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

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I personally can say with 110% genuine belief - there is no difference between whites and blacks in everything that counts the day they are born. Blacks are absolutely, in no way shape or form inferior to whites. PERIOD.
And anyone who thinks so is ignorant. PERIOD.

You know I fully appreciate the sentiment in your comment and want to thank you for you contributions and participation in our discussion. I just have one thing I want to say and I'm not doing this to be pedantic but I want you to try to understand something.

Even though it may appear that all things were equal for two children, one black one white, born on the same day as myself, they were not, because racial discrimination and segregation was still legal in the United States meaning that my parents could legally be denied jobs, housing, and other opportunites that could help them as well as their care of me, and it would have been entirely lawful.

On the day I was born there was no such thing as a statutory cause of action for racial discrimination, that wouldn't come until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The state or federal government can create civil causes of action through legislation. The most sweeping creation of such civil remedies were the Civil Rights Acts. The first were passed immediately after the Civil War. These were dramatically strengthened by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These acts allowed persons who were discriminated against because of race to sue both state governments and private businesses for compensation and to prevent further discrimination. These Acts were broadened to include discrimination based on sex, ethnic origin, and religion. The Americans with Disabilities Act included discrimination based on disability status.

Individuals and the government, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, may bring civil actions to enforce the provisions of the Act. If the behavior affects more than one employee, it can be litigated as class action lawsuits where the court will craft a remedy that benefits all the members of the class. Such actions can result in multimillion-dollar settlements and sweeping changes in workplace rules.
Statutory Causes of Action

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So just to be clear, ya'll don't wish to talk about racism, just about white racism, is that right?



Maybe whites are still doing better because we come from a superior culture, with superior values. Maybe adopting those values and that culture would go a long way towards equalizing outcomes. But if folks choose not to use tactics proven to succeed, and instead keep on doing shit that has failed for generations, then that's on them.
And that's not systemic racism, that's a wide-scale failure to get one's shit together.

You're a veteran. Is this what you think about the black service men and veterans, including those who are your superiors?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What you've said so far in this thread tells IM and every other black person in this conversation that they are not wanted, that this country was not meant for them and ... I don't know what follows from that. You haven't said, but I can understand why he spit a bit at it.

You can stand up for that POS, but bottom line. No matter how offended he is by the facts, that does not give cause to make false allegations that he knows, for a fact, are not true. If you stand behind that and expect a civil and honest debate, you are only kidding yourself. I have attacked no individual. I'm laying out the facts.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

IM2 Apparently Green & Blue has me on ignore. Would you tell him to stop posting here?

Done

 

[OldLady]

You can stand up for that POS, but bottom line. No matter how offended he is by the facts, that does not give cause to make false allegations that he knows, for a fact, are not true. If you stand behind that and expect a civil and honest debate, you are only kidding yourself. I have attacked no individual. I'm laying out the facts.

Porter, help me out here. Quote/copy the words he said that were false. Just those words, about one thing. Start there.

 

[OldLady]

Done

You haven't actually seen any of those posts you're mentioning, have you? Because they disappeared on my screen before you arrived. Either that or something really weird is happening in electronic land.

 

[Coyote]

You know I fully appreciate the sentiment in your comment and want to thank you for you contributions and participation in our discussion. I just have one thing I want to say and I'm not doing this to be pedantic but I want you to try to understand something.

Even though it may appear that all things were equal for two children, one black one white, born on the same day as myself, they were not, because racial discrimination and segregation was still legal in the United States meaning that my parents could legally be denied jobs, housing, and other opportunites that could help them as well as their care of me, and it would have been entirely lawful.

On the day I was born there was no such thing as a statutory cause of action for racial discrimination, that wouldn't come until after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It is hard to fully appreciate that..to truelly understand what it was like to grow up under segregation. I read an autobiographyof Condaleeza Rice, and have some others on my book pile. I empathize with parents who tried so hard to create a safe nurturing environment for their children despite this. What struck me was how often they would picnic and camp out...to avoid the restrictions, and protect their children.

 

[freyasman]

You're a veteran. Is this what you think about the black service men and veterans, including those who are your superiors?

Those guys got their shit together and did the necessary things to be successful.
I always respected that, even if I didn't like them. And I did like many of them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

When I was invited to this "debate," albeit informal, I expected bit more decorum befitting a real debate.

Porter, help me out here. Quote/copy the words he said that were false. Just those words, about one thing. Start there.

Twice IM2 has accused me of posting "Identity" propaganda. I've been on this board a long damn time. That POS knows, for a fact, what he continues to post there is a lie. But, he cannot prevail in any discussion so he needs to make false allegations. He might as well have called me a nazi. Given that kind of latitude that you're willing to extend to him to flail about because he's losing any pretend debate, I'm losing any respect for this thread and anything it was supposed to accomplish - other than to confirm why so many people have that individual on ignore.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I see that you are 7 pages into this discussion and most of what I'm going to post has been posted on this board at one time or another. It is accurate and you will find objective:

In 1620 the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock and once there they issued the first governing document of the New World. It contains these words:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid;

Mayflower Compact (Modern Version)

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of …

faithandfreedomfootnotes.wordpress.com

Within a year approximately half of those that had made that voyage had died of starvation or disease. Yet the white people kept coming. In 1630, John Winthrop delivered a sermon aboard the Arbella as it made its voyage to this new land. The title of that sermon is A Model of Christian Charity and I bring that up because all the way up to JFK and Ronald Reagan, statesmen and presidents have referenced that sermon. In that sermon are many quotes to prove my thesis, but I'm only going to use one in order to make my point:

"Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission,...."

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A%20Model%20of%20Christian%20Charity.pdf

Winthrop made the case that the Puritans were in a covenant relationship with God and they saw this new land as the New Jerusalem of the Bible. This sermon shows that the Puritans believed that they were the Israelites mentioned in Jeremiah 31 - 31 through 34 that entered into a covenant with God for a monumental undertaking. In short, the Puritans swallowed up the Pilgrims who held that same basic presupposition and the rest is history. For more information on that aspect, see this:

What’s the Difference Between Puritans and Pilgrims? | HISTORY

Both the Pilgrims and Puritans sought a different religious practice than what the Church of England dictated, but they were otherwise distinct groups of people.

www.history.com

With respect to race, the colonists believed inter-racial marriage to be a sin and it was outlawed. According to Wikipedia:

"At first, in the 1660s, the first laws in Virginia and Maryland regulating marriage between whites and blacks only pertained to the marriages of whites with black (and mulatto) slaves and indentured servants. In 1664, Maryland enacted a law which criminalized such marriages—the 1681 marriage of Irish-born Nell Butler to an African slave was an early example of the application of this law. Virginia (1691) was the first English colony in North America to pass a law forbidding free blacks and whites to intermarry, followed by Maryland in 1692. This was the first time in American history that a law was invented that restricted access to marriage partners solely on the basis of "race", not class or condition of servitude.[10] Later these laws also spread to colonies in the Thirteen Colonies with fewer slaves and free blacks, such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Moreover, after the independence of the United States had been established, similar laws were enacted in territories and states which outlawed slavery."

Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm leaving out a lot of history lest this quick glance back at history becomes too lengthy. But, let's fast forward to the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Right away, one would think this is the liberals dream of an integrated America; however, you read the Declaration of Independence a little closer and you see language like "the ravages of the savages" and there is no mistake WHO that document was intended to represent. We have Rights being bestowed upon us by a Creator; we read of a firm reliance on Divine Providence (language that is synonymous with a Christian God.) In any event, the Declaration of Independence lays out specific reasons we went to war. And so, the basic points I want to make in this short synopsis:

1) America was founded by whites who came here with little more than the shirts on their back to build a "shining city on a hill"

2) America's first governing document was for the advancement, protection, and furtherance of the Christian faith, NOT as a theocracy, but a land where colonists would seek religious Liberty

3) Just as any other people, the white Christians who were building their idea of a Great Nation, sought the Right of self determination. Insofar as the taking of land, they were guided by the prevailing law of Right of Conquest. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, that is the basis by which the colonists took America from uncivilized people and built a nation on the land they contend that God had preordained them to have in order to establish this New Jerusalem wherein all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

Okay, this sounds pretty accurate according to what I remember from my history classes. Do you have any documentation on why they prohibited interracial marriage?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Those guys got their shit together and did the necessary things to be successful.
I always respected that, even if I didn't like them. And I did like many of them.

So none of them were loud or from a lower stature in society?

 

[OldLady]

When I was invited to this "debate," albeit informal, I expected bit more decorum befitting a real debate.


Twice IM2 has accused me of posting "Identity" propaganda. I've been on this board a long damn time. That POS knows, for a fact, what he continues to post there is a lie. But, he cannot prevail in any discussion so he needs to make false allegations. He might as well have called me a nazi. Given that kind of latitude that you're willing to extend to him to flail about because he's losing any pretend debate, I'm losing any respect for this thread and anything it was supposed to accomplish - other than to confirm why so many people have that individual on ignore.

I'm not familiar with the term "Identity" you keep referring to. What does it mean that has you so upset?

 

[IM2]

You are a sorry ass liar. What fact was a lie?

The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. By Sharon Korman. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press, 1996. Pp. ix, 323. Index. $72. | American Journal of International Law | Camb

The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. By Sharon Korman. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press, 1996. Pp. ix, 323. Index. $72. - Volume 91 Issue 4

www.cambridge.org

International Law - conquest and discovery; colonization

You aren't in any kind of debate. You're in a shit slinging contest and I'm not a freaking primate. If you're allowed in any debate with this B.S. going on, the you are the DECLARED LOSER. Would you like to take a vote on it? OR do you have the guts to be IN a debate? Save your antics for Univer Soul Circus.

The right of conquest is a white European construct that was not internationally accepted. This is an excuse whites made to justify invasions and colonization. Had it been internationally recognized there would not have been uprisings and revolutions in colonized countries. The fact it created the excuse for European aggression created the 1928 Kellogg–Briand Pact, Nuremberg Trials, and the UN Charter to end the foolishness.

I'm in this debate and you presented white supremacist lunacy based on erroneous beliefs propagated by Europeans.

 

[IM2]

They weren't errors, they were deliberately done wrongs to maintain their status.
Every group does that.

Every group has not done that.

 

[IM2]

I'm not familiar with the term "Identity" you keep referring to. What does it mean that has you so upset?

Porter Rockwell did post christian identity beliefs in his first post and has been consistent in this during his time here.

 

[freyasman]

So none of them were loud or from a lower stature in society?

Hard to be much lower than where I came from.

 

[freyasman]

Every group has not done that.

Disagree.

 

[OldLady]

Had it been internationally recognized there would not have been uprisings and revolutions in colonized countries.

Right. Like any country anywhere is going to say "Oh, okay, there's an international agreement so you can invade and conquer us."
C'mon IM2. You're splitting hairs here. Of course the invaded and colonized people didn't agree with it. But Rockwell is stating what WAS common practice in that miserable time. One of Europe's darker moments.

 

[OldLady]

Porter Rockwell did post christian identity beliefs in his first post and has been consistent in this during his time here.

I never heard of it. Why is he so upset about the term?

 

[IM2]

Right. Like any country anywhere is going to say "Oh, okay, there's an international agreement so you can invade and conquer us."
C'mon IM2. You're splitting hairs here. Of course the invaded and colonized people didn't agree with it. But Rockwell is stating what WAS common practice in that miserable time. One of Europe's darker moments.

That's the point Oldlady, there was no such thing as the right to conquest.