Gentrification

eldergamer

eldergamer

CAGiversary!
Big word.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...s_people_of_color_were_forced_to_the_f_1.html

Portland is one of the whitest major metropolitian cities. (90% +). Sort of another reason to not like living here. But this article is just kind of racist. People of color? (rolls eyes). The neighberhood got more expensive and people couldn't afford it anymore. It's about being poor, not being 'of color'.

It also takes the tone that black people are all poor and need government help in order to have housing.t cut off. There's this whole ultra-liberal tone of "the poor black people, we have to help them!" hand-wringing. I love the lines in the article how the mayor mentioned they had placed things like recycling and water sustanbility projects over housing as well.
 
Gentrification happens everywhere though. A few lucky pioneers venture into tough neighborhoods for killer real estate deals. Their friends follow suit and then restaurants that cater to them move in. Eventually prices move upward because these people are pouring money into rehab projects.

I grew up in a small neighborhood east of Hollywood. It was mostly Italians (and other Mediterranean nationalities) that bought there around World War II. Around the time I was born in 79, the neighborhood was in serious decline. The library had closed. The movie theatre started showing porn flicks. Most of the store fronts were derelict.

By the early 90's, Armenians started moving in. They opened restaurants and stores. Housing prices started to increase. Eventually, "hipsters" moved in and now home prices are sky high. A new library branch opened. The movie theatres got rehabbed and now show new movies. Restaurants and clubs opened up. Places like the Dresden became hip. On the negative, most people didn't know their neighbors and the old Italian restaurants and pastry places closed down.

Times change. You either change with them or get run over by time itself. The only way I could afford 600K to a million to move back into my old neighborhood is to get the house willed to me. It's not going to happen any time soon so I live in the Midwest.
 
It's called redlining. I wrote a 30 page paper on it last semester. I am far from a liberal but I understand the need of welfare. I'm on my phone so I'm not going to into details.

Simply put poor urban areas are majority inhabited by African Americans no jobs in those enviroments leads to less income and higher crime rates. When areas become desirable people living in those communities are displaced because they can no longer afford to live there. Eventually they move to other rental properties in other neighborhoods. Rental properties decline property values. Home owners leave those homes turn into rentals. Crime rates raise with more rentals and less owned homes. Local shops that are left leave leaving behind buildings that become dilapidated. Now you have little to now jobs in a poor community that is having to commute for work. It's a vicous cycle.

If you help people with low interst loans to become owners instead of renters they develope a physical and emotional connection to their community. Which leads to less crime which will make it possible for people to open business in the community. Keeping the wealth in the community wich will lead to more jobs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy shit, seriously? Poor urban areas have large black populations? Did you hear that guys? Quick someone call the press and tell them this earth shattering news.
 
Gentrification is always a touchy subject as it tends to hit on racial lines due to the noted concentration of minorities in poor urban areas.

It's really focused on class, but the race angle always gets involved and makes it a more heated issue.

In general, it's a good idea as nothing good comes out of having the poorest people all concentrated in certain neighborhoods as those neighborhoods get largely disenfranchised and ignored and don't get the services they need as well as residents having to deal with high levels of crime and disorder.

Gentrification is a way to spread the poorest residents around and put them in more mixed class neighborhoods that ideally have more businesses (and more jobs), better schools, lower crime and more opportunities to move up overtime.

But it's always going to be a political sensitive topic and great care has to be done in how to do it due to the race angle and that it's forcing people to move as public housing, old run down apartments etc. get destroyed.

And then you also get the NIMBY stuff in the areas where the displaced people are moving to who don't want people from the "ghetto" moving to their neighborhood, so you get that political blow back as well.
 
Also, nobody likes to move.

Another issue is ownership. Many people feel like they own a piece of the block even though they don't own a bit of real estate. It's THEIR neighborhood. They went through the rough times and they feel like they're going to miss the good times because of being priced out.

This is another issue that can be addressed with financial education. Many people are content to pay cheap rent in a decent to bad neighborhood for decades. Rents go up and they figure they can just buy a house in the same neighborhood for what they had been paying in rent. It's then that they realize they should've bought a small house years ago.
 
Portland is one of the most beautiful, safest, pleasant cities in the Pacific NW. Whatever the hell they are doing, I'm all for it, because with the exception of Dubai, I've never felt safer at night in a big city.

And regarding "people of color" what is the preferred nomenclature? I'm usually the only white guy in my social gatherings, and I've never once heard any disdain over that phrase when they hear or say it.

Statistics aren't really racist. If black folks are making less than asians, and the asian population can afford to live somewhere the black folks can't, how is that the city's problem? Housing costs are based on many different factors. A systematic city purchase of property with the intent to move poor populations is a problem, but trying to improve shitty neighborhoods is a positive thing. Poor doesn't need to equal shitty.

I've been VERY poor, but that didn't mean I left trash all over my front steps and broke into cars in the parking lot. The community makes the neighborhood. If the neighborhood turns shitty, I'm all for someone coming along to improve on it. That doesn't mean whitewashing it, that means cleaning up crime and dilapidation.

My Oregon town has an inflated housing market, leading to high home costs. The next town over is much cheaper, so I commute. Have I been "gentrified"? Nah, I went somewhere where my purchasing power is stronger.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Gentrification is always a touchy subject as it tends to hit on racial lines due to the noted concentration of minorities in poor urban areas.

It's really focused on class, but the race angle always gets involved and makes it a more heated issue.

In general, it's a good idea as nothing good comes out of having the poorest people all concentrated in certain neighborhoods as those neighborhoods get largely disenfranchised and ignored and don't get the services they need as well as residents having to deal with high levels of crime and disorder.

Gentrification is a way to spread the poorest residents around and put them in more mixed class neighborhoods that ideally have more businesses (and more jobs), better schools, lower crime and more opportunities to move up overtime.

But it's always going to be a political sensitive topic and great care has to be done in how to do it due to the race angle and that it's forcing people to move as public housing, old run down apartments etc. get destroyed.

And then you also get the NIMBY stuff in the areas where the displaced people are moving to who don't want people from the "ghetto" moving to their neighborhood, so you get that political blow back as well.[/QUOTE]
Race tied with class. There's simply no way around it.

Gentrification is bad because those that should be "benefiting" from it never do. They are priced out. Redling worked 50 years ago and it's just as effective now. Instead of the poor being concentrated in the cities with more infrastructure, they're being moved out to places with less infrastructure.

Having grown up in an area that's been in the process of a second round of gentrification for the last 15 years, I can say without a doubt that it hurts those that are the most vulnerable the most. Low income housing is basically a thing of the past. Community spaces are dwindling away. And for what? Luxury condos and bourgie high priced restaurants. F that.

Oh, and there's a reason that people of color tend to be poorer than white people.
 
Yep, that's the problem with it.

The only place I've seen it work is where it was done before hand in a planned community fashion. i.e. there was never any public housing and every apartment complex in the town has to have a set% of section 8 housing etc.

But doing it after the fact, it just ends up as you say--moving out the poor and putting up pricey housing and pricing them out of the neighborhood.

But some solution has to be found. You'll never "fix" bad neighborhoods where it's nearly 100% of households below the poverty line and just plagued by concentrated disadvantage. There's not any resources there to fix it from within in terms of both tax base and having a core of residents who give a crap to get involved. The ones that cared probably long since moved away, and the few that remain who care can't do anything as there such a small minority and don't have any capacity to deal with the social ills in their neighborhood in any meaningful way as its long since well past the tipping point of turning into a shithole.

And you're not going to get the middle class and upper class who live elsewhere to give much of a crap about them. They only care when people from those are start committing crimes in areas they live or frequent. Almost every police-community meeting I've been to that involved middle class and up residents was plagued with comments about shootings etc. along the lines of "Who cares, it was just one gang banger shooting another. Good riddance!" The only get irate when someone was killed in a robbery in their area, or there's a rash of burglaries in their area etc. And then they just want the bad guys caught rather than to invest resources in the poor areas to reduce the number of people who fall into crime in the first place.

So something has to be done to break the concentration of disadvantage in urban inner city communities, and it's probably going to have to involve moving people around, getting rid of big public housing complexes and so on as you're not going to turn around a neighborhood that has nothing but people below the poverty line, broken families, high levels of substance abuse, crime, disorder and every other type of social disadvantage.

But finding a way to do it that actually solves the problems rather than just pushing the poor out to build luxury condos will be tricky due to NIMBY and people just not giving a shit about the poor in general.
 
I remember, I beleive it was last year, there was a story about this woman here who ran a shelter for abused women from a fairly big, old house. Well eventually people in the area got pissed and said that her doing that was lowering their property values, and she was forced to stop.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yep. That's a great example of the NIMBY problem.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...love that NIMBY guy...except when he's in my back yard...then fuck him. :D

I have an idea that would solve the problem: Give people of color the same affirmative action that white people got instead that half-assed tokenism bullshit people of color are getting now. Implement some REAL reverse-racism. No joke. This will come in the form of better subsidies on loans, preferential treatment in higher ed, free in-state public tuition, increased funding for infrastructure, incentives for small businesses, end the war on drugs(because it's more like a war on black men), and end privatized prisons.
 
In terms of the affirmative action policies, how about doing things like that, but instead of targeting them at race specifically we instead target them at people below the poverty line, people residing in areas with a high level of disadvantage (crime, broken homes, poor educational achievement, high unemployment etc.)--as well as investing in those areas to try to build them up?

Focusing it just on race is misguided as minority middle class families out in the suburbs don't really need those kind of benefits, as well as the relatively few white households in bad urban areas also needing help to overcome social ills and disadvantage just like their minority neighbors.

It works somewhat ok to think only about race when only thinking of the worst inner-city communities since they're so heavily minority, but that doesn't work nationwide as you have to also consider the suburbs and rural areas when talking about those kind of broad policies, and also not ignore the whites in the urban ghettos who--while they don't have the discrimination disadvantage--also are plagued by crime, drugs, broken households, teen pregnancy, crappy public schools and all the other forms of disadvantage that are rampant in the poor inner-city areas.

The broader policies like ending the war on drugs, private prisons, mandatory minimum sentences (and stupidly long sentences in general), focus on deterrence/incapacitation at the expense of rehabilitation etc. I whole-heartedly agree with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dmaul wins. This country has a war on lower-middle and lower classes, not minorities.

I get what dohdough is trying to do, it's just noble of dmaul not to take the bait, and instead respond with more of a scientific post, which I fully agree with.
 
[quote name='berzirk']This country has a war on lower-middle and lower classes, not minorities.
[/QUOTE]

Well it's not an either/or proposition. There are still huge problems with racial discrimination that need addressed.

It's just that I think the types of policies he was outlining are best targeted with things aimed at people in poverty and/or disadvantaged geographic areas than race.

Policies to overcome racial discrimination are still needed on top of those.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well it's not an either/or proposition. There are still huge problems with racial discrimination that need addressed.

It's just that I think the types of policies he was outlining are best targeted with things aimed at people in poverty and/or disadvantaged geographic areas than race.

Policies to overcome racial discrimination are still needed on top of those.[/QUOTE]

But you can remove the racial part from that because we have a problem with discrimination as a whole. Whether it be race, gender, sexuality or religion. It's harder to be openly racist (not bigoted-words most people improperly use) than it used to be. This doesn't necessarily mean "isms" have significantly reduced over the years, it's just harder to point to it directly.

My frustration, as a member of a minority group, is when others from my group start getting very vocal about minor inconveniences, and alledging they are indicative of some sort of mass effort to keep us down, playing the victim role and making it sound like all of their difficulties in life draw directly from this oppression. We all have our obstacles, some more than others, but if everyone quickly resorts to being a victim and refusing to fight harder to overcome the oppression I really don't think any progress gets made. It frustrates the hell out of me for members from within my group to act or speak on my behalf, when I think much of what they're saying is horseshit.

Society isn't against me, a few powerful assholes in power might be, but that's not enough for me to take my toys and go home pouting for the rest of my life.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']In terms of the affirmative action policies, how about doing things like that, but instead of targeting them at race specifically we instead target them at people below the poverty line, people residing in areas with a high level of disadvantage (crime, broken homes, poor educational achievement, high unemployment etc.)--as well as investing in those areas to try to build them up?

Focusing it just on race is misguided as minority middle class families out in the suburbs don't really need those kind of benefits, as well as the relatively few white households in bad urban areas also needing help to overcome social ills and disadvantage just like their minority neighbors.

It works somewhat ok to think only about race when only thinking of the worst inner-city communities since they're so heavily minority, but that doesn't work nationwide as you have to also consider the suburbs and rural areas when talking about those kind of broad policies, and also not ignore the whites in the urban ghettos who--while they don't have the discrimination disadvantage--also are plagued by crime, drugs, broken households, teen pregnancy, crappy public schools and all the other forms of disadvantage that are rampant in the poor inner-city areas.[/QUOTE]
Because they would still disproportionately help more white people than people of color. Color-blindness simply doesn't work. You can't factor in race for 200 years and then eliminate it and say that things are equal. Saying it simply doesn't make it so.

Who says that middleclass families don't need it? Generational wealth counts for something as well. White families have 7-10x the wealth than black families per capita.

This is as simple as I can put it: It's better to be white than black in the US. It's better to be rich and white than it is to be rich and black. It's better to be poor and white than it is to be poor and black. Even having a "black" name with no criminal record counts against you when job hunting even if you're a white male with a criminal record(you should be familiar with that particular study).

Am I ignoring poor whites? No. But people of color require special, if not more, policies that benefit them to make up for institutionalized racism, which hasn't stopped.

The broader policies like ending the war on drugs, private prisons, mandatory minimum sentences (and stupidly long sentences in general), focus on deterrence/incapacitation at the expense of rehabilitation etc. I whole-heartedly agree with.
Click to expand...
I knew you weren't all bad...just mostly...I kid I kid.;)

edit: give me time to respond next time you jerk.
 
[quote name='berzirk']But you can remove the racial part from that because we have a problem with discrimination as a whole. Whether it be race, gender, sexuality or religion. It's harder to be openly racist (not bigoted-words most people improperly use) than it used to be. This doesn't necessarily mean "isms" have significantly reduced over the years, it's just harder to point to it directly.[/QUOTE]
Welcome to racism 2.0.

My frustration, as a member of a minority group, is when others from my group start getting very vocal about minor inconveniences, and alledging they are indicative of some sort of mass effort to keep us down, playing the victim role and making it sound like all of their difficulties in life draw directly from this oppression. We all have our obstacles, some more than others, but if everyone quickly resorts to being a victim and refusing to fight harder to overcome the oppression I really don't think any progress gets made. It frustrates the hell out of me for members from within my group to act or speak on my behalf, when I think much of what they're saying is horseshit.
Click to expand...
There's fighting harder and then there's reality. If people cared and listened to the voices of the oppressed, then we wouldn't need to have this conversation. Blaming the victim is not the answer. Are they not victims of the system?

Society isn't against me, a few powerful assholes in power might be, but that's not enough for me to take my toys and go home pouting for the rest of my life.
Click to expand...
As a person of color, society IS against you. That's why it's harder to get a job, get paid equitably, have access to better social services, get into schools, drive in a white neighborhood, board a plane, asked constantly if you were born in this country, asked if you speak da engrish, etc...
 
[quote name='dohdough']Because they would still disproportionately help more white people than people of color. Color-blindness simply doesn't work. You can't factor in race for 200 years and then eliminate it and say that things are equal. Saying it simply doesn't make it so.

Who says that middleclass families don't need it? Generational wealth counts for something as well. White families have 7-10x the wealth than black families per capita.

This is as simple as I can put it: It's better to be white than black in the US. It's better to be rich and white than it is to be rich and black. It's better to be poor and white than it is to be poor and black. Even having a "black" name with no criminal record counts against you when job hunting even if you're a white male with a criminal record(you should be familiar with that particular study).

Am I ignoring poor whites? No. But people of color require special, if not more, policies that benefit them to make up for institutionalized racism, which hasn't stopped.
[/QUOTE]

I get all that, but if you can get polices in place that are truly color blind--i.e. that everyone below the defined poverty line has access to the individual ones and every community above a disadvantage threshold has access to these programs and policies--you can have them get to familes and areas who need them regardless of race.

And I agree 100% that minorities still have it worse than whites. Hence my response to berzirk that it's not an either or proposition and we do need racially targeted anti-discrimination policies still. I just think the specific things you are talking about are better targeted at poverty than race.

As for middle class families....social program should be aimed at the lower class only irrespective of race (while the anti-discrimination policies should hit all classes). If a family is in the middle class, then they should be paying taxes and thus helping fund programs to aid those living in poverty.

The safety net programs, life improvement programs etc. should be for those stuck in abject poverty, not for those living middle class or above lifestyles.

It gets back to the misconception of the American dream I talked about yesterday in another thread. There should be no expectation that hard work should entitle people to an upper middle class or above life style. All we should be doing is ensuring people have as equal a chance as possible to work hard and at least hit the lower middle class and have a decent standard of life. Getting beyond that on the social ladder is largely up the individual--with the exception of still needing policies to prevent discrimination from hindering certain groups from moving up further.
 
@dohdough

"Because they would still disproportionately help more white people than people of color. Color-blindness simply doesn't work. You can't factor in race for 200 years and then eliminate it and say that things are equal. Saying it simply doesn't make it so."

Are/were you enslaved? No? Then drop it! Its people like you that don't let this country progress, and that's coming from a non-white person. Get better grades/performance, and you should be accepted/employed.

"Who says that middleclass families don't need it? Generational wealth counts for something as well. White families have 7-10x the wealth than black families per capita."

U MAD?


"Am I ignoring poor whites?"

Yes, you are. White women are the poorest of the poor in terms of SES.
 
[quote name='dohdough']As a person of color, society IS against you. That's why it's harder to get a job, get paid equitably, have access to better social services, get into schools, drive in a white neighborhood, board a plane, asked constantly if you were born in this country, asked if you speak da engrish, etc...[/QUOTE]

I think that's just as generalized as the sterotypes that are used to justify bigotry.

Part of this gets back to acceptable behavior by society. I had the great fortune of hearing Kareem Abdul Jabbar speak (met him too, but learned he's a huge prick) about his thoughts on the hot topic of the time, ebonics. He was quite opposed to this notion that speaking with poor grammar and excessive slang was "cultural" instead of ignorant. He quoted Chris Rock's joke about ebonics: "There's the way you talk when you're kickin it with your boys, and there's the way you talk when you're tryin to get a job".

You have very outspoken critics of generational bad practices that are destroying black communities like teenage pregnancy, single parent/no parent households, drugs, crime. Bill Cosby, Kareem, people who are speaking out about it and want to see a cultural change to uplift black people, not say-The man is out to get me. These are two brilliant men who grew up during a much more volatile era.

I think a majority of rational people would agree that there are unique obstacles a person is faced with based on which minority group(s) they belong to, but I still feel like it's impossible to defend some actions of the group I belong to because it's so clear cut. Right vs. wrong. I would hope all groups feel that way. If I'm hispanic, and I'm here legally, I would be pissed off each time an illegal immigrant sneaks into the country. If I'm muslim, I would be outraged each time a suicide bomber kills a bunch of civilians. I wouldn't blame the system for that jerk's behavior.

I have a feeling we're not that far apart in ideology, just a few differences here and there.
 
[quote name='Revolution']@dohdough

"Because they would still disproportionately help more white people than people of color. Color-blindness simply doesn't work. You can't factor in race for 200 years and then eliminate it and say that things are equal. Saying it simply doesn't make it so."

Are/were you enslaved? No? Then drop it! Its people like you that don't let this country progress, and that's coming from a non-white person. Get better grades/performance, and you should be accepted/employed.[/QUOTE]
So now your argument is "the person that talks about racism is the real racist!":roll:

Just because I wasn't born and bred to pick cotton doesn't mean that the effects of racist laws ended when Jim Crow "ended." The GI Bill was supposed to help all Americans that served in WW2, but guess who was excluded. The Fair Housing Act? Guess who else was excluded. Scholarships, access to desegregated schools? I guess that has absolutely no effect on today? Do I really need to go down the laundry list of racist laws for you? It doesn't matter if you're a person of color spouting off stupid bullshit. Plenty of white people have forgotten more than you pretend to not know about race.

"Who says that middleclass families don't need it? Generational wealth counts for something as well. White families have 7-10x the wealth than black families per capita."

U MAD?
Click to expand...
If you mean I have class envy? Of course not. I'm mad because the system was engineered this way because of some of the things I listed above. Maybe you should learn a little bit about the struggles of your ethnic heritage before pointing the finger at me and saying I'm the one fucking everything up. Putting shit in the past doesn't change the inequalities of today.


"Am I ignoring poor whites?"

Yes, you are. White women are the poorest of the poor in terms of SES.
Click to expand...
I just said that I wasn't you stupid asshole. And where the hell did you get that statistic? There was a study released last year that said that black women on average have the lowest standing of $5 in wealth. It's even more bullshit because white women have benefitted the most by affirmative action. So you're saying that black men have it better than white women? You're fucking crazy.

Oh yeah, dogwhistles are for impotent mental midgets and cowards. Say what you mean and mean what you say.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I think that's just as generalized as the sterotypes that are used to justify bigotry.[/quote]
Until institutional racism doesn't exist, it's not a generalization and that's what I'm talking about; not white people smelling like sweaty socks or black people liking watermelon, or asians being bad drivers. Saying that institutional racism exists is different from saying that Popeye's commercials reinforce the stereotype that black people love their fried chicken. Although, WHO DOESN'T LIKE FRIED CHICKEN...justsayin...

Part of this gets back to acceptable behavior by society. I had the great fortune of hearing Kareem Abdul Jabbar speak (met him too, but learned he's a huge prick) about his thoughts on the hot topic of the time, ebonics. He was quite opposed to this notion that speaking with poor grammar and excessive slang was "cultural" instead of ignorant. He quoted Chris Rock's joke about ebonics: "There's the way you talk when you're kickin it with your boys, and there's the way you talk when you're tryin to get a job".
Click to expand...
I have mixed feelings on that one. I'd say it's more classism and cultural capital. I mean lets be honest, it had to have evolved from something. I'm no linguist, but if I had to guess, it was because of the prohibition of any education that was a huge catalyst. Hell, even "American" english has changed in the last 100 years.

You have very outspoken critics of generational bad practices that are destroying black communities like teenage pregnancy, single parent/no parent households, drugs, crime. Bill Cosby, Kareem, people who are speaking out about it and want to see a cultural change to uplift black people, not say-The man is out to get me. These are two brilliant men who grew up during a much more volatile era.
Click to expand...
Sure, but those are problems that poor people have faced since the begining of civilization. Those problems don't exist because they're black; they exist because they're poor. The question isn't why they're holding themselves back, but what system is in place to lift them up.

I'd also hardly call Cosby or Abdul Jabbar brilliant. They just happened to make a lot of money in entertainment that are promoted as being the "best" way to get out of the ghetto. Rich does not equal smart. Now if you called them some hardworking mofos that got some lucky breaks, I'd agree.

I think a majority of rational people would agree that there are unique obstacles a person is faced with based on which minority group(s) they belong to, but I still feel like it's impossible to defend some actions of the group I belong to because it's so clear cut. Right vs. wrong. I would hope all groups feel that way. If I'm hispanic, and I'm here legally, I would be pissed off each time an illegal immigrant sneaks into the country. If I'm muslim, I would be outraged each time a suicide bomber kills a bunch of civilians. I wouldn't blame the system for that jerk's behavior.
Click to expand...
Well, people just aren't rational. It's not enough to say that some fence jumper is wrong, a suicide bomber is crazy, or that someone's just a jerk so lock them up and throw away the key. What we should be asking is what in the system is creating these phenomena.

I have a feeling we're not that far apart in ideology, just a few differences here and there.
Click to expand...
No argument from me there.:grouphug:
 
Until institutional racism doesn't exist, it's not a generalization and that's what I'm talking about; not white people smelling like sweaty socks or black people liking watermelon, or asians being bad drivers. Saying that institutional racism exists is different from saying that Popeye's commercials reinforce the stereotype that black people love their fried chicken. Although, WHO DOESN'T LIKE FRIED CHICKEN...justsayin...
Click to expand...

It is a fact, everyone loves fried chicken, and certainly there are some corporations that just don't hire minorities. The company I work for isn't particularly keen on doing it. They have through staffing needs, but I've got a feeling that if it was solely up to the boss, we'd be very, very male and white.

I have mixed feelings on that one. I'd say it's more classism and cultural capital. I mean lets be honest, it had to have evolved from something. I'm no linguist, but if I had to guess, it was because of the prohibition of any education that was a huge catalyst. Hell, even "American" english has changed in the last 100 years.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure ebonics came from the educational bans during the times of slavery, but why don't all black people speak like this today then? And also, let's be real. How many generations after these bans, can you still attribute to today's kids. Their 2-3x Great Grandparents were the ones that were likely enslaved. After 3-4 generations with legitimate access to education, you would think this "language" and negative attitudes towards education would have at least become watered down.

Why would some from the same neighborhood speak differently? You've got so-called ebonics from coast to coast. I think this is 100% cultural, not classism. The attitude towards education is entirely different. Again, Chris Rock provides wonderful social commentary (as a HS dropout himself) about how people from his neighborhood would mock the "college boy" for having books. His famous Ns vs. black people bit goes on to talk about how N's love not knowing.

Young parents are a major issue, and in part prevents many young women especially, from having the chance to pursue higher education. It's not racism which is causing so many poor people, particularly minorities, to have children early on in HS, then raise the children with no father. This is cultural acceptance from the community. It's a stigma in many other cultures to have a child out of wedlock.

I'd also hardly call Cosby or Abdul Jabbar brilliant. They just happened to make a lot of money in entertainment that are promoted as being the "best" way to get out of the ghetto. Rich does not equal smart. Now if you called them some hardworking mofos that got some lucky breaks, I'd agree.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree. Both have college degrees, both are authors, Kareem was a history major, and is exceptionally well-learned, especially with regards to African American history. Both have been awarded multiple doctorates. I'm not a big believer in luck. I think you put yourself in positions to succeed or fail based on your actions. Both have offered heartfelt and well thought-out social positions, I believe. Rich doesn't=brilliant. 100%, positively, couldn't agree more. There are plenty of non-athletes who share these same views.

It's not popular because I think it calls for personal accountability, which I think in many ways your position tries to do away with, and then people feel like they share the blame for some of their woes (which is my stance). Politicians won't say this, because they want votes, and they're assuming there are more that don't see a problem with the black, poor communnities. Maybe they're right, but this continued pandering doesn't help anybody, it just reinforces the victim role.

Well, people just aren't rational. It's not enough to say that some fence jumper is wrong, a suicide bomber is crazy, or that someone's just a jerk so lock them up and throw away the key. What we should be asking is what in the system is creating these phenomena.
Click to expand...

True. But at the same time, if there are systematic issues that lead one to those actions, there is nothing which requires them to do it. That's like saying just because there is a car with it's keys in the ignition, and you desperately need a car, it's OK to steal it.


No argument from me there.:grouphug:
Click to expand...

:D
 
[quote name='dohdough']Oh, and there's a reason that people of color tend to be poorer than white people.[/QUOTE]

Considering how much less sunscreen they need to buy, you'd think it'd be the other way around!
 
[quote name='dohdough']Putting shit in the past doesn't change the inequalities of today.[/QUOTE]

And constantly bringing it up doesn't allow anyone to move forward. It's like a sour relationship where the lady keeps reminding the guy of the time he forgot to take pick up the milk on the way home that one time 4 years ago...
 
Slavery doesn't not equal forgetting the milk one time. It's like the woman is sour after she was kept chained in the basement for several decades.
 
ignore the point and focus on the charming distortion. Well done.

White people sucked for the better part of 250 years. Those that brought slaves here from Africa are dead. Those that owned slaves are dead.
Now you get to say that those that benefited from this are still alive. Yeah, some of them are. Complain about it all that you want, that's the reality and no amount of complaining will fix that. In the meantime, clean up your neighborhood, don't have a child until you're 25, keep it to 1 or 2 kids, have some money in the bank and a place for those kids to live before having them, if you're so concerned that "black sounding names" aren't as employable then don't name your kid fucking Derontay or something like that, don't be a dipshit, have some respect for your fellow man and for god's sake pull up your fucking pants.
Ok, rant towards crappy people over with. If you have a problem address the god damn thing, but to continuously point the finger to a period of history that lasted for 250 years doesn't solve anything. MOVE FORWARD. Besides, slavery between tribes in Africa was very common so it isn't a 100% sureity that slave decendents would NOT have been slave decendents had they not been sold by their fellow countrymen or abducted. Why must you blame every living white person for the acts of a select few, most likely Dutch, white people? fuck, it's so ridiculous. The holocaust was much more recent and you don't see ever jew in the street pointing their fingers at Nazi Germany saying they ruined everything for everyone for all times so they might as well no longer try to make due in the society to which they belong.
 
Did no one think the article was racist in the way it portrayed black people as dependent as poor or dependednt on government programs?
(Then again, this is Portland there's a citizens or neighberhood group to address any little issue that comes up. Even what kind of trees to plant)
 
[quote name='nasum']The holocaust was much more recent and you don't see ever jew in the street pointing their fingers at Nazi Germany saying they ruined everything for everyone for all times so they might as well no longer try to make due in the society to which they belong.[/QUOTE]

Uhh...bad, bad, BAAAAD example. Politically speaking, the Holocaust got the Jews Israel. Blacks got a free boat ride to America, that if they didn't die on, they were able to be beaten, raped, and forced to work for free, followed by generations of racism and bigotry. I'd take a free country over rape and beatings any day.

[quote name='eldergamer']Did no one think the article was racist in the way it portrayed black people as dependent as poor or dependednt on government programs?
(Then again, this is Portland there's a citizens or neighberhood group to address any little issue that comes up. Even what kind of trees to plant)[/QUOTE]

No. I didn't think it was racist at all. dohdough, our resident CAG black guy even used the "people of color" phrase several times himself in this thread. You might say the topic of the article was racism (which I would still argue with) but I didn't think it was written in a way that could even mildly be construed as derogatory.
 
[quote name='nasum']And constantly bringing it up doesn't allow anyone to move forward. It's like a sour relationship where the lady keeps reminding the guy of the time he forgot to take pick up the milk on the way home that one time 4 years ago...[/QUOTE]
More like a man leaving the toilet seat up, the woman falling into the toilet, yelling at the man, having the man put the seat down, and then the man pisses and shits all over the seat while saying that he at least put the seat down this time.:roll:

BTW...racism and institutional racism didn't end with the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. People that lived through that time are still alive and affected by it.

[quote name='nasum']ignore the point and focus on the charming distortion. Well done.

White people sucked for the better part of 250 years. Those that brought slaves here from Africa are dead. Those that owned slaves are dead.
Now you get to say that those that benefited from this are still alive. Yeah, some of them are. Complain about it all that you want, that's the reality and no amount of complaining will fix that. In the meantime, clean up your neighborhood, don't have a child until you're 25, keep it to 1 or 2 kids, have some money in the bank and a place for those kids to live before having them, if you're so concerned that "black sounding names" aren't as employable then don't name your kid fucking Derontay or something like that, don't be a dipshit, have some respect for your fellow man and for god's sake pull up your fucking pants.
Ok, rant towards crappy people over with. If you have a problem address the god damn thing, but to continuously point the finger to a period of history that lasted for 250 years doesn't solve anything. MOVE FORWARD. Besides, slavery between tribes in Africa was very common so it isn't a 100% sureity that slave decendents would NOT have been slave decendents had they not been sold by their fellow countrymen or abducted. Why must you blame every living white person for the acts of a select few, most likely Dutch, white people? fuck, it's so ridiculous. The holocaust was much more recent and you don't see ever jew in the street pointing their fingers at Nazi Germany saying they ruined everything for everyone for all times so they might as well no longer try to make due in the society to which they belong.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...yeah...those African savages were better off under slavery than in Africa.

Don't worry, we'll treat white people the same that they treated us the last 400 years.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Did no one think the article was racist in the way it portrayed black people as dependent as poor or dependednt on government programs?
(Then again, this is Portland there's a citizens or neighberhood group to address any little issue that comes up. Even what kind of trees to plant)[/QUOTE]
I think you completely misinterpreted the tone of the article. The article is about urban renewal projects displacing the low income population that it was initially supposed to help. I had mentioned in another post that this is what always happens when you go with class based initiatives as opposed to race based because you almost always end up helping white people more. Just because you have a commitee in a "progressive" neighborhood doesn't mean it'll actually be progressive.

People of color is the current correct term as minority status will be changing shortly. As in less than 50 years.
"Minority" will go the way of negro and oriental.
 
minority reflects hegemony more than population percentage, dohdough. you know that.

signed,

a proud gentrifier of a irish/polish neighborhood.
 
[quote name='dohdough']More like a man leaving the toilet seat up, the woman falling into the toilet, yelling at the man, having the man put the seat down, and then the man pisses and shits all over the seat while saying that he at least put the seat down this time.:roll:
[/QUOTE]

Some girls are into that, don't knock it till you try it...

I realize that racism and institutional racism didn't end, again DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT instead of complain. Apparently 47 years of saying "hey man, that still was a shitty thing to do" hasn't advanced the issue all that much.

"African Savages Better off in Africa"
That's exactly what I said, or did I say that there was no guarantee that the slaves brought over here would have had it better staying in the homeland? That english language with all its subtlety can sure be tricky sometimes.

"Class based as opposed to race based helps white people more"
By percentage or actual #'s? Those are different.

"Holocaust = Free Country For Jews"
Facepalm dude. The Holocaust was basically the final straw of subjugation of the Jews since roughly the biblical era. I'll see your 250 years of slavery in America and raise it 1,400+ years of persecution which still lasts to this day (Lazy Negroes and Hook-Nosed Jew Bankers, racism and stereotypes can be applied to everyone YAY!) and is just as likely to never go away.
 
[quote name='nasum']I realize that racism and institutional racism didn't end, again DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT instead of complain. Apparently 47 years of saying "hey man, that still was a shitty thing to do" hasn't advanced the issue all that much.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's not like people with INSTITUTIONAL POWER that PERPETUATE INSTITUTIONAL RACISM have any thing to do with it right? Maybe when a good majority white people stand up and do their part, you can start with the "black people keep themselves down." Until then, how about you STFU about black people complaining.

"African Savages Better off in Africa"
That's exactly what I said, or did I say that there was no guarantee that the slaves brought over here would have had it better staying in the homeland? That english language with all its subtlety can sure be tricky sometimes.
Click to expand...
No you only said that Africans would've faced the same treatment in Africa as they did in the US.:roll:

"Class based as opposed to race based helps white people more"
By percentage or actual #'s? Those are different.
Click to expand...
Both. You know those things called the New Deal, GI Bill, and FHA? Virtually none of it went to people of color and created the white middle class. Funny how it's ok for white people pulling up their bootstraps, but fuck those n****rs right? And double fuck them for wanting something now.

"Holocaust = Free Country For Jews"
Facepalm dude. The Holocaust was basically the final straw of subjugation of the Jews since roughly the biblical era. I'll see your 250 years of slavery in America and raise it 1,400+ years of persecution which still lasts to this day (Lazy Negroes and Hook-Nosed Jew Bankers, racism and stereotypes can be applied to everyone YAY!) and is just as likely to never go away.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those Jews have a hardtime getting jobs, getting into colleges, driving at night, disproportionately represented in the prison system, receive harsher punishment, police brutality, etc. Sorry, but being Jewish in the US means you're white. I don't even know how you can compare the two. Or maybe using your rationale, the Jews in the Holocaust should've fought back instead of walking into those concentration camps like sheep. But no, you don't say or think that, do you. Yet, it's ok to blame black people for their situation. Nice double standard there buddy.

fucking just look up what hegemony means.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Yeah, those Jews have a hardtime getting jobs, getting into colleges, driving at night, disproportionately represented in the prison system, receive harsher punishment, police brutality, etc. Sorry, but being Jewish in the US means you're white. I don't even know how you can compare the two. Or maybe using your rationale, the Jews in the Holocaust should've fought back instead of walking into those concentration camps like sheep. But no, you don't say or think that, do you. Yet, it's ok to blame black people for their situation. Nice double standard there buddy.

fucking just look up what hegemony means.[/QUOTE]

Precisely. Thank you for reading what I had left betwen the lines. I mistakenly assumed he'd come to that conclusion after reading it too.

And if you don't think the creation of the State of Israel was a kneejerk response to the post Holocaust world's simultaneous "my bad", then you desperately need to read anything by Israeli historian Avi Shlaim. You can start with "The Iron Wall" and work your way through the rest of his books.

A quick question, if the Balfour Declaration stated: "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

-Then why did it take 31 years to make this happen? The Holocaust did nothing to facilitate this? I'm not trying to say Jews should be thankful the Holocaust happened so they got a country. That would be wildly ignorant, and just wrong. What I am saying is that creation of Israel was in response to the Holocaust after you tried to say you don't see Jews pointing to the Holocaust in an effort to be recompensed. You do realize that Germany was forced to pay reparations, among many, many other concessions, payments, and more, right?

Slavery and the Holocaust are both attrocities in world history.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Slavery and the Holocaust are both attrocities in world history.[/QUOTE]

And neither one of them are close in scope to a guy forgetting milk ONE time.

@nasum -- Your charming distortion sucks. It completely kills your point because it makes it seem like slave owners just "forgot milk."
 
[quote name='depascal22']And neither one of them are close in scope to a guy forgetting milk ONE time.

@nasum -- Your charming distortion sucks. It completely kills your point because it makes it seem like slave owners just "forgot milk."[/QUOTE]

That's actually an excellent point, but I didn't even address it, because I believe all rational people would consider forgetting the milk to be worse than a few short years of internment camps and killing, just a few centuries of slavery (I mean who is supposed to pick cotton, they didn't have Mexicans then).

But I think worse than the latter two inconveniences, and the attrocity of forgotten milk, is a husband leaving his socks in the living room and going to bed. Not picking them up and taking them to the laundry, not just keeping them on his feet, but removing them and leaving them in the living room for someone else to pick up. Despicable.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Uhh...bad, bad, BAAAAD example. Politically speaking, the Holocaust got the Jews Israel. Blacks got a free boat ride to America, that if they didn't die on, they were able to be beaten, raped, and forced to work for free, followed by generations of racism and bigotry. I'd take a free country over rape and beatings any day.

[/QUOTE]

You left out the part where 64% of their population was murdered. But free country!!!! YAY for them!!! They were just hunted and murdered like dogs, no bigee.

I find it funny that if anyone besides berzirk would have had the conversation they had on page 1 and beginning of page 2, dohdough would have pulled out the "you are just racist and don't understand" card after the first post.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You left out the part where 64% of their population was murdered. But free country!!!! YAY for them!!! They were just hunted and murdered like dogs, no bigee.

I find it funny that if anyone besides berzirk would have had the conversation they had on page 1 and beginning of page 2, dohdough would have pulled out the "you are just racist and don't understand" card after the first post.[/QUOTE]

So how is your comment contrarian in any way to mine? Did I say millions and millions of Jews weren't horrifically murdered and detained merely for being Jews? What I said is the Holocaust is what cemented creation of the State of Israel as an international reaction. Sorry if I didn't discuss the actual suffering enough to appease you. I'll be sure to double post in the future. The intelligent debate version, and the Knoell version.

Regarding why dohdough isn't calling me a racist while disagreeing with me, maybe cause I'm having a civil conversation with him, trying to express my opinions in an intelligent fashion, and not being an asshole. Try it sometime, people will give you more leeway in attempting to make your point. There are others in on the discussion (nasum excluded) who have contributed without anyone being accused of bigotry. I dunno, ask him. I would doubt he knows anything about my particular background. I don't recall ever speaking to him about it. Did you want to disclose it?
 
[quote name='berzirk']So how is your comment contrarian in any way to mine? Did I say millions and millions of Jews weren't horrifically murdered and detained merely for being Jews? What I said is the Holocaust is what cemented creation of the State of Israel as an international reaction. Sorry if I didn't discuss the actual suffering enough to appease you. I'll be sure to double post in the future. The intelligent debate version, and the Knoell version.

Regarding why dohdough isn't calling me a racist while disagreeing with me, maybe cause I'm having a civil conversation with him, trying to express my opinions in an intelligent fashion, and not being an asshole. Try it sometime, people will give you more leeway in attempting to make your point. There are others in on the discussion (nasum excluded) who have contributed without anyone being accused of bigotry. I dunno, ask him. I would doubt he knows anything about my particular background. I don't recall ever speaking to him about it. Did you want to disclose it?[/QUOTE]

"they got a country out of the holocaust, all the blacks got was racism". What?? You are comparing two terrible events, and using the atrocity in one to show how much worse they have it than the end result of the other. I also didn't feel the need to reiterate nasums point about the subjugation of the jews for over a millenium. If the holocaust had not happened would they have received any reparations or free countries?

You are telling me that dohdough would not call me racist if I talked about personal responsibility in regards to race?
 
[quote name='Knoell']"they got a country out of the holocaust, all the blacks got was racism". What?? You are comparing two terrible events, and using the atrocity in one to show how much worse they have it than the end result of the other. I also didn't feel the need to reiterate nasums point about the subjugation of the jews for over a millenium. If the holocaust had not happened would they have received any reparations or free countries?

You are telling me that dohdough would not call me racist if I talked about personal responsibility in regards to race?[/QUOTE]

Rational version:
I don't think a single person in this entire thread has alleged that Jews and Blacks both aren't the occasional victims of prejudice. Again, I feel like you're arguing points that nobody is making. It's gotta be awesome because you are always guaranteed to win...and lose. So now the length of an ethnic group's suffering is what justifies the international communities' reaction?

I have no idea what dohdough would call you. Again, I would ask him.

Knoell version:
The Jews have been a continued displaced population throughout much of recorded history. Likely starting as a nomadic group, then breaking up into various tribes, they experienced terrible conditions under the Egyptians, at one point have orders to have all male children slaughtered, made famous by the Biblical account of Pharoah. They have suffered under the Romans, considered again, no better than slaves and have been subjected to one of the most terrible events in world history, the Holocaust. It wasn't until after the terrible killing, gas chambers, malnutrition, ceasing of assets, tattooing, breaking up of families, mental and physical abuse, and uprooting that the world decided to create a country in what would have been called Trans-Jordan, or the British Palestinian Mandate. Even with this list of terrible crimes against humanity, I don't think this was anything I was arguing, so I don't understand why you are trying to argue these points.

I don't know what dohdough would call you. I could PM him and offer suggestions, but I assume he's clever enough to have his own barbs on hand. As an African American, or "black man", if you will, he has probably heard a great deal of slurs and deprecating verbal comments directed at him for no other reason than his skin color.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Rational version:
I don't think a single person in this entire thread has alleged that Jews and Blacks both aren't the occasional victims of prejudice. Again, I feel like you're arguing points that nobody is making. It's gotta be awesome because you are always guaranteed to win...and lose. So now the length of an ethnic group's suffering is what justifies the international communities' reaction?

I have no idea what dohdough would call you. Again, I would ask him.

Knoell version:
The Jews have been a continued displaced population throughout much of recorded history. Likely starting as a nomadic group, then breaking up into various tribes, they experienced terrible conditions under the Egyptians, at one point have orders to have all male children slaughtered, made famous by the Biblical account of Pharoah. They have suffered under the Romans, considered again, no better than slaves and have been subjected to one of the most terrible events in world history, the Holocaust. It wasn't until after the terrible killing, gas chambers, malnutrition, ceasing of assets, tattooing, breaking up of families, mental and physical abuse, and uprooting that the world decided to create a country in what would have been called Trans-Jordan, or the British Palestinian Mandate. Even with this list of terrible crimes against humanity, I don't think this was anything I was arguing, so I don't understand why you are trying to argue these points.

I don't know what dohdough would call you. I could PM him and offer suggestions, but I assume he's clever enough to have his own barbs on hand. As an African American, or "black man", if you will, he has probably heard a great deal of slurs and deprecating verbal comments directed at him for no other reason than his skin color.[/QUOTE]

I am arguing the point that you made. You asserted that jewish people are not a good comparison to the plight of blacks because they got a free country.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I am arguing the point that you made. You asserted that jewish people are not a good comparison to the plight of blacks because they got a free country.[/QUOTE]

Quote me. I never said that.

My comment was in response to a guy saying you never hear Jews bring up the Holocaust as a reason for their woes. My point was that you do hear it frequently. It's a common tactic by the ADL, JDL, AIPAC and others. When someone is critical of Israeli policy, they start jumping up and down and claiming anti-semitism, which is a very sensitive thing to allege since so many people during the Holocaust lost their lives due to anti-semitism. Both slaves and their decendants, and holocaust victims/survivors and their decendants have suffered. I would suggest that the international community did far less to benefit the decendants of slaves, than they did the decendants of Holocaust survivors.

By the way, there were other targets of the Holocaust too. What do they get? Or did they not suffer long enough? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims
 
[quote name='berzirk']Quote me. I never said that.

My comment was in response to a guy saying you never hear Jews bring up the Holocaust as a reason for their woes. My point was that you do hear it frequently. It's a common tactic by the ADL, JDL, AIPAC and others. When someone is critical of Israeli policy, they start jumping up and down and claiming anti-semitism, which is a very sensitive thing to allege since so many people during the Holocaust lost their lives due to anti-semitism. Both slaves and their decendants, and holocaust victims/survivors and their decendants have suffered. I would suggest that the international community did far less to benefit the decendants of slaves, than they did the decendants of Holocaust survivors.

By the way, there were other targets of the Holocaust too. What do they get? Or did they not suffer long enough? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims[/QUOTE]

.....Why are you constructing an argument against aid for israel? We aid israel because people believe there is still a threat to them. I would expect us to aid blacks if there was a threat of slavery returning.

Anyways if we give all of the aid we give to israel to half of our black population, we would be able to give each person $150 dollars.

I like the argument that was made that we should be targeting the poor rather than race. There are poor white people suffering just as much as black people who need help. I don't think that poor white person gives a crap about some statistic that shows he is one of the unlucky whites that are just as poor as a poor black person. Denying him help because he is white is just as much discrimination as denying a black person help because he is black.

Dohdoughs frame of mind is that its just evening the playing field though. Who cares if that white person is suffering, his skin is white which means his "brothers" probably haven't, so he doesn't need the same type help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']You left out the part where 64% of their population was murdered. But free country!!!! YAY for them!!! They were just hunted and murdered like dogs, no bigee.

I find it funny that if anyone besides berzirk would have had the conversation they had on page 1 and beginning of page 2, dohdough would have pulled out the "you are just racist and don't understand" card after the first post.[/QUOTE]
The Native Americans had it far worse than the Jews, but the only genocide that really counts is the Jewish Holocaust because it's white on white.

I've called out a couple of my fellow liberals on the race thing. camoor being the main one. And rather than insisting that black people are the root of their own problems, berzirk acknowledges the fact that there is more to their lack of their upward socio-economic mobility than just fucking bootstraps.
 
[quote name='Knoell'].....Why are you constructing an argument against aid for israel? We aid israel because people believe there is still a threat to them. I would expect us to aid blacks if there was a threat of slavery returning.

Anyways
[/QUOTE]

smh. You quoted nasum, not me. And yes, I believe it's a point of national shame how much we're funding Israel in foreign aid. I also think it's a national shame how much we fund Egypt and several other countries. I think we send too much money overseas to sovereign countries that can afford to support themselves.

Israel is the only county we think has a perceived threat to it? They have one of the most advanced militaries in the world (thanks to us providing them with equipment, giving them the plans, and through espionage).

When's the last time a country declared war on them? 1973 as best I can tell. So for the last 38 years, we've made them the #1 recipient of foreign aid in case the next declaration of war happens? They have signed peace treaties with the Egyptians and Jordanians. And this is after repeatedly being given ultimatums-get out of Lebanon, stop building settlements if you want more aid, and having them return with the middle finger and an answer of "no".

I'm not sure we have an international partner who has spied on us, refused to cease illegal activities (settlements) when directed to, repeatedly caused us to stick our necks out for them with the UN Security council thus creating more animosity from the international community against us than Israel.

I have a great deal of respect for the Jews, I greatly respect their history and culture. In another thread I created about the smartest people I've ever met, I actually list a dear, dear Jewish mentor of mine as one of the two smartest people I've ever met. I don't like many of the policy and actions of the country of Israel. This goes for the Palestinians too by the way, but we're giving them a hell of a lot less.

Edit-Oh, I see you removed the nasum quote you mistakenly attributed to me in an edit.
Second edit-And who in the hell said we should stop funding Israel and instead give each black person $150? Jesus Christ man.(By the way, 4B in aid to Israel annually, about 40 million blacks, giving half of them money should be closer to $200ea, no?) Besides, you're calculating that for one year worth of aid. If you're saying (sarcastically) an alternative is giving black folks $150/year for the duration that we've been aiding Israel, not only does THAT not make any sense, but then the numbers start getting even goofier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='berzirk']smh. You quoted nasum, not me. And yes, I believe it's a point of national shame how much we're funding Israel in foreign aid. I also think it's a national shame how much we fund Egypt and several other countries. I think we send too much money overseas to sovereign countries that can afford to support themselves.

Israel is the only county we think has a perceived threat to it? They have one of the most advanced militaries in the world (thanks to us providing them with equipment, giving them the plans, and through espionage).

When's the last time a country declared war on them? 1973 as best I can tell. So for the last 38 years, we've made them the #1 recipient of foreign aid in case the next declaration of war happens? They have signed peace treaties with the Egyptians and Jordanians. And this is after repeatedly being given ultimatums-get out of Lebanon, stop building settlements if you want more aid, and having them return with the middle finger and an answer of "no".

I'm not sure we have an international partner who has spied on us, refused to cease illegal activities (settlements) when directed to, repeatedly caused us to stick our necks out for them with the UN Security council thus creating more animosity from the international community against us than Israel.

I have a great deal of respect for the Jews, I greatly respect their history and culture. In another thread I created about the smartest people I've ever met, I actually list a dear, dear Jewish mentor of mine as one of the two smartest people I've ever met. I don't like many of the policy and actions of the country of Israel. This goes for the Palestinians too by the way, but we're giving them a hell of a lot less.

Edit-Oh, I see you removed the nasum quote you mistakenly attributed to me in an edit.[/QUOTE]

It was not mistakenly attributed to you, I was going to copy both of your quotes but decided not to. I was having trouble with the italics not going away, after saving the post and they still hadnt went away, I deleted the quote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top