A Tribute to the Persecuted White, Hetero, Man

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


*bows*

Too bad this isn't about slave reparations, then you'd really see me get my gander up.

Damn man, we had a couple of doozies a couple months ago. It's a shame you missed 'em.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Damn man, we had a couple of doozies a couple months ago. It's a shame you missed 'em.

that was my very first thread!

I remember it fondly.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Damn man, we had a couple of doozies a couple months ago. It's a shame you missed 'em.

Tsk. A pity.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Tuberski



that was my very first thread!

I remember it fondly.

Goddamn, that was fun. My blood pressure probably skyrocketed to 120/80, I was so pissed at some people.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Goddamn, that was fun. My blood pressure probably skyrocketed to 120/80, I was so pissed at some people.

Me included at times!

[Guynemer]

Yes, well, we came to an understanding eventually. Just don't ever pull that **** again.

[David James]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"But wait... back in the Middle Ages, if my imperfect ignorance of history isn't too imperfect, I seem to recall the fact that England was ruled by French speaking people called Normans."

Right, but it was still the English crown. But that's irrelevant, the original question is if the Irish had been persecuted. Whether done by Anglo or Norman, the Irish had been persecuted. You disputed whether that had happened.

I don't really think that feudal lunacy against peasants quite counts as persecution in the same sense as events like the Inquisition. Your use of the term helps not a bit as in that sense pretty much everyone in history has been persecuted (take note, progenitor of this thread). Oppress, yeah, I'd agree to that as pretty much everyone in feudal times was oppressed. But persecution is active and deliberate, again, as in the Inquisition or witch trials. If anyone was "persecuted" in those times it would be the descendents of the old Anglo-Saxon kings and nobility; in that sense my use of the term generalized to all Anglo-Saxons was out of order. Oppressed, yes, like peasants everywhere, but not persecuted.

"Next off, Charles I and Charles II are both of the House of Stuart, so why the Irish would support their descendents if these two had persecuted them is beyond me ."

It's only beyond you because you are stupid and ingnorant of history. James II had suspended the penal laws against Catholics(as well as dissidents against the Church of England).

There you go again. But never mind. You have not disproved or proved anything here. *If* the Charles' had persecuted the Irish, then why would they support their descendents later on? Unless you're telling me that James II's suspension of the penal laws was enough to undue all the ill-will generated by his father and brother?

"Moreover, Charles I was married to a Catholic and had Catholic sympathies whilst Charles II was a closet Catholic, Protestant in name only."

Their being Protestant is what counts though- although Charles II made a deal with Louis XIV to restore England to Catholicism, the plot never was enacted. You rationalized the persecution of the Irish in that they supported Catholic Pretenders to the throne. I pointed out the main persecutors of the Irish people came before the era when they were supporting Catholic Kings in exile.

How convenient for you that they were essentially pretending to be Protestant. For the rest, I'm going to wait till I get to the end.

"

I'm not going to go and defend everything Cromwell did; yes he massacred a lot of Irish but he did the same in England and Scotland as well, often among people who had formerly supported him."

Right, but his actions in Irish were far, far, worse. After his conquest of Ireland many Irish were also in fact sent away to the New World to be slaves in the Caribbean.

"Cromwell is an unfortunate feature of England's ascent from government by decree to Parliamentary rule."

Most people use harsher words then "unfortunate" when discussing massacres on the scale he comitted.

"You also seem to have ignored the fact that the Calvinist Dutch suffered mightily at Spanish hands."

Trying to worm out of this by changing the subject, are we? We are discussing the persecution of the Irish.

Umm, no, rather trying to bring this back onto subject. This started out by someone trying to claim that the Irish weren't Northern Europeans on the spurious grounds that they had been "persecuted" by Cromwell. I made a passing comment on why I didn't think this was a legitimate grounds for them to be excluded. Looking back I realize this was not done too well as I said practically nothing about it as it so plainly silly to think that the Irish are not Northern European. Nevertheless, it was you who sidetracked the discussion, not me.

You said that Irish persecution started when they were supporting the Catholic pretenders to the throne. In fact the worst of it came before Cromwell, and it continued until well after the threat of Catholic pretenders was gone. Your original statement was stupid, incorrect, and insulting.

From most of what you've written it might at first appear that the worst the Irish ever suffered was at the hands of Cromwell (being sent away, massacres, etc). I would agree to that. I would also agree that I phrased it badly when I made it seem like the Irish persecution began with support of the Catholic pretenders. I had intended that to mean in Cromwell's era ("after the Reformation" - which isn't too clear either). My apologies on what was, as I said, essentially a poorly written passing comment. But what I don't agree with, and I don't think most anyone else would either, is your claim that the "worst of it came before Cromwell". And especially not at the hands of closet Catholics like Charles I and II. I don't think much of either of these two (or indeed anyone who ruled England after Elizabeth's death until Queen Anne) but as much as I dislike them I don't think they were ruthless persecutors of the Irish, as you seem to imply. I have looked for such things in the books I have and have not found any. The closest I can come is incompetence on Charles I's part in England, Scotland and Ireland that ultimately led to a tri-nation revolution that we call the English Civil War. So if you'd care to enlighten me, go right ahead.

[Felch]

Originally posted by David James
I don't think much of either of these two (or indeed anyone who ruled England after Elizabeth's death until Queen Anne) but as much as I dislike them I don't think they were ruthless persecutors of the Irish, as you seem to imply.

So you didn't like the Stuarts?

However, I've never heard of either Charles being all that terrible to the Irish. Cromwell, yes, but Charles I, and to a greater extent Charles II were always highly regarded by my family (Irish Catholics) as being perfectly decent kings.

Cromwell was the real persecutor though. He was a brutal, ruthless, religious fundamentalist, who strove with all his energy to make other people's lives suck just a little bit more. No one who believes in liberty could honestly claim he was a step in the right direction. If anything he was a warning of the despotism of the future, military and religious dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Mullah Omar.

[orange]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Imran, the problem with that is, in order to bring Black schools up to parity with white schools, money that could be used to improve white schools will have to be divereted to help Black schools. The same people who are screaming now about AA will scream about paying for school systems in the cities.

Well, I don't think we should simply be subsidizing 'black schools'. Rather the money should to go inner city or poor schools. A majority of the students may be black in that school, but the focus should be on helping the poor, not any single race.

[MrFun]

Ok -- let's forget about the history of past discrimination and crimes against humanity.

I still do not see how white, heterosexual men are discriminated against because of their race or sexual orientation in today's society.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
YES, urban blacks (hispanics, asians, whites, etc) don't get the education they need. So, yes, they aren't as educated.

And no, I'm not white .

Imran: you're being an idiot so I'll try to spell this out for you.

First, look at the stupidity of your statement that "urban blacks (hispanics, asians, whites, etc) don't get the education they need." Do you really think that all urban schools provide sub-par educations. Come off it. The quality of urban schools may be below average, but that doesn't mean that all students of urban schools fail to get the education they need.

Just because a person went to an urban school doesn't automatically mean "they aren't as educated."

From what I heard about American schools, the odds are that urban students get a poorer education, but that doesn't mean all of them are uneducated.

Do you understand this, or do I have to explain this like I was talking to a four-year-old?

This is the big part of the racist assumptions in statements like yours and others that claim that the solution to racism against blacks is to provide them with better education. The racist assumption is that the discrimination faced by these people is because they lack the right qualifications.

What you can't get through your little head is the fact that non-whites with excellent qualifications still face discrimination. We routinely have court cases that show how highly qualified blacks, asians, etc. are passed over for promotion because of their colour.

Providing a better education to all people is desirable, but it will not end racism.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MrFun
Ok -- let's forget about the history of past discrimination and crimes against humanity.

I still do not see how white, heterosexual men are discriminated against because of their race or sexual orientation in today's society.

If by "discriminate" you mean


"To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice"


. . . programs like affirmative action do that all the time while some posters talking about the "white male" do it all the time as well if they attribute some negative trait to white males

If you mean discriminated against in the sense of facing adversity that requires a redress well lets just say I am not crying a river for the plight of the white male ( and I am one). I do find some affirmative action programs to be offensive when they totally preclude a white male from getting a certain job ( I gace an example of a college that won't hire any male faculty for something like 10 years) because I believe it is unnecessarily restrictive and does not promote merit ( there would HAVE to be a couple of exceptional male candidates in all those years that were ignored). But in the scope of wrongs that go on out there . . . lets just say that there are bigger issues to get riled up over.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by monolith94

Affirmative action doesn't reinforce the stereotype that black people can't get jobs on their own: it reinforces the (correct) stereotype that businesses tend to have some racist members.

I sincerely doubt that many people in this country agree with you.

p.s. The United States is not 80% white. Within 20 years, it is projected that whites will in fact constitute less than half of the populace.

According to the 2000 census, whites are >75% of the population. The only way that number will drop to 50% in 20 years is if the entire population of mexico moves up here. Bar that, or a "white only" pestilence, its virtually impossible.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by MrFun
Ok -- let's forget about the history of past discrimination and crimes against humanity.

I was not sure if this was a serious comment or intended to be sarcastic. My view is that we must always remember the history from which we come and

honor it, disparage it, rail against it or whatever but always always remember it.


BUT

I see enough to do in trying to correct injustices today that I see little point in trying to redress every wrong in history. The fact that 8 generations ago someone's ancestor enslaved another (OR killed him and took his castle and his earldom for that matter) provides the historical backdrop but little else.

I am most interested in the NOW. . . . trying to "fix" now that which can be fixed and getting to the root cause to the extent we can. I think that there is more than enough work to do now to try to level the playing field and that one can NEVER fully address the wrongs of the past.

[Flubber]

While I am here . . . I generally support the idea of affirmative action but I have seen a lot of weird stuff in the implementation that does not make sense


1. friend of mine wanted to be a dentist . . . he applied 2 years in a row and his marks were not good enough for dentistry school (he didn't even make it into the group that got interviewed to fill the last 3rd of the class)--he then realized that the fact that he was 1/8 native could help-- he applied for "native status", and then reapplied as a minority candidate. He got in with a small scholarship to boot.


2. The law school I was in had an affirmative action program called the Indigineous Black and Micmac Program . The idea was to assist these minority groups in attending law school as they made up about .5 % of the lawyers despite each being about 10% of the provincial population. A laudible goal but the implementation was weird


(a) first the program offered exactly the same assistence to each individual in both groups. For example: fully paid tuition, books and a living allowance. Meanwhile the Micmac students also had federal government grants meaning that they were the most financially secure students around.

(b) students that had gained admission through the regular process were "encouraged" to join the program as administration wanted to bolster both the admission numbers and the chance for successful completions. Some students accepted for the free money

(c) one of these ( a black woman) was the daughter of a doctor and a former beauty queen winner (had won something like $50,000) who took taxis everywhere. I did not understand the point of giving financial assistance to the rich.

(d) several of the Micmac were 1/2 to 3/4 "white", had grown up in suburbia and "looked" like Barbie or Ken and so could only have faced cultural discrimination as they could not be discriminated against by the way they looked.

(e) meanwhile
-- student aid had nowhere enough money for students in need
-- there was no assistence at all for any other racial minority
-- even the blind student had to scramble to a number of sources to obtain money for the help she needed


For all that, I was not and am not against the goals of the program. It just seemed like once a person was identified as part of the disadvantaged group, they got package A, with no examination as to the needs of the individuals in the group.


Someone stated that there is no stigma with affirmative action. I have seen different. In that same law school, I dated a women that was 7/8 Micmac and had grown up on a reservation. Despite all the monetary incentives, she refused to apply for the school's affirmative action program and was a regular status student (note she did get a lot of financial support from her band and the federal government). I think the school only caught on when she showed up LOL.

Back home, in her native community, she was told a number of times that she did not deserve to be in law school . . . that the only reason she was there was because she was in the "stupid Indian" program. She said it gave her great pleasure to inform them that she had never mentioned her native status in the application.