• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

This Day in History, December 1

Michael Brown had robbed a store of cigars and was initially tangled with an officer because of jaywalking. He is dead now.

Nicholas Thomas panicked, though did not do a single thing that caused any harm to a single officer. He is dead now.

Vonderritt Myers seemed guilty of trying to kill an officer. He is dead now.

Jamar Clark allegedly interfered with first aid treatment, possibly assault girlfriend. He is dead now.

Robert Dear Lewis murdered three people. Taken alive.

James Holmes killed a dozen people. Taken alive.

Dylann Roof killed nine people. Taken alive.

We could post cherry-picked examples all day; not sure what good it would do.
Please refer to post #39 for more detail on my point.
 
Civil rights is only a left issue? History is only a left issue?

it's drivel because back in day of Rosa Parks, the hope was that the segregation would encourage the blacks to leave and join their bros in Africa
 
Civil rights is only a left issue? History is only a left issue?

it's drivel because back in day of Rosa Parks, the hope was that the segregation would encourage the blacks to leave and join their bros in Africa

Wrong. Just wrong.

Convict leasing says you are wrong
The debt peonage of sharecropping says you are wrong
The denial of coverage under social security for domestic and farmer workers says you are wrong
The popularity of Sambo, Mammy, and Minstrel shows says you are wrong.
The fact that there would be no american music, no not even county which traces its roots back to the reels the slaves played on the plantation, says you are wrong.
In fact, the entirety of history says you are wrong.

Had segregation been about encouraging black folk to go to Africa, Marcus Garvey would have been a media darling. Segregation was a bribe to keep non rich white folk from killing rich white folk by bribing the non rich with a group to feel superior to.

Today most white folk have figured this out. Only the ignorant and impotent have not.
 
Wrong. Just wrong.
Not all of your examples make him wrong. If the blacks had been driven to Africa, American history would have been different, many of them unintended consequences but there's no reason to think that anyone behind segregation was thinking that far ahead when they set it up, for whatever reason they set it up.

It's just ludicrous to think that was the reason they came up with segregation. If they wanted blacks to go to Africa, they would have offered programs where they could work for their passage 'back.'
Or they should have briefed judges, 'don't keep giving civil rights to the Negroes, we're trying to get them to move back to a country they've never seen, but we're not telling them so they'll think it's their idea.'
 
Wrong. Just wrong.
Not all of your examples make him wrong.
Which ones?
If the blacks had been driven to Africa, American history would have been different, many of them unintended consequences but there's no reason to think that anyone behind segregation was thinking that far ahead when they set it up, for whatever reason they set it up.

It's just ludicrous to think that was the reason they came up with segregation. If they wanted blacks to go to Africa, they would have offered programs where they could work for their passage 'back.'
Or they should have briefed judges, 'don't keep giving civil rights to the Negroes, we're trying to get them to move back to a country they've never seen, but we're not telling them so they'll think it's their idea.'
 
Not all of your examples make him wrong.
Which ones?

Well I can imagine a secret cabal of race protectors getting together and deciding that the way to purify America is to make the Negro so uncomfortable that he goes back to Africa, but I can't imagine someone protesting that 'If we do that, we'll never have Elvis!' and them deciding not to implement segregation.

You can't offer something that happened in spite of segregation as a counter to his claim for the reason behind segregation.
 
Which ones?

Well I can imagine a secret cabal of race protectors getting together and deciding that the way to purify America is to make the Negro so uncomfortable that he goes back to Africa, but I can't imagine someone protesting that 'If we do that, we'll never have Elvis!' and them deciding not to implement segregation.
and you feel that is the only way the thought process could go?

Would you agree that throughout United States history, black folk have significantly contributed to the popular culture of the nation?
Would you agree that much money has been made and a great deal of prestige bestowed on this country from the cultivation of that contributions and export of those contributions?
Would you agree that to this day money and prestige is still being made from those contributions?

Had Elvis Aaron Presley never been born, would this still not be the case?

In a nation built on and riddled with beliefs in white supremacy and american exceptionalism, where the first prerogative is the white man's ownership of everything, including people, why would anyone think that they would not have something or that they needed to worry about losing anything?
You can't offer something that happened in spite of segregation as a counter to his claim for the reason behind segregation.
I would say that black musical contributions happened because of segregation. That the othering of black folk steered black folk away from pure European expressions of art and into forming hybrids and original avenues of release and speech.
 
They're not numbered on my phone and I'm not going to count them.

So you can either have fun with your non-answer or paste a link.
What is with the attitude? Here's a link. It was the post right above yours.

Okay. And what does that have to do with you cherry-picking examples of perceived injustices?
 
Back
Top Bottom