1
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Thumbs Up |
Received: 10,139 Given: 6,180 |
Inherited guilt for crimes is insane and sounds terribly ancient. This is like going to prison now because one of your ancestor caused harm to someone 300 years ago. "The offender is now dead so his descendants should pay damages and interests" Nobody in his right mind could support that kind of system.
Even if it was the case, Arabs would have to pay the highest toll and maybe even African themselves.
We bend all the rules and common sense already for Africans who are the most unproductive and criminogenic population on the planet. Since everybody is aware deep down it's not gonna change anytime soon, we keep trying to come up one ridiculous idea after another to sugarcoat the facts, be it positive discrimination, handing them money and generally finding all sorts of excuses.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 126 Given: 7 |
If they want reperations then i want it too because im actually alive when my people are getting killed and raped by blacks and arabs
Thumbs Up |
Received: 26,662 Given: 44,161 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 9,022 Given: 14,045 |
I know this is probably said as a joke.
But it has also been part of the "anti Hungarian" sentiment when certain neighbours have had hostility to Hungary , they mock that the language is non indo - european. However Hungarians love their language it is in fact an integral part of the identity.
There was certain sayings in the past about Russians too that are ofc in reality not consistantly accurate
such as ... "scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar", not to mention many Russians do have part Finnic admixture, or the idea that the 1st Russian State was partly founded by Verangians / Vikings.
anyways we digress.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 10,139 Given: 6,180 |
I disagree with the last part, slavery is obviously worse than living separated. In 2020 the leading cause of death for a black American was being murdered by another black American. From an economic and social standpoint it's hard to predict, i think they would be in the same place today if the Jim Crow laws had never existed. I suspect it could even be slightly worse overall. During Jim Crow they were forced to live like whites, only alongside and at a distance, they benefited from that more disciplined lifestyle economically afterwards but their crimerate also skyrocketed. Without it and overall it might have been the same trajectory than today, only for a longer time.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...47235217305214From the late 1960s to the mid-1990s, the United States suffered a massive crime wave, including perhaps the biggest sustained rise in violent crime in its history, certainly the biggest in the 20th century (Latzer, 2016). Violent crime rates, as measured by FBI reports of offenses known to police, rose from 161 per 100,000 in 1960 to 758 in 1991, a staggering 371% escalation. Murder rates for 1970 to 1995 averaged 8.97 per 100,000, and in fourteen of these years tolled 9 per 100,000 or more (FBI, UCR Data Online). An estimated 540,019 Americans were murdered in this twenty-five year period, more than the number that perished in all U.S. foreign wars from World War II to Afghanistan combined (DeBruyne & Leland, 2015).
The role of African Americans in the post-60s crime boom illustrates one of the problems with failing to examine historical crime. The Great Migration of blacks from the South to northern and west coast cities during and after World War II had a major impact on the post-60s crime situation (Latzer, 2016, pp. 106, 128–41). As Roland Chilton's (1995) study of urban homicide demonstrated, between 1960 and 1990, murder arrests of African Americans, approximately 12% of the U.S. population, accounted for an astonishing 65 to 78% of all big city homicide arrests in the nation. Furthermore, between 1965 and 1990, arrest rates of blacks for crimes of violence, including but not limited to murder, were five to nine times the white rates (FBI, 1993, p. 173).
The intellectual climate of the 1960s, shared by criminologists and other social scientists, fixated on poverty and related adverse conditions. Little attention was paid to the economic progress of African Americans, which was considerable. Criminologists at the time and ever since have focused on the nexus between crime and socioeconomic adversities, such as poverty, residential segregation, female-headed households, high unemployment rates, and socially-isolated large-scale communities. Analysts commonly explained, and continue to explain, the exceptionally high crime rates of low-income urban African Americans in terms of these conditions (e.g., Lo et al., 2013, Sampson, 1987).
However, a comparison of black conditions and crime rates at the time of the crime rise with conditions and crime rates of earlier periods produces anomalies. In earlier periods the conditions often were worse while the crime rates were lower. And in the late 1960s, when African American conditions had improved markedly, their crime rates began to escalate dramatically. This is especially noticeable when we compare black conditions and crime in 1940, on the eve of the World War II migration, and in 1970, at the start of the crime tsunami.
In 1940 black homicide victimization rates were 54.4 per 100,000, whereas in 1970 they were 78.2 per 100,000, a difference of 44% (Latzer, 2016, p. 29). Yet by almost every measure African Americans socioeconomic conditions were better in 1970 than in 1940. “Blacks not only shared in the rising prosperity of the war and the immediate postwar years,” wrote historians Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom and Thernstrom (1997), p. 70), “they advanced more rapidly than whites.” Table 1 gives a snapshot of black socioeconomic progress in the three decades ending in 1970.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 21,162 Given: 11,143 |
Reparations for what? darkies were treated like family for the most part, got free food and living space, and were introduced to civilization.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 21,162 Given: 11,143 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 15,564 Given: 10,001 |
Bullshit. The reason of jewish discrimination was their different religion, it was not racial. Only Hitler thought that jews are a race.
Gypsies were discriminated because of their nomad lifestyle, of course the feudal lords did not tolerate it. Habsburgs have tried to assimilate gypsies many times, but gypsies were these who wanted to keep their nomadism.
I can give you tons of example that medieval europeans did not care about race. Cuman migrants were mongoloid looking, and nobody discriminated them, or Jász migrants were brown skinned and there is no any source about their racial discrimination. There was no any racial based discrimination towards arabs or turks either, only religious,
Thumbs Up |
Received: 26,662 Given: 44,161 |
Yes, but the point is the latter is far more recent than the former and thus has had a far more immediate and profound effect on people's lives even today. Jim Crow didn't 'merely' force Blacks to live separate from Whites, but forbade, or at least severely restricted, their access to a range of jobs, facilities and property.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks