Mississippi Republicans and Miscegenation

[EmptySky]

Racism isn't of the 20th century, it has been alive and well since man's modern evolution. Yes...racism is one of the worst transgressions,

Sure it is my dear.

Except during those centuries of chattel slavery and genocide of the Native Americans when your modern day, hypocritical liberal religion somehow managed to draw a blind spot on just how bad racism was or whether it was, in fact, bad at all.

Hell, a cynic might point out that it was only when all the Natives had been driven off the land or killed and slavery ended (ie, the land grabbed and the capital made) that suddenly this heinous crime of racism appeared just when the government needed to force working class whites to accept blacks into mainstream society to maintain stability and harmony in a modern industrial nation.

I mean, can anyone imagine a few centuries when murder and theft became acceptable? I can't find any examples in the history books but obviously you'll have some to hand to disprove me and demonstrate that you're not just some mindless liberal sheep accusing others of a crime you've only been told exists by the establishment.

 

[quadraphonics]

In truth, though, I was looking for something a little less demeaning toward those undecided folks than all that.

Frankly, my best guess is that they oppose interracial marriage, but don't quite have the conviction to want to impose this stance onto everyone else by force. The question was about whether such should be illegal, after all, not simply what they personally thought of the practice.

That, or they just didn't feel comfortable answering that question in a poll, because they can sense that it's a sensitive issue.

 

[quadraphonics]

Except during those centuries of chattel slavery and genocide of the Native Americans when your modern day, hypocritical liberal religion somehow managed to draw a blind spot on just how bad racism was or whether it was, in fact, bad at all.

Hell, a cynic might point out that it was only when all the Natives had been driven off the land or killed and slavery ended (ie, the land grabbed and the capital made) that suddenly this heinous crime of racism appeared just when the government needed to force working class whites to accept blacks into mainstream society to maintain stability and harmony in a modern industrial nation.

What a massive facepalm.

The whole reason that slavery ended was exactly that the "liberals" got together and opposed it - literally, forced the issue. It didn't just wither up and blow away of its own accord, before any ideological resistance to racism ever surfaced. Obviously.

Or the bizarre assignments of historical failings to a strictly "modern" movement - that one's just screwy.

 

[JuNie]

Sure it is my dear.

Except during those centuries of chattel slavery and genocide of the Native Americans when your modern day, hypocritical liberal religion somehow managed to draw a blind spot on just how bad racism was or whether it was, in fact, bad at all.

Hell, a cynic might point out that it was only when all the Natives had been driven off the land or killed and slavery ended (ie, the land grabbed and the capital made) that suddenly this heinous crime of racism appeared just when the government needed to force working class whites to accept blacks into mainstream society to maintain stability and harmony in a modern industrial nation.

I mean, can anyone imagine a few centuries when murder and theft became acceptable? I can't find any examples in the history books but obviously you'll have some to hand to disprove me and demonstrate that you're not just some mindless liberal sheep accusing others of a crime you've only been told exists by the establishment.

I'm extremely offended by this. My grandfather (as a kid) watched as an angry mob of white people hung his uncle. My mother had coffee thrown on her during the civil rights movement and fought many violent whites during that time.

Don't think you can tell me how bad racism was or IS currently, for I know for a fact how bad it was.

You can't find examples in the history books where murder and theft became acceptable? LOL. Then you've obviously have never read a history book; that's blatantly clear. So the whole extermination of Native Americans wasn't proof enough of acceptable thievery and murder. Or the theft of Hawaii for that matter.

Absolutely unbelievable.

 

[chimpkin]

demonstrate that you're not just some mindless liberal sheep accusing others of a crime you've only been told exists by the establishment.

Why should we demonstrate anything to someone determined to rot in their bigotry? or a potential troller?

You sound like a Beckdroid.

Since you consider the mainstream media to have a liberal bias (I don't, since I see and hear real liberal media), post what programs you watch and consider fair.

List 'em. I want to see.

 

[JuNie]

Why should we demonstrate anything to someone determined to rot in their bigotry? or a potential troller?

You sound like a Beckdroid.

Since you consider the mainstream media to have a liberal bias (I don't, since I see and hear real liberal media), post what programs you watch and consider fair.

List 'em. I want to see.

Doesn't matter. All facts, science and mathematics have a well documented liberal bias.

 

[chimpkin]

Actually, now that I've patrolled...I'll tell you why bigotry pisses me off, and it has jack to do with TV:

When I was in third grade I was in Camp Fire Girls...and one of our members happened to be black. (Keep in mind, this was up north, there really are just less African-Americans in a lot of places...)She was kind of the ringleader...in a good way...

And then one night my Dad made a joke about "porch monkeys," my Mom laughed (a little nervously in her defense)...and I remember being hideously ashamed of them. Remember, this is third grade, so the reasoning's not adult.
Anyway, I later joined up that realization with it about how unfair it is to be judged by skin color at all, since you can't do anything about who your mother and father were...you can only control who you are.
Your actions are what make you and that has nothing to do with the color of the wrapper.

So-no TV involved. No radio.

Now if you had raised me segregated? chances are I'd be a casual bigot. Because I wouldn't have made that connection.

As far as the stealing of America...it happened. If you want to look at it as good? I don't. My ancestors probably helped commit genocide-I mean my direct ancestors-this I cannot say for slavery.
I have clearly benefited from the mass murder that took place.
That does not mean I look on this as a good thing. If I did I'd have to look on all sorts of other things I find revolting as good things, like the Rwandan genocide.
That's actually the best example, because it was much more about taking the resources of those who had enough to live on with those who did not.
http://www.ejsd.org/public/journal_article/14
And let's face it-a lot of settlers from Britain and France came here because there was nothing for them in their home countries-they were surplus population. There were some who came for religious freedom, and a number who were transported convicts; but the vast majority of the rest were poor people-economic refugees, to use the modern term.

 

[siphra]

I highly doubt you traced both your mothers and fathers lineages back 300 years on BOTH sides of the family. Also, what about before 300 years ago? Extremely hard to believe that 300 years of family history results in "pure blood". And I doubt that's something you're prepared to prove here on a forum.

300 Years was more than enough even for the Nazis, so I think it counts, and yes both sides of my family, and no I will not be listing them on the forums.

 

[chimpkin]

I have traced my family back over 300 years, and I am pure-blood.

Please define pure for the record.

All Northern-European?
All British only (and none of that scurvy Irish lot)?
All Scot?
Pure French?
Pure Italian?
Pure Castilian?
Pure Basque?
Pure Celt?
Pure Pict?
Pure Alemanner?
Pure Swiss?
Pure Breton?
Pure Norse?



Does to remember that what defines pure depends on where you come from...ask a Serbian.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

I am pure norse

 

[chimpkin]

I am pure norse

A Norse is a Norse, of course, of course...

 

[EmptySky]

I'm extremely offended by this.

This is a science forum, your personal feelings have nothing to do with it.

My grandfather (as a kid) watched as an angry mob of white people hung his uncle. My mother had coffee thrown on her during the civil rights movement and fought many violent whites during that time.

Liberal anecdotes which prove nothing.

Don't think you can tell me how bad racism was or IS currently, for I know for a fact how bad it was.

Go back and re read what I said woman.

You can't find examples in the history books where murder and theft became acceptable? LOL. Then you've obviously have never read a history book; that's blatantly clear. So the whole extermination of Native Americans wasn't proof enough of acceptable thievery and murder. Or the theft of Hawaii for that matter.

Are you intellectually challenged? Didn't I already ask you where was you're precious commandment of thou shalt not be racist during the Native American genocide?

(The logic is simple to understand - even for you - if they're not human then killing them is not murder).

 

[EmptySky]

The whole reason that slavery ended was exactly that the "liberals" got together and opposed it - literally, forced the issue.

Sure, yet coincidentally only after several centuries of it during which America had amassed enough capital to begin the transition to industrialization and the economy in the north had begun to boom.

I don't get it, if racism is as heinous a crime as murder or theft, then why did people allow it to go unchallenged all those centuries?

 

[EmptySky]

Since you consider the mainstream media to have a liberal bias (I don't, since I see and hear real liberal media), post what programs you watch and consider fair.

List 'em. I want to see.

The Western world is made up of liberal democracies, everything in it, including all its institutions, sciences and philosophies are liberally oriented.

You've only proven my point by asking me 'what programs do I watch' as this exposes you as a gullible and needy puppet of the media.

I don't watch television, I watch those that do, and that tells me more than you can imagine.

 

[chimpkin]

You've only proven my point by asking me 'what programs do I watch' as this exposes you as a gullible and needy puppet of the media.

Generally when I hear "liberal media", that is code for "Not Fox." Difference of terms.

As far as being a "media "puppet,"
I have broadband internet.
I don't have cable TV.
In theory, I could watch anything at home, stream it. I don't.
I believe the last TV I streamed was the AL'Jazeera feed, during the Egyptian revolt...and they are pretty liberal.

If by liberal bias, you meant "Did not show nonwhites as inferior," I agree.
I explained sufficiently earlier why I would find such things unpalatable.
I was raised racist. I am not because I chose not to be.
It's been human friendships that have caused me not to embrace the bigotry I was raised in.

I don't get it, if racism is as heinous a crime as murder or theft, then why did people allow it to go unchallenged all those centuries?

(That and calling JuNie a woman? Khazakh? Uzbek? certainly somewhere Islamic...hmm...)
Racism was a crime back then...and it still happens. It's a crime now. Back then they did, in fact regard nonwhites as less than human.
We know better.

Back then they also bled people to try and cure them. Doing that now would have a person held on criminal charges.
Attacking a Native American now will have you up on charges also.

WE KNOW BETTER.

You've not taken a college-level American History class (at least, lately) if you are not aware we were never unanimous in practicing genocide, or that chattel slavery was completely accepted, even at our founding.
There was a movement against it for a very long time that culminated in the civil war after long years of agitation.
There was slavery, but there was also people who smuggled runaway slaves to Canada.
I will say that we accepted bigotry in the past by majority...but not all of us.

Also, what makes you think slavery and factories are economically incompatible? Admittedly, a slave has to be fed whether the factory's open or not, unlike a 19th century laborer who could be kicked out to starve.
But slave owners leased out to factory owners in the antebellum South. So there was nothing convenient about industrialization and the end of slavery. Slavery and industrialization aren't incompatible.

I delve into our past atrocities because I hope to stop the ones we're committing currently thereby...
But I wasn't alive when the crimes of the past were committed, so it would be a bit hard for me to do something about them, now wouldn't it?
Minus a time machine, which seem to be in short supply.

All I can do at this point is try and stop more damage from being committed, which is far easier said than done.

But I'm sure you'll smirk at that...and I don't think I care.

You have a very one-dimensional view of Westerners.
No matter what I type here, it's not going to filter through your preconceived set of prejudices about what a Westerner is

Since you obviously know everything there is to possibly know about Westerners, and therefore are going to learn nothing about us...I believe that relieves me of the burden of having anything more to do with you on this forum.

:bravo:

 

[chimpkin]

And...here's something to tick off those Mississippi Republicans:

Mixed-race marriages in the U.S. now number 1.5 million and are roughly doubling each decade. About 40 percent of Asian-Americans and 6 percent of blacks have married whites in recent years

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/06/opinion/love-and-race.html
Since that was in 2002,
It ought to at least be to 3 million now, although it seems like more...three million in a country of 300 million?
I see interracial couples more than that number warrants, I think.

Maybe that's 'cause we're a bunch of heathens who shack up

 

[EmptySky]

If by liberal bias, you meant "Did not show nonwhites as inferior," I agree.
I explained sufficiently earlier why I would find such things unpalatable.
I was raised racist. I am not because I chose not to be.
It's been human friendships that have caused me not to embrace the bigotry I was raised in.

And what, exactly, is humanity? Who decides, how is it defined, what is the criteria and how are the quality of the judgements of this era superior to those of other eras?

And what do your relationships with friends and relatives have to do with objective argument?

(That and calling JuNie a woman? Khazakh? Uzbek? certainly somewhere Islamic...hmm...)

Ahh yes... how useful the Islamic bogeyman has been for Americans dealing with the guilt of their own history.

Racism was a crime back then...and it still happens. It's a crime now. Back then they did, in fact regard nonwhites as less than human.
We know better.

It is totally illogical to suggest that racism was a crime when people believed that another race was inferior to theirs, more at the level of all other animals, in fact, ie, not human.

Attacking a Native American now will have you up on charges also.

But not a few centuries ago when they were in the majority and controlling most of the land eh? Let's see how quickly that law would change if the proportions were reversed today.

WE KNOW BETTER.

A voice raised in the parental mode, but still no sign of an objective argument or rationale.

You've not taken a college-level American History class (at least, lately) if you are not aware we were never unanimous in practicing genocide, or that chattel slavery was completely accepted, even at our founding.
There was a movement against it for a very long time that culminated in the civil war after long years of agitation.
There was slavery, but there was also people who smuggled runaway slaves to Canada.
I will say that we accepted bigotry in the past by majority...but not all of us.

The more you go on suggesting that slavery was the work of far right racists/rednecks/ultra-conservatives the more absurd and shallow your position becomes. This is historical revisionism at its most pathetic.

Also, what makes you think slavery and factories are economically incompatible? Admittedly, a slave has to be fed whether the factory's open or not, unlike a 19th century laborer who could be kicked out to starve.
But slave owners leased out to factory owners in the antebellum South. So there was nothing convenient about industrialization and the end of slavery. Slavery and industrialization aren't incompatible.

At last a cogent response.

It's about profits and how the capital goes where they can be made. With Europe undergoing industrialization America had to change rapidly to keep up, that meant a radical restructuring of American civilization away from its agrarian roots, allied with the creation of automated technologies to do agricultural work, industrialization was simply a more cost effective model for future growth and profitability.

Slavery simply became redundant, and the needs of integrating an ex-slave population into an industrial, white working class required laws which forcibly prevented whites from any dissent.

All I can do at this point is try and stop more damage from being committed, which is far easier said than done.

But I'm sure you'll smirk at that...and I don't think I care.

How righteous of you.

Why don't you start by undoing the damage. You can cede the lands back to the Native Americans and pay reparations to the blacks. Finally, you can return to the continent of Europe.

You have a very one-dimensional view of Westerners.
No matter what I type here, it's not going to filter through your preconceived set of prejudices about what a Westerner is

I couldn't possibly be a Westerner could I? Surely no Westerner could have escaped his own conditioning so thoroughly!

The fact that you imagine that any criticism of your 'culture' must originate with some turbaned Taliban sitting in a cave in Afghanistan is a painful example of how open to manipulation and conditioning your [liberal] mind really is.

 

[EmptySky]

And...here's something to tick off those Mississippi Republicans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/06/opinion/love-and-race.html
Since that was in 2002,
It ought to at least be to 3 million now, although it seems like more...three million in a country of 300 million?
I see interracial couples more than that number warrants, I think.

Maybe that's 'cause we're a bunch of heathens who shack up

And what happens to the fate of a minority population when it is encouraged to breed with a majority?

Your naivete is the same as that which believed in WMD or that targeted air strikes are a good way of avoiding civilian casualties.

 

[quinnsong]

And what happens to the fate of a minority population when it is encouraged to breed with a majority?

Your naivete is the same as that which believed in WMD or that targeted air strikes are a good way of avoiding civilian casualties.

Let me take this one, the majority is no longer white and the majority but one of them thar mixed breeds! Do I get a gold star Empty!

 

[Tiassa]

Whoa, does that mean the nineties were good for something?

re: 2007 Gallup Poll​

This just strikes me as ... I don't know, weird? Aberrant? But can it be aberrant when it's a sudden majority? Or not so sudden, as such? But, yeah: What happened?

Something about the nineties? Mind the gap.
(via Gallup)​

According to Joseph Carroll:

Gallup's long-term trend on this question documents a sea change in public attitudes about interracial marriage. In 1958, only 4% of Americans said they approved of marriages between whites and blacks. (The precise wording of the Gallup question has changed across the decades as the commonly accepted descriptive terms for blacks have changed; when Gallup first asked the question in 1958, the poll wording was, "whites and non-whites.") Approval gradually increased over the next few decades, but at least half of Americans disapproved of black-white unions through 1983. Then, in the next measure eight years later, disapproval had fallen to 42%, with 48% approving. In 1997, the next time Gallup asked the question, approval had jumped well into the majority, with nearly two in three Americans saying they approved of marriages between blacks and whites. Disapproval fell to 27% in that same year. Support remained at about the two-thirds level until 2002, but increased to 73% in 2003. Since then, there have only been modest variations in attitudes about interracial marriages.​

What happened in the nineties? Was it the shift from interracial to gay marriages? Was that the period in which many racists finally realized they had lost, and something akin to fifteen or so percent of the population decided that was just fine with them, and that they had fought the good fight but could now hop on the changewagon? The only other change in public support that was so drastic occurred over a ten year period between the first and second times Gallup ran the question, which also happens to mark a difference of before and after Loving.

But something happened, and it wasn't O. J. Simpson.
____________________

Notes:

Carroll, Joseph. "Most Americans Approve of Interracial Marriages". Gallup. August 16, 2007. Gallup.com. April 16, 2011. http://www.gallup.com/poll/28417/most-americans-approve-interracial-marriages.aspx