Harvard professor argues for 'abolishing' white race

[monolith94]

Ole dirty bastard worked hard for his welfare check…

Anyways basically it's people like you that I hate. Sorry. don't feel bad about it though, I hate all rich people!
erky socialist cheerleader smiley:

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
I think people read the whole "abolishing white race" thing and assumed it was some crazy inverse racist ****. From the excerpt posted, I doubt that was the authour's intention.

It seems to me that he is concerned with the fact that certain non-physical attributes are considered 'white'. The rich suburban blue-eyed male (which is actually a tiny minority of caucasions in America who live in far poorer circumstances) is the epitome supposedly of whiteness.

This has the problem of creating that idea that people become 'white-washed' if they become successful. Some minorities see being successful as selling out your people or origins to become 'white'. You leave the city and move to the burbs with all the other whiteys, as if your race or neighbourhood is too low to you. Success and a proper education is equated to trying to be white.

This idea is detrimental to progress among blacks, hispanics, and even whites in America. Fear of being white-washed hampers success and the social and economic rising of minorities.

If my interpretation of this man's ideas is correct, than any disagreement is ridiculous and I can understand why Carver thought my fellow right-wingers came off as neo-confederates.


thanks

Aye, but ya admit that tha problem ain't entoirely tha whoites fault, which es what Ignatiev claims. Ya state that tha problem es that minoroities feel "whoite-washed," oif theh succeed. This puts tha issue squarely on ther shoulders because et es ther persepshun that es skew-ed. If ya could offer evidence that theh are forced to beh "whoite-washed," then ya may 'ave an argument agenst whoites. But ya'd 'ave ta proive that all whoites are involved and that all minoroities are indeed "whoite-washed" when theh succeed. This es where most of such movements 'ave been failin'. Theh've been commitin' tha very criomes that theh are accusing anotha race of. Ratha than work against racism, theh are trying to encourage et.

Anyway, back ta ma foirst point. If many minoroities feel "whoite-washed," et can be reasonbly assumed that et es not the whoite people's fault, unless evidens dictates othawise. Let's explain why et es reasonable: Supposed a black man moves ta Bretain. 'e starts as a janoitor living in a poor communpity with otha immoigrants. 'oweva, 'e works and struggles against those 'oo 'ave simply got there foirst. Eventually, 'e becomes very wealthy do ta 'is strong work ethic. Now 'e moves to a upper middle class neighborhood. Et es reasonable that tha majoroity of residence en that neighborhood are whoite. Not because theh keepin' black people down, but simply because theh 'ave lived en the country foirst. If that man went ta Japaneseland, 'e would experience the same thing.

Now unlike otha minoroities, blacks do have a strong case en America for feelin' pushed down. 'oweva, in response ta this tha US government 'as provoided programs ta 'elp bring blacks up. 'oweva, the fact that America has whoites in successful posishuns would not 'ave changed, if there was no racism en America. Since whites are tha majoroity and have the longa (and/or more productive, apologies to Native Americans) 'istory there, theh naturally 'ave filled the 'igha niches foirst. Immoigrants must expect ta start somewhat disadvantaged no matta what country theh go ta.

Overtime, 'owever, tha races should balance out more, especially in America where these issues are brought ta the forefront ta be addressed. Tha progress the blacks 'ave made over the last fifty some years es quite amazin'. Unfortunately, since the balancing out es slow, regress es beginin' to set en as many become empashient.

Tha balance should be enevitable, but rarely es. Why? Because the balance can only beh achieved en tha absense of racism. When tha US government put out programs ta counter racism tha quality of living for minoroities rose. 'oweva, this es where reverse-racism es comin' ta play. En a vain attempt ta speed up tha balance or tip et en their favor (greed), minoroities are beginnin" ta lash out at whoites endiscriminately. Tha US's programs ta counter racism against minoroities 'ave left one group still open ta racism: whoite people. Since racism tends ta be a natural enclination en man, unchecked et can go wild. Hence, we are now seein' a time where vehement anti-whoite slogans are overshadowin' tha vile activities of even the Klan, whose actions are more restricted. Tha anti-white racists 'ave no restrictions and therefore trumpet their belief en tha evils of tha white race and theh deserving of unearned wealth and prosperity en a nation that es full of et (noice pun ).

Thus, tha cycle of racism will continue. Whoites 'oo 'ave attempted ta beh fair, impartial, an' even self-sacrificing (look at the US programs again, affirmative action does not favor whoites at all) are emmediately confronted with this overblown 'atred from minorities. These people 'oo want ta keep tha peace are soon lost, as theh feel that tha minorities may beh tha evil ones en light of the violence and epithets coming from 'em. Thus, theh begin ta become racist with stronger justification (ef there es any) than ever. An' what will happen then, if tha 'atred on both sides grows unchecked. Just look at 'istoy for ya answer, and ya'll see 'ow bad real racism can get.

As for Ignatiev, 'e's a fool only addin' ta the problem. 'e may have some valid points but 'e completely misses tha overall issue. Plus 'is presentation es terrible. 'e tries ta sensationalize 'is arguments for popularity and contraversy. Thus, tha real problems are overlooked. If ya read closely, 'e es not callin' for tha destruction of whoites, 'e es callin' for equality. But 'e es doing et esn such a ridiculous way that many will misinterpret et as many 'ave. Ta come out and say that all wohites must beh destroyed es just irresponsible.

[Carver]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So, in conclusion, those "some minorities" are a bunch of ****ing idiots.

At least that's the impression I get. Sounds like they're trying to blame white people for their own whacked out perceptions.

Did you read this article? It sounds to me like you're paranoid about blacks blaming whites. There was not one sentence in the article or in the post you quoted about blaming whites.

More blacks want to grow up to own SUVs and big houses? Fine. Here's a thought - DON'T COMMIT CRIMES. Look at the statistics - blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime in the US. That's not racist, that's a fact.

You do know most most blacks aren't violent criminals don't you? And I already know plenty of blacks that own SUVs and big houses as it is.

Here's another one - DON'T SEGREGATE YOURSELF. Don't clamor for black only dorms on college campuses, and don't form your own race-based cliques in high school.

If whites were willing to truly integrate with blacks and not humiliate them in front of their faces in these dorms (as I have personally witnessed) I would agree.

Anyway, I know writing to you is a waste of time. You think whites should own all (or almost all) of southern Africa, you defend apartheid and ignore the violence instigated by the white government. Your mind is too preoccupied with stereotypes to actually think rationally about race.

[Tingkai]

I know I shouldn't laugh at stupidity, but this has got to be the funniest thread I've seen in ages. People are condemning the man and his ideas, yet they obviously haven't read the article because they end up arguing the exact same points that he makes.

Congrats to Ron Jeremy, Carver and Speer for actually reading the article.

Lincoln's comment is classis: "If some of these Know-it-alls would get a real job and get some dirt under their fingernails then they might discover what a real education is."

From the Post article:
"[Ignatiev] worked in a Chicago steel mill and in factories that made farm equipment and electrical parts for two decades."



Another classic is from Shi
"You can say you want to discourage racism against minorities and make society more colorblind without putting it in terms of destroying the white race. IMO race is a concept that needs to be getten rid of altogether."

Yup, we need to get rid of the concept of race, but anyone who wants to destroy the concept of the white race is a nutcase.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Ron Jeremy, Carver:

Boy, oh, boy, I do certainly live like an elite privileged and well-educated white man!

My spacious efficiency apartment (one room contains living, sleeping and eating quarters), my 1990-era car, my student loan payments and my $20,000-a-year-after-taxes job all combine together to make me an oppressor of non-whites, eh?

I can't believe I'm a symbol of oppression to the non-white masses.

Gatekeeper

What are you talking about?

Did I call you an "oppressor"? Is this in any way related to the topic of this thread or a post herein?

[Gatekeeper]

Carver:

Uh, gee, I was under the impression that being white and successful meant we were somehow oppressing minorities because, OBVIOUSLY, us white devils were successful due to the fact that we ALL got perks due to being white.

BTW, I also watched CNN's "Talkback Live" today, where the author of this article was present and part of the discussion. So sue me if I happen to mix up a bit what was debated on-air vs. what the article strictly pertains to.

And, no, you didn't call *me* an oppressor ... but I can read between the lines. Some things don't have to be said in order to be obvious. Ever hear of subtext?

Gatekeeper

[David Floyd]

monolith,

Anyways basically it's people like you that I hate. Sorry. don't feel bad about it though, I hate all rich people!

Good thing I'm not rich. I come from a decidedly middle class family, and right now I'm (largely) paying my way through college and my own apartment with a bit of help from financial aid, loans, and parents. But I'm by no means rich

Carver,

There was not one sentence in the article or in the post you quoted about blaming whites.

That was obviously the intent of it.

You do know most most blacks aren't violent criminals don't you? And I already know plenty of blacks that own SUVs and big houses as it is.

Of course most blacks aren't violent criminals. A disproportionate number of them are in prison for violent crime, though - don't see how you can deny that.

If whites were willing to truly integrate with blacks and not humiliate them in front of their faces in these dorms (as I have personally witnessed) I would agree.

Oh, that's a load of ****.
And what would you say about an all white dorm, because the black football players are making the whites feel inadequate? Would that be OK?

Anyway, I know writing to you is a waste of time. You think whites should own all (or almost all) of southern Africa, you defend apartheid and ignore the violence instigated by the white government. Your mind is too preoccupied with stereotypes to actually think rationally about race.

When have I ever defended apartheid? It was a horrendous violation of natural rights (the same as slavery and Jim Crow laws). Only points I've made is that the blacks have made a hash of South Africa, and the crime and poverty rates have skyrocketed, and the standard of living has shot down.

I'm not saying that blacks can't run countries, I'm saying that in this particular case (and, OK, a few others in Africa and elsewhere such as Zimbabwe) the people in charge have proven to be bumbling incompetents.

[Carver]

Originally posted by monolith94

If I was in a group on non white people, who were telling jokes about white people, I'd certainly be offended and speak my mind. This does not translate into me preferring to play soccer with white people rather than people of other races, or refusing to eat with people from other races.

This is exactly how I feel. The reality is people of one race, gathered together, will sometimes make offensive jokes about another race. This is obviously hard on the odd man out. If you haven't been the odd man out, you probably have no clue. This is why I understand when black students want black housing.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by monolith94
I think that if you're smart enough to get into Harvard U. you ought to be able to take what information proffessors give you, and draw your own conclusions.

If the world were really like it should be I would agree. Unfortunately you have not factored in the large numbers of Kennedy's and other legacy students who are sent to Harvard in order to become properly credentialed for their inevitible run for political office. These often inbred or brain damaged folks very well could absorb some stupid ideas and be uniquely capable of putting them into practice. Radicals should be confined to state universities where most people are too busy partying to pay them much attention, and the rest are too smart or too serious or too powerless to do much about it anyway.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd

Funny how it's black people who insist on having their own black dorms, black fraternities, and black cliques, isn't it?
Don't spew bull****. No one gives a **** anymore about whether or not someone is black except for black people themselves (and, OK, a very very small percentage of other ignorant people).

Ok, first off -- racism and race relations issues are still prevalent in the United States today, not at the fault of only extreme PC liberal historians, and not at the fault of only white boys' club conservatives and not at the fault of only excessively militant blacks.
The blame for racism does not fall onto just one single group of people -- not to mention that blaming others usually does not get us anywhere.


Secondly, in a sub-consciously racist society such as ours, of course blacks are more comfortable with other blacks -- but this is only one of the obstacles towards a more full integration of all races in our society.
I was invited into our campu's Black Student Union organization by a black student, even though I'm white, but I had to decline, due to my time management issues.

You are right partially -- the virulent, violent type of racism that was socially acceptable in the 1930's through 1950's has almost ceased to exist in the United States today.
For instance -- lynching of blacks is no longer socially acceptable among whites (not saying lynchings do not happen today -- but they're not socially sanctioned anymore).

But the kind of racism that you seem to fail to acknowledge, is the sub-conscious racism where we can risk ourselves into more subtle ways of racist thinking and behavior.

[Carver]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Good thing I'm not rich. I come from a decidedly middle class family, and right now I'm (largely) paying my way through college and my own apartment with a bit of help from financial aid, loans, and parents. But I'm by no means rich

Well, welcome to the club.

Of course most blacks aren't violent criminals. A disproportionate number of them are in prison for violent crime, though - don't see how you can deny that.

I don't deny it. Just like I don't deny that black families are disproportionately likely to have been the victims of hundreds of years of stolen labor and denial of education and phychological oppression and torture (as was also the case with South Africa).

Oh, that's a load of ****.
And what would you say about an all white dorm, because the black football players are making the whites feel inadequate? Would that be OK?

Have you been to the Univ of Georgia, or Auburn or many other Universities in the South? There are many all-white frats and sororities. And any dorm that is mixed is probably mostly white so the whites simply don't face the problems of being ostracized. I know you think it sounds equal but a white person living in a mixed dorm has a much easier time than a black person.

When have I ever defended apartheid? It was a horrendous violation of natural rights (the same as slavery and Jim Crow laws). Only points I've made is that the blacks have made a hash of South Africa, and the crime and poverty rates have skyrocketed, and the standard of living has shot down.

I'm not saying that blacks can't run countries, I'm saying that in this particular case (and, OK, a few others in Africa and elsewhere such as Zimbabwe) the people in charge have proven to be bumbling incompetents.

The poverty rate certailny hasn't skyrocketed. During apartheid there were fewer than 100,000 blacks who had the average income of whites, today there are over a million. The crime rate has changed a little at most. There was tremedous crime before but much was unreported:
1. the gov't didn't want the international press coverning the black areas to begin with
2. many black areas were "free zones" where the police would only enter in massive force for a brief period of time
3. the the government instigated much of the violence to play sections of the black public against one another. The police would drive one group of militants to a township for the purpose of creating trouble. The terrorist F.W. deKlerk used these operations throughout the early 90s to pressure the ANC to give more at the bargaining table.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I still want someone to acknowledge that 'watching the language' doesn't apply to this person while it applys to the teacher that taught their kids what 'niggardly' meant and if someone wrong 'Abolishing the Black Race'.

[Carver]

I.S., there's nothing wrong with "Abolishing the Black Race" in the sense that Ignatiev would mean it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but the protests would be great. The people stating it would be crucified, and people would say they should have watched their language.

There should be some consistancy.

[David Floyd]

I don't deny it. Just like I don't deny that black families are disproportionately likely to have been the victims of hundreds of years of stolen labor and denial of education and phychological oppression and torture (as was also the case with South Africa).

And thousands of whites in Zimbabwe are the victims of insane and stupid land redistribution. And thousands of Christians (and other religions) in the PRC are persecuted for their faith. And how millions of Jews have been persecuted throughout history.
But what exactly has that to do with blacks committing more crimes than whites?

Have you been to the Univ of Georgia, or Auburn or many other Universities in the South? There are many all-white frats and sororities. And any dorm that is mixed is probably mostly white so the whites simply don't face the problems of being ostracized. I know you think it sounds equal but a white person living in a mixed dorm has a much easier time than a black person.

I guarantee you that having an official policy of no blacks allowed in a certain dorm would not be legal.
But this still isn't the point.
If I want my dorm to be all white, and enough other whites agree with me, should I be able to force the university to spend money and inconvenience themselves just to make myself more comfortable in that regard? I think not.

The poverty rate certailny hasn't skyrocketed. During apartheid there were fewer than 100,000 blacks who had the average income of whites, today there are over a million.

Don't you think this is possibly because the average standard of living for whites has gone down?

The crime rate has changed a little at most. There was tremedous crime before but much was unreported

So, even if the crime rate hasn't skyrocketed, then the current black government has proven itself to be incompetent to solve the crime problem, wouldn't you say?

2. many black areas were "free zones" where the police would only enter in massive force for a brief period of time

Ah, so much of the crime was black on black, you would say?

1. the gov't didn't want the international press coverning the black areas to begin with

Of course not. They wouldn't want the international community to see the extent of natural rights abuses that were going on.

the the government instigated much of the violence to play sections of the black public against one another. The police would drive one group of militants to a township for the purpose of creating trouble.

And again, you are simply saying that much of the crime was black on black.

MrFun,

Ok, first off -- racism and race relations issues are still prevalent in the United States today, not at the fault of only extreme PC liberal historians, and not at the fault of only white boys' club conservatives and not at the fault of only excessively militant blacks.

And who do you think this is perpetuated by? Well, I'll tell you. It's perpetuated by people such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Rep. Maxine Waters...race baiters who never shut up about people allegedly being racist. People like Jesse Jackson will claim racism if a black student gets rejected at a law school, or a black woman is turned down for a position at a corporation. People who want affirmitive action and slavery reparations, these are the people who cause most of the race relations problems...if people would just shut the hell up, they'd realize that the vast majority of US society is not racist at all, and couldn't really care less if you're white, black, or whatever, as long as you don't act like you have a chip on your shoulder all the time and instead act like a reasonable and responsible person.

Secondly, in a sub-consciously racist society such as ours, of course blacks are more comfortable with other blacks -- but this is only one of the obstacles towards a more full integration of all races in our society.

If I said I was more comfortable around whites, and thus I would only hang out with white people, would you see a problem? Would you blame anyone besides myself for this attitude?

But the kind of racism that you seem to fail to acknowledge, is the sub-conscious racism where we can risk ourselves into more subtle ways of racist thinking and behavior.

For example....?