Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Look up William Ellison, who was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land.
In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (1). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (2).
1. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
2. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
Hasty generalization based on a drop of water in an ocean of evidence.
The above owners are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Is that the best you can do?
Face the facts retard, black slave owners owned black slaves. Black slave owners were people of stature and wealth. Now I know you being the racist you are hates the fact that blacks can be successful.
I never suggested you claimed ALL blacks or ALL whites were anything.
You stated:
"The monied privilege comes with being white. They are intertwined. ORRRRRrrrrrr monied privilege just so happen to miss black people by chance and not because of history."
Now deny the implications in the statement that monied privilege came from being white and blacks weren't afforded the chance.
Oh, you're micro instead of macro. Ok, there were some black people who were rich...there were some white people who were poor. I thought we covered that when I said I didnt use the word "all"
I speak in generalizations to move the convo forward, if I didn't I'd be talking about really small cases of exceptions like you're doing. Which goes to far into the weeds instead of the overall topic.
But thanks again tho
If you did use specific cases it would be so insignificant that you wouldn't have an argument to make.
Oh, you're micro instead of macro. Ok, there were some black people who were rich...there were some white people who were poor. I thought we covered that when I said I didnt use the word "all"
I speak in generalizations to move the convo forward, if I didn't I'd be talking about really small cases of exceptions like you're doing. Which goes to far into the weeds instead of the overall topic.
But thanks again tho
If you did use specific cases it would be so insignificant that you wouldn't have an argument to make.
Exactly! So keep it general and you cant pluck 8 rich blacks as hold them up as something more than an exception
Is that the best you can do?
Face the facts retard, black slave owners owned black slaves. Black slave owners were people of stature and wealth. Now I know you being the racist you are hates the fact that blacks can be successful.
Who said they didnt own slaves and there were no successful blacks besides you?
Do you and flakey often speak for each other?
I respond to you, he responds back, I respond to him, you respond back.
Are you his sock or is he yours?
Who is the majority controlling class in this country and does being the majority have any benefit at all?
I'm sorry, are we talking about class or skin color? What benefit do you see in belonging to a majority of some kind? Does that benefit apply on the micro as well as macro level? If non-whites are the majority in a given area do they now have the privilege or advantage in that area? If women outnumber men, do they have the privilege and advantage?
Oh I dont know, have you ever heard strength in numbers? Or you're saying there no strength in numbers?
I'm sorry, are we talking about class or skin color? What benefit do you see in belonging to a majority of some kind? Does that benefit apply on the micro as well as macro level? If non-whites are the majority in a given area do they now have the privilege or advantage in that area? If women outnumber men, do they have the privilege and advantage?
Oh I dont know, have you ever heard strength in numbers? Or you're saying there no strength in numbers?
So where non-whites are the most numerous they should be the best off then right? And women, who outnumber men in the US have never been at a disadvantage?
The "privilege" of belonging to the majority does not seem to lead directly to success.
Here's a new question for you: If racism and discrimination stem from dividing people by race and saying they are different, does it make sense to combat racism and discrimination by dividing people by race and saying they are different? Isn't that where the whole separate but equal thing failed?
Any claim that white privilege never existed is suspect. All we need to do is look back at Jim Crow laws and examine a history filled with institutionalized racism.
Now, the question should be, does 'white privilege' exist today? I would be one to argue that white privilege may exist to the extent that the idea is the exception and not the rule as class privilege is more prevalent and defined...it just appears to be white privilege because of the socio-economic disparity between whites and minorities.
I will argue, though, that some whites aren't upset that their success is being attributed to white privilege...I think they are more upset that they can't attribute their success to white privilege. I think they are upset that they have to compete in the marketplace more so now than in the past generations. I think they are upset that promotions aren't automatic anymore...so that idea of white privilege has become some sort of excuse for white failure as they blame affirmative action, blacks, immigration, gays and Mother Theresa for their failures. Simply put, deny the history of white privilege and blame minority groups for personal failu.es/
No matter how many times you repeat it you will not make it mine. Thats what you take from it and it seems no matter how many times I tell you I'm not talking about "all" you refuse to believe it because you only have one argument.
I cant with you dude. Find a new angle and try again. You keep going to the same bag of tricks and trying to make me the owner. Fail
I'm sorry, I thought a conversation meant one person making a statement and the other person responding to that statement. I'm sorry I was so far off base there.
I'll try to contain myself to responding to what you thought instead of what you said.
So if monied privilege does NOT come with being white, where does the white privilege come in?
mathbuddy, you are not following the conversation. You have predicated a concept that does not fit "all."
You have been told that.
You need to respond to where the conversation is at that point: "all".
You can't use it. Why? Because it is not true. Any one of any political persuation will tell you that.
Oh I dont know, have you ever heard strength in numbers? Or you're saying there no strength in numbers?
So where non-whites are the most numerous they should be the best off then right? And women, who outnumber men in the US have never been at a disadvantage?
The "privilege" of belonging to the majority does not seem to lead directly to success.
Here's a new question for you: If racism and discrimination stem from dividing people by race and saying they are different, does it make sense to combat racism and discrimination by dividing people by race and saying they are different? Isn't that where the whole separate but equal thing failed?
Racism stems from hatred of another race
Discrimination is the action that stems from racism. Neither one of those things come from dividing people or saying they are different.
No.
So where non-whites are the most numerous they should be the best off then right? And women, who outnumber men in the US have never been at a disadvantage?
The "privilege" of belonging to the majority does not seem to lead directly to success.
Here's a new question for you: If racism and discrimination stem from dividing people by race and saying they are different, does it make sense to combat racism and discrimination by dividing people by race and saying they are different? Isn't that where the whole separate but equal thing failed?
Racism stems from hatred of another race
Discrimination is the action that stems from racism. Neither one of those things come from dividing people or saying they are different.
No.
White > black cannot be true unless white does not equal black. You cannot think you are better than someone if you do not first think that you are different from them. You cannot hate some group of people without first thinking you are different from them. Racism is entirely built on dividing people into groups (called races) and calling them different.
Look up William Ellison, who was a free negro and former slave in who achieved success in business as a cotton gin maker and blacksmith before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the largest property owners, and certainly the wealthiest black property owner, in the state. He held 60 slaves at his death and more than 1,000 acres of land.
In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (1). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (2).
1. The Forgotten People: Cane River's Creoles of Color, Gary Mills (Baton Rouge, 1977); Black Masters, p.128.
2. Male inheritance expectations in the United States in 1870, 1850-1870, Lee Soltow (New Haven, 1975), p.85.
Hasty generalization based on a drop of water in an ocean of evidence.
The above owners are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Is that the best you can do?
Face the facts retard, black slave owners owned black slaves. Black slave owners were people of stature and wealth. Now I know you being the racist you are hates the fact that blacks can be successful.
The fact is that it is the truth: your hasty generalization of the incredibly small number of black owners proves the general rule as correct.
The fact that an incredibly small number of black slave owners does not prove your point that slavery is somehow "race free."
Hint: it isn't.
Hint: your logic is fallacious.
I'm sorry, I thought a conversation meant one person making a statement and the other person responding to that statement. I'm sorry I was so far off base there.
I'll try to contain myself to responding to what you thought instead of what you said.
So if monied privilege does NOT come with being white, where does the white privilege come in?
mathbuddy, you are not following the conversation. You have predicated a concept that does not fit "all."
You have been told that.
You need to respond to where the conversation is at that point: "all".
You can't use it. Why? Because it is not true. Any one of any political persuation will tell you that.
If someone makes a statement that is false then proceeds to build an argument on that statement, should I pay any attention to that argument or simply point out the flaw in the initial statement?
Is that the best you can do?
Face the facts retard, black slave owners owned black slaves. Black slave owners were people of stature and wealth. Now I know you being the racist you are hates the fact that blacks can be successful.
The fact is that it is the truth: your hasty generalization of the incredibly small number of black owners proves the general rule as correct.
The fact that an incredibly small number of black slave owners does not prove your point that slavery is somehow "race free."
Hint: it isn't.
Hint: your logic is fallacious.
Let me get this straight, when your liberal friend generalizes, it's ok. But when a conservative engages in generalizations it's bad.
BTW wasn't an "incredibly small number" of blacks that owned slaves. In Louisiana for example, blacks held the largest number of slaves.
Tell us again how you're a conservative.
Racism stems from hatred of another race
Discrimination is the action that stems from racism. Neither one of those things come from dividing people or saying they are different.
No.
White > black cannot be true unless white does not equal black. You cannot think you are better than someone if you do not first think that you are different from them. You cannot hate some group of people without first thinking you are different from them. Racism is entirely built on dividing people into groups (called races) and calling them different.
God made different races. Take it up with him and for giving us eyes to see the differences. BTW the Irish experienced discrimination, so did the Jews, So did the Gors in Roman times...all those are white people...no race was involved.
White > black cannot be true unless white does not equal black. You cannot think you are better than someone if you do not first think that you are different from them. You cannot hate some group of people without first thinking you are different from them. Racism is entirely built on dividing people into groups (called races) and calling them different.
God made different races. Take it up with him and for giving us eyes to see the differences. BTW the Irish experienced discrimination, so did the Jews, So did the Gors in Roman times...all those are white people...no race was involved.
I didn't say race was the only way to divide people into groups. Discrimintation against the jews by the nazis was not based on their similarities. It was based on their differences.
Again, discrimination and racism are built on emphasizing the differences instead of focusing on the similarities between people. So let's focus on the differences some more so we can avoid more racism and discrimination... oh wait..
I noticed something out of the blue recently reading some lib/prog posts here, wondering if anyone else noticed- That regardless whether Lib/progs in public dismiss the differences in race & IQ, claiming the various researchers are conservative racists & that is why they came to the conclusions they did..deep down they accept the science, as can be seen by their policies that favor minorities because they view us, particularly blacks..as somewhat mentally challenged. Me myself, I don't buy IQ tests as the end all and be all way to measure intelligence, but I do not dispute our communities shortcomings on these tests..I see it more as a nurture over nature thing for the most part.
Anyway, a Lot of lib/progs have been throwing the phrase "White Privilege" around lately. I'm curious, what exactly that privilege is in their minds? Is it simply being the majority group here or is it Whites have an higher IQ than blacks & mestizos on average? They throw it out there with practically no explanation most of the time. So what's the deal, lib/progs?
