as united Irishmen to stand against British imperialism. In fact, the founder of Irish Republicanism, Theobald Wolfe Tone was a Protestant. But loyalists/unionists want to drag it back to sectarianism.

The start of this video shows the blind hatred children in NI are being exposed to. In that video, one kid, standing in front of a bonfire where they are burning Irish merchandise, said when asked the reason for the bonfire, and I quote..."To burn the Pope and the tricolours. Because we hate Catholics and we hate the IRA. We hate Catholics and we hate the Pope and we hate the tricolour."

Loyalists are uneducated violent thugs who attack elderly Catholics as they walk to mass. Whereas the IRA are one of the most well-organised paramilitary forces the world has ever encountered. The IRA haven't gone away, and never will, until British presence is removed entirely from Ireland. The Provisional IRA have given up, but their splinter group, the Continuity IRA are still active.