The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100
ArisGreenleaf
I suppose you're right. Whatever...someone just gave me negative rep! Restricting blacks from voting is segregationalist.


But that's my point. I don't think there were any ACTUAL laws that restricted black sufferage were there?
Reply 101
Howard
But that's my point. I don't think there were any ACTUAL laws that restricted black sufferage were there?



Listen, Howie.... the pledge says "liberty and justice for all." The Declaration of Independence says "all men are equal." Whatever! It didn't matter did it??? NO! Because racism still existed. Racist laws were de facto...i think. But a law had to be made banning discrimination because that's U.S. HIstory for you!
Reply 102
Oh hell now my avatar isn't even showing...somebody really hates me.
The only problem with inter-racial relationships etc is when the time comes to boot everyone out but true english.
Reply 104
ArisGreenleaf
Listen, Howie.... the pledge says "liberty and justice for all." The Declaration of Independence says "all men are equal." Whatever! It didn't matter did it??? NO! Because racism still existed. Racist laws were de facto...i think. But a law had to be made banning discrimination because that's U.S. HIstory for you!


Don't "Howie" me!

I do actually know the words to the pledge of allegience thankyou very much. I also am well aware what the declaration of independence says, and how the constitution reads.

The simple fact is that the framers of these documents didn't consider blacks as being men. When they said "all men are created equal" they meant all freeborn white men and not black slaves. This is fairly obvious as most of the people that drafted these documents were slave owners themselves. Emancipation really wasn't an issue was it?

Don't play the history game with me.
Howard
I don't know why "mixed race kids CAN ONLY BE a good thing" Maybe it's excellent. Maybe not. I don't know.

What I do know is that the question of inter-racial marriage is becoming less and less relevent, certainly in the States, where after a spike, it now seems that people are returning to their own race where marriage is concerned.

Interestingly, I was flicking through a piece in "foreign policy" (A US publication) this weekend and learned that marriage rates between white anglo-protestants and hispanics has actually fallen drastically over the last 15 years despite Mexican born immigrants now forming the largest immigrant community in the US. (over 7 million)

There seems to be less assimmilation, not more. 15 years ago the most common name for a hispanic boy born in the US was Michael. It is now Jose.

As the hispanic population continues to grow (it is now the largest ethnic minority in the US) there will be more and more opportunity to marry "ones own kind" and the assimilation issue will die off.

The US will become a country of two peoples and not an assimilated nation of inter-racial marriage and mixed-race kids.



Well excuse me if im wrong but white people in the USA are also 'immigrants'. And Michael isnt really a 'white' name if you think about it :wink:
The whole race issue pisses me off. You should be allowed to do what you want, why should some satistics or other people deter you?
MadNatSci
They can't interbreed. They're both from the cat family, but different species:

Lion = Panthera leo
Tiger = Panthera tigris

i think they can but the offspring a 'liger' is infertile like a mule (half horse, half donkey). My brother saw a stuffed liger in the museum and they're bloody huge apparently.
ToshTrent
There is a place in Africa called Nigger mind.



Was that meant to be funny, or piss taking? Im sure the country was called Niger.
Reply 108
ThornsnRoses
Well excuse me if im wrong but white people in the USA are also 'immigrants'. And Michael isnt really a 'white' name if you think about it :wink:
The whole race issue pisses me off. You should be allowed to do what you want, why should some satistics or other people deter you?


Well excuse me but I was making a point about "assimilation" which was what I was replying to so what's your fuc*in problem?
iiikewldude
i think they can but the offspring a 'liger' is infertile like a mule (half horse, half donkey). My brother saw a stuffed liger in the museum and they're bloody huge apparently.



OK, sorry, didn't know about the liger, but see my later post. Different species = can't interbreed to produce fertile offspring. (The point being that humans can, whatever their race, and therefore the earlier poster's point was very flawed.)
ThornsnRoses
Was that meant to be funny, or piss taking? Im sure the country was called Niger.


Errm... Neither, just a typo
Reply 111
Howard
Don't "Howie" me!

I do actually know the words to the pledge of allegience thankyou very much. I also am well aware what the declaration of independence says, and how the constitution reads.

The simple fact is that the framers of these documents didn't consider blacks as being men. When they said "all men are created equal" they meant all freeborn white men and not black slaves. This is fairly obvious as most of the people that drafted these documents were slave owners themselves. Emancipation really wasn't an issue was it?

Don't play the history game with me.



Fine then. Listen "How"...
You haven't won the argument, just so you know. I was only momentarily detained. Some gutless wonder has the nerve to give negative reputation to people who stick up for themselves. But I don't care. Grey looks better than green anyway! Coward!

The point of me saying all men created equal is not to examine the mindset of the people creating the declaration. You as a person should know that blacks, whites, cubans, asians are all people. So, no matter what the creators of the declaration meant, what they declared was a country of equality for all human beings. Maybe Jefferson should have more clear about his writing next time, or maybe he did that on purpose. He did afterall have black mistresses!!! Apparently Americans came to their senses anyway and learned a little about cross-cultural human anatomies.

Furthermore your arguement claiming the nonexistence of laws preventing blacks from having equal rights is beyond me! Yes there were ACTUAL laws against black people.
http://www.jacksonsun.com/civilrights/sec1_crow.shtml
Reply 112
ToshTrent
Yeh I have, sorry for jumping on the band waggon.


ToshTrent
The only problem with inter-racial relationships etc is when the time comes to boot everyone out but true english.


And to think I almost felt sorry for you. Why the hell would anyone want to seperate the races? Human beings really are a selfish lot.
ArisGreenleaf
And to think I almost felt sorry for you. Why the hell would anyone want to seperate the races? Human beings really are a selfish lot.



I have to say I interpreted the second of your quotes as a joke... :confused:
ArisGreenleaf
And to think I almost felt sorry for you. Why the hell would anyone want to seperate the races? Human beings really are a selfish lot.


MadNatSci
I have to say I interpreted the second of your quotes as a joke... :confused:


It was a humourless joke indeed. I don't believe there to be a true single race, well not in this day and age.

Sorry if it offended you in anyway though.
ToshTrent
It was a humourless joke indeed. I don't believe there to be a true single race, well not in this day and age.

Sorry if it offended you in anyway though.


No-one is totally pure; there is always mixing of races.
suspicious_fish
No-one is totally pure; there is always mixing of races.


I'm a "pure" engish. My Uncle did out family tree back in to the dark years, to a year I can't even imagine how he got the details, and the members of the family have always been English. So you can get a pure race, but extremly rare.
ToshTrent
I'm a "pure" engish. My Uncle did out family tree back in to the dark years, to a year I can't even imagine how he got the details, and the members of the family have always been English. So you can get a pure race, but extremly rare.


I stand corrected, but you're one of a very, very small minority.
Always bear in mind the possibility of inaccuracies due to social/political norms, i.e. if it "just wasn't done" for an English man to marry a Spanish woman because of tension or war between the countries, it could be easily glossed over in official records.
ToshTrent
I'm a "pure" engish. My Uncle did out family tree back in to the dark years, to a year I can't even imagine how he got the details, and the members of the family have always been English. So you can get a pure race, but extremly rare.



You're pure English? How far back did he trace? Anglo-Saxon/Celtic times? Since the Anglo-Saxons were the 'English' - well, in fact I believe it's just the Aengles (sp?) who only occupied East Anglia... I bet you aren't really "pure" English, that'd be highly unlikely :smile: Anyway, even then you're descended from invaders :tongue: :wink:
ToshTrent
I'm a "pure" engish. My Uncle did out family tree back in to the dark years, to a year I can't even imagine how he got the details, and the members of the family have always been English. So you can get a pure race, but extremly rare.

How far back? 20 generations- 600 years, say- you had 1048576 ancestors. True, many would turn up more than once, but your uncle would have to check on every one of them. Go back about another 900 years for when the English immigrants arrived..., and you'll have to make sure there wasn't any Jutish, Vandal etc ancestors before they came over.

Latest

Trending

Trending