Another racial double standard

[slimreaper]

The development needs infrastructure and and infrastructure needs economic power to support it.

You should study the history of the world 18th century onwards and see what exactly was going around in other parts of the world at the same time and what hindered others. You can credit the imperialism of European nations during that time. Europe got a sudden jump from rags to riches( in many cases) with the industrialization which was facilitated by and large from the money gained from "trade" which was often not so much as trade but simple loot.

They used it for their personal advancement - study the heavy economic drain from Bengal alone before and after British rule. Worst man made famine of the history was what it got from it. That would be a start. Search and you will see. You can try even Google for this:

You must be registered for see links

Study the economic condition of Bengal ( west Bengal and Bngladesh today) and then study what Britain did to it. Then proceed to other states and the other world countries.

You must be registered for see links

The development you gained was gotten on dead bodies killed purely of deprivation of basic needs.

How did they build said Empire?

 

[Disquiet]

Are you an idiot? Why would someone work when they can live off the government? If you can't see how subsidization effects motivation then I have nothing else to say to you.

Why mention pro athletes? They make up .00005% of the US population. Don't use that as a gauge for blacks.

Are you trying to say that its the white mans fault people get scared in black neighborhoods, not the massive levels of crime actually committed in these areas? Are you really suggesting it was the white man who made these things up?

All Im saying is that its ****ing dumb that I can't be proud of my race because people are so stupid as to think its racist. That level of misconception should never be allowed in a civilization such as America

If a white person wants to celebrate white Excellence then they should be allowed to do so

More like you're near-sighted. You tacitly admit that this support is enough, in their eyes, to remain content. That's the point you're not grasping. Being poor doesn't mean you're not working, someone can remain content with their current low-playing job. At best, it's a reasonable prediction that people would start working if removed from welfare, not that these people will make it out of poverty. You also, unknowingly perhaps, suggest that these people prefer not to work. You have to work to even stay at the poverty line, and a lot of the times, you have to work harder to rise above that. If these people were content with the little money they were getting, and not seeking higher status, it's foolish to assume they're suddenly going to find the determination to climb the ladder to a considerable high.

Then, another point that makes this concept faulty, is that a lot of people on welfare are working. Then there's the huge amounts of drug activity (as well as robbery), which in itself shows people are turning to alternatives other than legit work to try and make up for whatever deficiency they have in their income. Or perhaps with the goal of making a lot of money. Some have different objectives, I'm sure.

You also make it seem as it none of these people on welfare (blacks and whites) don't struggle to pay bills, or miss bill payments.

You're also not accounting for people that lives with another in order to make it easy on themselves, so they're in better position to acquire some wealth. And yes, some people have become a success as a result. They had certain necessities provided for them, but because they had a dream, they went out to get it.

Many people even stay with their parents while attending college. I'm telling you if they lacked such motivation before, it's a silly assumption to think they'd get enough motivation to rise above poverty if the help was removed. I mean really...

This plan doesn't even account for the fact that a lot of blacks are near high crime areas, or don't possess the luxurious materials and lavish lifestyle that higher classes hold, or that their kids are complaining about what they don't have. Again, if they're content, it is sooo myopic to think removing subsidies will give them motivation to elevate beyond poverty.

It's not accounting for the fact that some of these poor blacks wear the same clothes quite frequently, yet remain complacent. It's not accounting for peer pressure being a source of motivation as well, yet still many remain at the poverty line.

Then there's the people that can work and make just enough to provide themselves with food and clothing after paying bills. However, they don't make enough to move out of the poor neighborhood nor gift themselves with an abundance of materials.

Another point of consideration should be that people may be lying about how many working people they have living with them, that may not even be on the lease. This would imply they may actually have enough to get by, and even a little extra. However, they're using the welfare to give them that much more.

Remove subsidies and black people will no longer be poor? That's it? Don't be childish.

Because it can't be ignored that the majority of them are blacks. Were they CEOs or considerably wealthy before then? I see you ignored the rap industry.

It's blatantly obvious that's not what I'm not saying. However, the consequence of that is ignorance of the fact that there's poor white neighborhoods as well.


Years ago, back when the blacks were slaves, the whites possessed very stupid ideals and behaviors. Today's thinking is a consequence of yesterday's stupidity.

I don't care if whites do. Hopefully, we reach the point where they're not being blamed for the past. People have problems of letting go of old ideals, even many whites still posses the ignorance of the past.

 

[Avani]

How did they build said Empire?

I just told you. A large part of it was unfair and unethical trade tactics along with outright mass loot.

"This was not the destruction of a minor civilization produced by an inferior people. It ranks with the highest civilizations of history, and some would place it at the head and summit of all - like Keyserling.... when the british cannons attacked.... the hindus surrendered at once lest one of the most beautiful creations of mankind be destroyed. Who, then, were the civilized people? (The Hindus or The English?) The British conquest of India was the destruction of a high civilization by a trading company utterly without scruple or principal, overrunning with fire, sword, bribery, murder a country temporarily disordered and helpless"

"India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or Asia, producing textile, Metal works, Jewelry, Precious Stones, Pottery, Architecture. She had great merchants, businessmen, ship building - nearly every kind of manufacture known to the civilized world was already in India"

-The Case For India by Will Durant

Spoiler

Spoiler

Naoroji observed in 1880, “It is not the pitiless operations of economic laws, but it is thoughtless and pitiless action of the British policy; it is pitiless eating of India’s substance in India and further pitiless drain to England, in short it is pitiless perversion of Economic Laws by the sad bleeding to which India is subjected, that is destroying India.

John Sullivan, President of the Board of Revenue, Madras, added—Our system acts very much like a sponge, drawing up all the good things from the banks of the Ganges, and squeezing them down on the banks of the Thames.

(i) The ‘Drain of wealth’ from India to England started after 1757, when the Company acquired political power and the servants of the Company a ‘privileged status’ and, therefore, acquired wealth through dastak, dastur, nazarana and private trade. For company, becoming a political power meant its ownership of revenues as used in financing ‘investments’ and ‘expenditure’ of ‘colonial budget’.

(ii) The Company servants, after 1757, extorted immense wealth from Indian rulers, zamindars, mer*chants and common-people, amounting to not less than 6 million between 1758 and 1765; four times more than the total land revenue collection of Bengal in 1765.

(iii) After 1737 and especially after 1765 (year of receiving diwani rights of Bengal) financial structure of the Company had a qualitative change.

(a) Earlier, the Company had to import ‘treasure’ fell (bullion in form of gold and silver) to buy Indian goods for sale in Europe.

(b) After Plassey, however, the import of ‘treasure’ fell sharply in size and yet the export of the Company to England and Europe continued.

(c) This became possible due to appropriation of Indian revenue which was used as the invest*ment of the Company and this investment financed the cost of commodities which the Com*pany had to export from India.

In other words, the company was getting Indian goods for sale outside India for nothing. Investment was thus nothing but a ‘political’ tribute.

This is how there began the ‘Drain of Wealth ‘which was nothing but a unilateral transfer of fund; the Early nationalist leaders made this point central to their economic criticism of the British colonialism.

Also:

You must be registered for see links

Spoiler

By 1700, India was again the world's largest economy, accounting for 24.4% of global GDP, more than that of the whole of Europe combined, and almost ten times the size of Britain's economy, whose growth had already began benefiting from 'trade' with India, China and Africa. By the time of independence, a socially, economically and industrially devastated India's share of global GDP had plummeted to a mere 4.2%.


"A significant fact which stands out is that those parts of India which have been longest under British rule are the poorest today." Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India.


By independence, the world's leading ship building, metallurgy and textiles industries had been systematically decimated (and subsequently cloned in Britain); a society with a system of mass education was now almost fully illiterate; and callous Imperial policies led to a population explosion that India is still grappling with today.

One of the most macabre manifestations of the malevolent intent and unequivocal ineptitude of British rule - which is still shamefully projected as 'benevolent' and 'efficient'- was the genesis of mass poverty and famine throughout what is now called the 'developing world'. Tens, of millions of people in India - and hundreds of millions throughout the colonised world - died from starvation alone during such 'Victorian holocausts'.

This does not cover even the tip of the iceberg I am hinting at. It just gives you a reference.

You should study history yourself.

“When the Missionaries arrived, the Africans had the Land and the Missionaries had the Bible. They taught how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.”- Jomo Kenyattathe first Prime Minister and President of independent Kenya.

^ one way was this, though of course it was not a single factor.

You would find it enlightening in many ways - pick any nation which has suffered from it. More or less it's just last 3-4 centuries to cover to get an idea about this aspect. Still I cannot cover the entire history for you.

Even today the most advanced countries have scientists from all over the world working for them. You are using Indian numeral system you know ( Arabians taught you Indian system but they didn't invent it). The roman system sucked. They wouldn't have made much progress using that. Progress humans made is collective achievement and doesn't belong to any single civilization, country, continent or group of people. For some conditions were more favourable and they were able to exploit it more and in last centuries it were Europeans who gained advantage. We will see who comes next and how they succeed.

Double standards can be frustrating( I don't support it). But if a group, that benefited unilaterally using unfair means a little too much, starts claiming being the best citing that success gotten though dubious means as a criteria, then they lose the ground to complain about it.

 

[~Sky~]

Ugh... Geez, what am I reading?

For one, yes, we do have a lot of racial double standards in our society. There's not much you can do against it, but it is there.

You know something I've seen happen firsthand? I've seen a great friend not get into college because of racial statistics. Essentially, even though he had the grades to get in, the college didn't let him in because he was white, and they want their school to show diversity. Political correctness is what they call it.

No, they don't care about performance anymore, they put more work into shutting out the "point and scream racist" crowd.

What's more, people are still talking about slavery. They insult the white males of today as if they let it happen, and act as if they deserve reimbursement because their great grandparents were slaves. This is so illogical that I don't know where to start. Anyone should see the hole in this already.

Then again, this is a human issue, not a racial issue. Not every person from each race is ruled by their generalizations, trust me. Things just happen that way.

 

[Naruto is Zyzz]

How is it racist to note the advancements Europe made compared to others?

The line had absoultely nothing to do with this thread. I never asked for or wanted respect. I want the freedom to be able to talk about race, and promote white excellence just like blacks do. I don't give a shit about respect.

Where did i mention a racial hierarchy? How is it racist that I don't turn a blind eye to the strengths and weaknesses of race?

What does the time of the video have to do with its subject matter? The video is still relevant to today. I love how you say "its 2014" like humans have transcended to some other planet or something.

It's racist because if you look back at what you said you stated that white people are the best and Europeans technological advancements was proof of that. That's racist and it also means that white people are superior since you said "the best". Not only that but in your previous post you also stated that blacks are inferior. By doing so you made your own personal racial hierarchy in which blacks are inferior and whites superior? Take a moment to re-read your posts and look at what you said.

Getting to the second point; No we have not transcended to another planet however the world has made amazing advancements since the 90's. Do you really believe that the world is still the same as it was back then? A lot has changed. Furthermore if you could post more recent events such as after the GFC in 2008 it would give your arguments more credibility. As they are a better reflection of the world right now.

 

[Ldude]

When you were oppressed and slaved for 250 years then your race could talk about race openly, it's not a double standard. Even if it is a double standard, it is that way because of the white man ways, if you didn't do horrible things in the past then you wouldn't be limited in the future.

Then should women get to write misandrist lyrics for all their past oppression, even though much of it is gone?

 

[Avani]

Then should women get to write misandrist lyrics for all their past oppression, even though much of it is gone?

lol I asked the same thing it got ignored.