Jim, you know, Hitler was influenced by Darwin too!
Is this why the government hounded Reverend King?
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
Jim, you know, Hitler was influenced by Darwin too!
Jim are you serious?!?!?!?!? You are right about one thing The majority of the AA population was brought here by force. But the reality is that the ones that "got caught" had to work to survive where they were so there was natural selection, if you werent good at what you did you DIED!!!!
The educational situation has little to do with the social climate of this country. Natural selection has nothing to do with not being able to get a job, nor does it have anything to do with not being paid the same wage for the same job. Or is that your idea of natural selection???
Now when it comes to the prisons that is easily explained by the willingness of society to lock away the non-white population. How else can you explain the disproportionate rate at which AA get locked up, the last study that I read had the ratio of crimes committed to crimes prosecuted at around 5:1, where the white defendants get off and or have severely reduced sentences for the same offence. But even more than that do the math, I have seen a municipal jail that makes more that 1 million dollars in profit every year on the inmates. I suppose that is a fair number for you since you believe that The slaves that were brought here were lazy.
The idiotic part of that beliefe is that if the slave owners werent lazy AND greedy they would have hired a work force and paid them a fair wage.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Adrian,
I appreciate you comments, but I think you have missed my point. Probably because I explained it poorly.
I defiantly was not speaking of the poor folks grabbed and brought here as slaves when I spoke of lazy........ no way.
I was speaking of the vast majority of folks from all over the world who have made their way here. The vast majority of these people were hard working, risk takers who managed to get to America.
My describing the ones who stayed behind as lazy was a very poor choice of words. Perhaps average would be better. Statsticly speaking we have received few average folks.
But that does not change the fact that for the most part, statistically speaking the hard working, risk taking visionaries made it to America. The folks less likely to take risks, less likely to save up passage, less likely to find a way............stayed where they were.
When you multiply this statistical group by millions, you get a very clever population and a very successful Country!
My point is that with few exceptions America has never receive large groups of "average" folks from anywhere.
One exception was the poor folks who were kidnaped, forced to leave their world and brought here as slaves.
I appreciate you comments, but I think you have missed my point. Probably because I explained it poorly.
I defiantly was not speaking of the poor folks grabbed and brought here as slaves when I spoke of lazy........ no way.
I was speaking of the vast majority of folks from all over the world who have made their way here. The vast majority of these people were hard working, risk takers who managed to get to America.
My describing the ones who stayed behind as lazy was a very poor choice of words. Perhaps average would be better. Statsticly speaking we have received few average folks.
But that does not change the fact that for the most part, statistically speaking the hard working, risk taking visionaries made it to America. The folks less likely to take risks, less likely to save up passage, less likely to find a way............stayed where they were.
When you multiply this statistical group by millions, you get a very clever population and a very successful Country!
My point is that with few exceptions America has never receive large groups of "average" folks from anywhere.
One exception was the poor folks who were kidnaped, forced to leave their world and brought here as slaves.
Last edited:
I don't think he meant natural selection on an evolutionary level of live or die, I think he meant the natural selection in society of those who choose to immigrate to another country and put forth the effort it takes to become part of that society. Africans were forced out of their hunter-gatherer societies into our more modern society and then "freed" and expected to fend for themselves.
With your logic, the descendants of the original Anglo-Australians are not only lazy but criminals to boot!
Jim, while that may have been your intention, it read that you believed that the AA community is lazy because they did not endure the natural selection that you spoke of. This becomes the basis for some peoples disdain for each other then becomes their justification for treating one worse than the other and their racial hatred that results.
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
This is like having a discussion with a Holocaust denier.
I'm not talking about race relations NOW or the reasons why blacks are as far behind as they are NOW. But I could -- I'm not afraid at all to say the primary reason is that when people like YOUR ancestors and mine spent 200 years creating a black, primarily southern, underclass, that this is not going to change in 30-40 years. That's not "denigrating" the black family, that's just history. And yet you claim that all of this is the result of "liberal social engineering?" Are you suggesting that blacks were better off before the civil rights movement? Hanging from trees, having fire hoses turned on them, not going to college or being allowed to vote?
What I AM talking about is the fact that the civil rights movement was primarily a movement to change race relations and end Jim Crow IN THE SOUTH. This is a basic historical fact.
I hope you are the type of misinformed southern (and yes I still live here) man I run into on occasion who has just had his head filled with misinformation, rather than one of those patently offensive types who truly thinks things were better in the days of Jim Crow in the South.
I'm not talking about race relations NOW or the reasons why blacks are as far behind as they are NOW. But I could -- I'm not afraid at all to say the primary reason is that when people like YOUR ancestors and mine spent 200 years creating a black, primarily southern, underclass, that this is not going to change in 30-40 years. That's not "denigrating" the black family, that's just history. And yet you claim that all of this is the result of "liberal social engineering?" Are you suggesting that blacks were better off before the civil rights movement? Hanging from trees, having fire hoses turned on them, not going to college or being allowed to vote?
What I AM talking about is the fact that the civil rights movement was primarily a movement to change race relations and end Jim Crow IN THE SOUTH. This is a basic historical fact.
I hope you are the type of misinformed southern (and yes I still live here) man I run into on occasion who has just had his head filled with misinformation, rather than one of those patently offensive types who truly thinks things were better in the days of Jim Crow in the South.
And then the "Great Society" came along and destroyed the A A family with welfare.
No sane person defends Jim Crow, but why don't Liberals condemn the destruction of the family, leading to gangs becoming the father image?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Always interested in this one. Some good and some bad in the Great Society, but it did result in poverty rates declining.
Question though. You (and others) parrott the line that it "destroyed the African American" family with welfare. How so? All welfare programs --AFDC, etc. -- are race blind. So why did they only destroy poor black families, and not poor white or latino or asian?
PS -- In fact, from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.
Question though. You (and others) parrott the line that it "destroyed the African American" family with welfare. How so? All welfare programs --AFDC, etc. -- are race blind. So why did they only destroy poor black families, and not poor white or latino or asian?
PS -- In fact, from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century.
Last edited:
Wow Jim, I believe you are spot on with this one.
Really???????
I still have a problem with this line.
"One exception was the poor folks who were kidnaped, forced to leave their world and brought here as slaves. "
They were more than "average". This is what I have heard to be a "sideways compliment" meant to be a slap in the face! While this may not have been Jim's intent this is how mis information becomes seen as fact.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I don't think Jim meant any disrespect, but I think his understanding of how the slave trade in Africa worked is incorrect.
This was not a situation where Europeans were "harvesting" paleolithic hunter gatherers. In fact, Africa had a rich culture with many tribal empires at the time. These cultures were advanced in some ways, and not so advanced (firearms, etc.) in others.
Many slaves were sold to Europeans by Africans themselves. Lots of politics played roles in who was sent to the slave ships and who was not. Obviously, an awful thing, but the perception of Kunta Kente being caught in a net and shipped overseas is not an entirely accurate picture.
This was not a situation where Europeans were "harvesting" paleolithic hunter gatherers. In fact, Africa had a rich culture with many tribal empires at the time. These cultures were advanced in some ways, and not so advanced (firearms, etc.) in others.
Many slaves were sold to Europeans by Africans themselves. Lots of politics played roles in who was sent to the slave ships and who was not. Obviously, an awful thing, but the perception of Kunta Kente being caught in a net and shipped overseas is not an entirely accurate picture.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Adrian,
I can understand how you are uncomfortable with this line of thinking, I am too. My comments were not meant as a slap to the face or as a "sideways complement".
My initial reason for brining this up was to try and give one possable statistical reason for a slightly inferior success rate among this group.
I'm no more comfortable with this than you, but just not likeing something or being uncomfortable with it does not make it less of a factor.
Undoubtedly there are many factors behind why one group may do better or worse in a given statistical rating. I'm fairly sure this may be one.
Adrian, what are your thoughs for the reasons behind this statistical imbalance?
I can understand how you are uncomfortable with this line of thinking, I am too. My comments were not meant as a slap to the face or as a "sideways complement".
My initial reason for brining this up was to try and give one possable statistical reason for a slightly inferior success rate among this group.
I'm no more comfortable with this than you, but just not likeing something or being uncomfortable with it does not make it less of a factor.
Undoubtedly there are many factors behind why one group may do better or worse in a given statistical rating. I'm fairly sure this may be one.
Adrian, what are your thoughs for the reasons behind this statistical imbalance?
Last edited:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Jeff,
You are correct, the reasons behind who ended up on a slave ship and who did not are many and varied.
That said, I'm fairly sure that statistically speaking they probably were not "mostly" the reasonably successful, risk taking visionaries of a given group.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Not trying to quibble, but in some cases they were. Defeated tribes. Political enemies. Those who were "threats" -- all went to the slave ships, among others.
I'd suggest that 400 years of being an economic and social underclass, with little opportunity for education or advancement, has a lot more to do with why African American culture is where it is today rather than the "who" of who came over on the slave ships.
Interesting discussion though -- appreciate your thoughts.
I'd suggest that 400 years of being an economic and social underclass, with little opportunity for education or advancement, has a lot more to do with why African American culture is where it is today rather than the "who" of who came over on the slave ships.
Interesting discussion though -- appreciate your thoughts.
This certainly is an interesting discussion. If a conservative had posted something even remotely similar to Craik's post, even the lame edited version, they would forever be pilloried here.
So, whats the excuse for all the great A A men and women's achievements in our history? Did they immigrate later on? LOL!
So, whats the excuse for all the great A A men and women's achievements in our history? Did they immigrate later on? LOL!
You seem to work in absolutes. Some of us are rational and reasonable. It's no wonder you miss the meaning of a simple statement - you immediately take it to it's unrealistic extreme and claim the whole argument is baseless. Your world must be so easy... <sigh>.
Yeah, gee no grays, huh. The funny part is that certain posters have their heads so far up their asses that when they see a light, they think its an original idea.
