Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
Yes, the ratio of blacks is higher than whites because it is a smaller population, but in terms of actual numbers there are more whites depending on benefits than blacks.
So again, if slavery made the blacks "disabled" what made all these white people need welfare...or do they have no excuse like black people do?
|
It's the ratio that matters. It's not fair to say, "There are 10 white people, and of those 10, 5 are on welfare. On the other hand, there are 5 black people, and of the 5, all 5 are on welfare. That means the state of welfare in this country is equal."
I know those aren't the correct numbers, but that's just an example. The same number of people may be on welfare, but all of the black people being on welfare and half of the white people being on welfare definitely doesn't mean that both populations are doing equally well.
All sorts of people are in poverty. I think we need to look at the different places - the different states specifically - to see who it is that's living below the poverty line. I don't think either of us should say, "This population has it off worst, because there are more people on welfare!" I'm not trying to make this into a competition. I'm not trying to blame anyone. All I'm saying is that there are people in this society who have been negatively affected by slavery. One of the results of that is welfare.
I personally don't know much about the issue, but I've also read from time to time that welfare was also constructed to keep certain people down in society. Maybe I can try to find an article on that issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryzorian
Anyword can be used to hurt, if it wasn't this one it would be some other one.
Every "race" has had thier problems historically, it went back to the tribalism from early history. The term Slave is derived from the slavic peoples, who were "white" ironically. I have ancestors from Switzerland who were occupied by the Hapsburgs for years, I also have ancestors from Scottland, who fought along side King "Longshanks" against their fellow Scottsmen because they got a castle out of the deal.
I'm sure everyone can find oppressed and oppressor both in thier family tree, if they go back far enough.
People have to remember that they aren't thier ancestors, you have to be responsable for your own actions and live accordingly.
|
That's definitely true. I don't think anyone was trying to say otherwise. But, like I've said before, this isn't about "who had it worst." This isn't a competition of the oppressed and the oppressor. This isn't the blame game. For me, it's about the USA and how some words simply aren't acceptable anymore because of our history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan
|
Oh. I hadn't realized we were now discussing this thread on an international level. I personally was talking about the USA, and USA history, and USA culture when it came to acceptable words and unacceptable words. It's fine to bring this into the discussion too, though I don't know as much about European culture. It makes me curious, though, what role ethnic slurs play in European society and culture.
Yeah, when you're looking at other countries, you're right - serfdom was a pretty serious oppressive phenomenon.