Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Privilege doesn't simply mean wealth. It could be the fact you're a male (any male - black, white, asian) and just the mere fact of being one you get paid a little more than a woman. Then it could be because you represent a particular group (white vs black). It could be based on income (rich vs poor). It could be based on sexual orientation (Straight vs gay). It could be based on gender identification. It might even something as simple as the abled vs disabled or young vs old. There are all types of privilege. 

 

 

Quote:Are you denying these advantages? Do you believe all people are treated equally and fairly? 

Read the first one for your answer to the second one.

Quote:Its not the same at all. Had it not been for AA, many African Americans and other people of color would never have a shot of getting those kind of jobs no matter how good they might of been at them. Ask yourself this:

 

Who had all the jobs in the first place? Doctors, Police Officers, Firefighters, Lawyers, Nurses, Politicians?

Who had all the best schools?

Who had the connections, the influence and the power to continue getting more people that looked like themselves in those positions?

 

You know the answer but you will sit here and type, ignoring your own privilege.

It pretty much sounds to me like you are bitter because you couldn't achieve success at any of the professions that you listed.

Quote:Yes, yes, and I wouldn't take reparations. Want to know one of the fastest, easiest ways to bone the economy? Make a habit of handing people checks because of things that other people did to people they claim to be related to 200 years ago.

 

How can you even be 2% Cherokee, that is such an insignificant number. You'd  probably have to have an ancestry going back over 6-7 generations or more to have that little Cherokee. If It's like essentially saying every white person is 1% African because all humans can trace their origins of Homo sapien sapiens to the African continent. The Cherokee nation would not recognize you. 

Quote:It pretty much sounds to me like you are bitter because you couldn't achieve success at any of the professions that you listed.

 

I'm actually very successful and blessed. I have two science degrees (BS, MS) and I'm nearly done with another science degree as part of my doctoral program....and I'm just getting started. 

Quote:Its not the same at all. Had it not been for AA, many African Americans and other people of color would never have a shot of getting those kind of jobs no matter how good they might of been at them. Ask yourself this:

 

Who had all the jobs in the first place? Doctors, Police Officers, Firefighters, Lawyers, Nurses, Politicians?

Who had all the best schools?

Who had the connections, the influence and the power to continue getting more people that looked like themselves in those positions?

 

You know the answer but you will sit here and type, ignoring your own privilege. 

 

Privilege... the excuse of failures like yourself.

Quote:WAAAH!  My mother was treated worse at a public school when she was a child.  Should I hold my hand out and demand payment and or and apology?  Get over it.  The past is history.

 

My father as child was forced to drink from colored fountains, go to colored schools, go to colored bathrooms, ride the back of the bus, ETC ETC. He could not go to movies that said "Whites Only", take a piss in "White bathrooms". This was less than 60 years ago. 

Quote:How can you even be 2% Cherokee, that is such an insignificant number? You'd  probably have to have an ancestry going back over 1000 s of years or more to have that little Cherokee. If It's like essentially saying every white person is 1% African because all humans can trace their origins of Homo sapien sapiens to the African continent. The Cherokee nation would not recognize you. 

Dammit, I don't feel like emailing my aunt and asking her to forward over the documentation, but rest assured that I am Cherokee enough to be considered part of the nation. In fact, anyone with documentation to demonstrate that they're related to someone on the register of Cherokee sent to Oklahoma is entitled to be part of the Cherokee nation, so, yeah. Also, a quick round of math shows that about seven generations gets you to 2%.

Quote:Privilege... the excuse of failures like yourself.

 

I can assure you I'm vastly more successful than you are currently or will ever be. 

Can we stop this bickering for a moment and go read Dakota's latest update in the Sideline? I assure you that whatever you're crying about here will be put in perspective real quick. 

Quote:My father as child was forced to drink from colored fountains, go to colored schools, go to colored bathrooms, ride the back of the bus, ETC ETC. He could not go to movies that said "Whites Only", take a [BAD WORD REMOVED] in "White bathrooms". This was less than 60 years ago.

Tell your Dad, many feel for him and I'm sure he's happy to see how much better you have it and,as slow as it seemed, got better.

The more and more I hear about stuff like this, the less and less I give a [BLEEP] about it.

I understand I'm not the nicest person out there. But, does that make me bad?


Racism will never end, but it would certainly help not throwing it in people's faces all the time.

Quote:I guess that means the English owe me money for making my relations second class citizens and for the massive genocide committed during the "famine".

When you apologise for the IRA and the northern Ireland issues.

Quote:My father as child was forced to drink from colored fountains, go to colored schools, go to colored bathrooms, ride the back of the bus, ETC ETC. He could not go to movies that said "Whites Only", take a [BAD WORD REMOVED] in "White bathrooms". This was less than 60 years ago. 

 

Yes and my mother was physically slapped in the face by her public government school teachers if she spoke Spanish and was told that her native language was "unacceptable".  Her lunch was taken away because it was beans and tortillas and wasn't deemed to be "acceptable" by the public government school.  She had to go hungry for the rest of the day.  She has told me many stories about what she had to go through as a child (back in the late 40's early 50's).

 

My point is that my family was discriminated against every bit as much as yours.  Yet I, my mother and the rest of us have moved on and put it in the past.

 

As a Hispanic male that is a 4th generation citizen of the U.S., I don't owe a damn thing to any black man.  I served my country for over 9 years of my life honorably.  My parents and my family have done well for themselves, and even though they aren't in the top "1%" they do have considerable wealth.  Me, I'm not there.... yet.  I've worked for everything that I have and everything that I've achieved.

 

I've had to overcome obstacles and overcome discrimination in some cases myself.  I never let my race hold me back and never expected anything because of my last name.  I EARNED everything that I've achieved.

 

I'm quite frankly sick and tired of hearing black people say that they are "owed" something.  The only thing that you are "owed" in this country is what you earn.  It's 2016.  Everybody had the same opportunities.

My Grandfather (God Rest His Soul) was born iin 1913, came up through the depression and all that good stuff that happened in the 20's and 30's. Workd as a truck driver at the local stone quarry. At night he built his own house. Yeah it was a simple block house but he built it damn it. His wife mixed the motar for it. Oh, and he was a functional illiterate to boot. In 1948 he took a BIG chance and started his own business. He worked night and day to get it off the ground, one truck and a handful of men. That business survived the recession of the 70's and grew. He had a heart attack in or about 1972 and his son took it over. The Business grew even more. When he died in 93 he died a millionaire. Where was his white priviledge? He work his [BAD WORD REMOVED] off for everything he got. No one owed him anything and he owed no one. Oh, and he raised 5 kids in the process.

Quote:My Grandfather (God Rest His Soul) was born iin 1913, came up through the depression and all that good stuff that happened in the 20's and 30's. Workd as a truck driver at the local stone quarry. At night he built his own house. Yeah it was a simple block house but he built it damn it. His wife mixed the motar for it. Oh, and he was a functional illiterate to boot. In 1948 he took a BIG chance and started his own business. He worked night and day to get it off the ground, one truck and a handful of men. That business survived the recession of the 70's and grew. He had a heart attack in or about 1972 and his son took it over. The Business grew even more. When he died in 93 he died a millionaire. Where was his white priviledge? He work his [BAD WORD REMOVED] off for everything he got. No one owed him anything and he owed no one. Oh, and he raised 5 kids in the process.

Who gave him the skilled labor job? If my Grandpa who lived during the same era applied to work where your GRANDFATHER did he mostly likely would have been denied employment. NO COLOREDS, NO NEGROS.




There's your white privilege.


If and this is a BIG if he was allowed to work he would be paid 50% less than your Grandfather. He would be told to eat at the Colored tables, drink from the colored fountains, and use the rest room for coloreds. That's IF the company even had separate facilities available.


More white privilege.


Here is an analysis of African American employment during the 1900s:THE COMPETITIVE DYNAMICS OF RACIAL EXCLUSION: EMPLOYMENT SEGREGATION IN THE SOUTH, 1900-1950*


Robert A. Margo

Vanderbilt University In 1940, the average annual earnings of black men were about 48 percent of the average annual earnings of white men. In 1980, the black- to-white male earnings ratio equalled 61 percent, an increase of 13 percentage points in four decades. Associated with the increase in the earnings ratio, and arguably a better indicator of fundamental change, is the post-World War Two emergence of a "new" black middle class composed of persons employed in a wide variety of white collar and skilled blue-collar occupations. Yet very little change in the earnings ratio appears to have occurred between 1900 and 1940. In 1900 the earnings ratio is estimated to have been 45 percent, just 3 percentage points less than in 1940.


Two frameworks have been advanced to explain the initial stability in the earnings ratio: a supply-side or "human capital" model, and a demand-side, or "institutionalist" model. Proponents of the human capital model argue that the initial stability of the earnings ratio can be explained by large and persistent racial differences in the "quantity" and "quality" of schooling that existed in the first half of the twentieth century. Institutionalists reject the claim that a narrower schooling gap in the first half of the twentieth century would have done much good in fostering black economic progress at that time. Rather, institutionalists believe that, early in the century, the majority of black men were trapped in very low- income jobs, primarily in southern agriculture. To initiate and speed up the process of absorption of black labor into higher paying non-farm jobs, positive "shocks" to the labor market, which permanently increased the non-farm demand for black labor, were required. Large increases in labor demand during the two world wars, for example, resulted in an outflow of blacks from the rural South. But wartime shocks were not sufficient to set in motion a large and sustained rise in the earnings ratio. Additional shocks (the Civil Rights Movement and associated anti-discrimination legislation) were necessary. Despite the emphasis given in the two frameworks to events in the South, previous research has largely been conducted using national aggregate data. This paper uses the public use samples of the 1900, 1910, 1940, and 1950 censuses to examine econometrically the determinants of racial differences in employment outcomes (occupation and industry) in the South during the first half of the twentieth century.


The South began the twentieth century as an agricultural economy -- a majority of male workers, black or white, worked in farming. Agricultural participation rates (the proportion of the male labor force engaged in agriculture) were slightly lower for adult males than for all males in the labor force, but were still substantial. Importantly, racial differences in agricultural participation rates were relatively small at the turn of the century -- 4 percentage points for males ages 10 and over, and 2 percentage points for adult males<a class="bbc_url" href='http://cliometrics.org/conferences/ASSA/Dec_90/Margo.shtml'>http://cliometrics.org/conferences/ASSA/Dec_90/Margo.shtml</a>

1900-1915: Continuation of Nineteenth-Century Patterns


As was the case in the 1800s, African American economic life in the early 1900s centered on Southern cotton agriculture. African Americans grew cotton under a variety of contracts and institutional arrangements. Some were laborers hired for a short period for specific tasks. Many were tenant farmers, renting a piece of land and some of their tools and supplies, and paying the rent at the end of the growing season with a portion of their harvest. Records from Southern farms indicate that white and black farm laborers were paid similar wages, and that white and black tenant farmers worked under similar contracts for similar rental rates. Whites in general, however, were much more likely to own land. A similar pattern is found in Southern manufacturing in these years. Among the fairly small number of individuals employed in manufacturing in the South, white and black workers were often paid comparable wages if they worked at the same job for the same company. However, blacks were much less likely to hold better-paying skilled jobs, and they were more likely to work for lower-paying companies.


While the concentration of African Americans in cotton agriculture persisted, Southern black life changed in other ways in the early 1900s. Limitations on the legal rights of African Americans grew more severe in the South in this era. The 1896 Supreme Court decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson provided a legal basis for greater explicit segregation in American society. This decision allowed for the provision of separate facilities and services to blacks and whites as long as the facilities and services were equal. Through the early 1900s, many new laws, known as Jim Crow laws, were passed in Southern states creating legally segregated schools, transportation systems, and lodging. The requirement of equality was not generally enforced, however. Perhaps the most important and best-known example of separate and unequal facilities in the South was the system of public education. Through the first decades of the twentieth century, resources were funneled to white schools, raising teacher salaries and per-pupil funding while reducing class size. Black schools experienced no real improvements of this type. The result was a sharp decline in the relative quality of schooling available to African-American childrenhttps://eh.net/encyclopedia/african-amer.../1916-1964

Quote:When you apologise for the IRA and the northern Ireland issues.

Think you have it backwards matey. The IRA of old were heroes and noble freedom fighters against a foreign aggressor. Also "The Troubles" was not the Irish governments fault, unlike the British government ran genocide that killed millions.

Quote:Here's a question to ponder. My ancestors never owned slaves nor were they actual slaves. Would I still have to pay?

Yup. The benefits you got in the deal were just not as black and white... Hey Oh!!!!

Quote:I can trace my enslaved ancestors back to 1840. That was only 3 generations ago which isn't that long of a time. My grandfather was a second class citizen who couldn't even vote without taking some ridiculous test until 1965...just 51 years ago.

 

So I owe you money? 

Quote:Think you have it backwards matey. The IRA of old were heroes and noble freedom fighters against a foreign aggressor. Also "The Troubles" was not the Irish governments fault, unlike the British government ran genocide that killed millions.

 

Hey one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. I distinctly remember splinter groups causing bombings in England while growing up. Lets face it the majority want to be part of Britain up there not Ireland.

 

Although we can probably blame Henry VIII for the tension in the first place.