User Controls
Technologist: let's have a 'constructive conversation about systemic racism'
-
2020-08-08 at 2:32 PM UTCor baking soda if you're a nigger
-
2020-08-08 at 2:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Splam Please, they'd still be living in teepees. Majority of their infants would still be dying of before growing up. We brought them civilization. At the moment many choose to self segregate on their reserves. Many choose to live off the res too. And you can see the difference in the success of those that do. The natives who surround themselves with natives are unsuccessful. It's a problem with their culture, not ours.
each and every different culture have their own definition of what 'successful' is.
stop being a white supremacist and expect everyone to adopt white mens definition of what success is and is not.
r u a biggot ? -
2020-08-08 at 3:28 PM UTC
-
2020-08-08 at 4:42 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra Mostly because the CIA intentionally allowed crack to flood into black cities to fund the Contras and their own black budget
That is exactly what happened. In 1983 congress took the CIA off of the high thirty when they voted to make the CIA report to congress what they did with their annual 2 billion dollar covert ops funding. Previously this was one of the few parts of the budget that didn't have to report annually. 1983 is the same year Noriega came to power in Panama. It is also the same time that coke started to flood the market. That year weed went from around $100/lb to around $40/¼ oz due how much more money a Sq ft of white earned smugglers VS a Sq ft of green. -
2020-08-08 at 4:49 PM UTC
-
2020-08-08 at 4:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe As an example many of those who attended residential schools have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, suffering from such symptoms as panic attacks, insomnia, and uncontrollable or unexplainable anger. Simply stating that other groups also have problems doesn't change the fact that the documented systemic racism experienced by these groups contributed to their problems.
Not uncommon for ADOPTED children to have higher rates of suicide, drug abuse, etc.
Natives couldn't take care of their children, so the state had to. Thus they faced the same treatment as all children of the state.
You're making the assumption that it was because of their race, nevermind the fact that they were poor savages that needed civilizing. Can you imagine the state of Indian Affairs if not for residential schools? Are you aware of the rates of PTSD where parents neglect their children? Are there any other factors other than "invisible racism" that it can be attributed to?
Originally posted by vindicktive vinny each and every different culture have their own definition of what 'successful' is.
stop being a white supremacist and expect everyone to adopt white mens definition of what success is and is not.
r u a biggot ?
Same definition as a successful animal species, or that of a successful disease. Spread and conquer. -
2020-08-08 at 4:51 PM UTCMaybe the civilized needed to be savagedized
-
2020-08-08 at 4:54 PM UTCNot to mention, of course all the survivors claim to have PTSD. That's like a Jedi claiming to have lost 11 uncles in the Holocaust. Or a senior center reporting a 97% Corona Death rate. You get a huge fucking payout.
Of course they all got PTSD there. They'd likely have PTSD growing up anywhere. -
2020-08-08 at 5:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by Splam Are there any other factors other than "invisible racism" that it can be attributed to?
I don't doubt it, all I said was the systemic racism contributed. I don't know why you call it invisible, it was blatantly racist abuse. -
2020-08-08 at 8 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I don't doubt it, all I said was the systemic racism contributed. I don't know why you call it invisible, it was blatantly racist abuse.
Despite the reference to one decade, the Sixties Scoop began in the late 1950s and persisted into the 1980s. It is estimated that a total of 20,000 aboriginal children were taken from their families and fostered or adopted out to primarily white middle-class families as part of the Sixties Scoop.[1][2]
20k. That's all. There were probably a million natives who grew up during that time period. Of them, 20k had abuse, drug addicted, or parents incapable of taking care of their children. Those children were adopted out to white families who could take care of them. Chances are their suffering would've been much worse if allowed to stay with their parents. There's a reason we have child services, and we're generous enough to extend this service to the natives who largely don't even pay tax. Not to mention the numbers are fudged because if you were adopted, you're going to claim "PTSD" so that you may get a compensation! -
2020-08-09 at 1:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by Splam 20k. That's all. There were probably a million natives who grew up during that time period. Of them, 20k had abuse, drug addicted, or parents incapable of taking care of their children. Those children were adopted out to white families who could take care of them. Chances are their suffering would've been much worse if allowed to stay with their parents. There's a reason we have child services, and we're generous enough to extend this service to the natives who largely don't even pay tax. Not to mention the numbers are fudged because if you were adopted, you're going to claim "PTSD" so that you may get a compensation!
I didn't realize systemic racism was a competition. -
2020-08-09 at 2:01 AM UTC
-
2020-08-09 at 2:04 AM UTC
-
2020-08-09 at 2:05 AM UTC
-
2020-08-09 at 4:22 AM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Documents containing opinions.
Indigenous person: "This hot stove burnt my hand."
Speedy Parker: "Other people have burns on their hands and they never touched a hot stove! It's only your opinion that the hot stove burnt you! You have no proof this hot stove contributed to the burn on your hand!" -
2020-08-09 at 5:34 AM UTCAn indigenous person burning his hand on a hot stove is now racist?
-
2020-08-09 at 6:53 AM UTCedit nm
-
2020-08-09 at 8:33 AM UTC
-
2020-08-09 at 12:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Indigenous person: "This hot stove burnt my hand."
Speedy Parker: "Other people have burns on their hands and they never touched a hot stove! It's only your opinion that the hot stove burnt you! You have no proof this hot stove contributed to the burn on your hand!"
When you have to misrepresent what was said you admit your argument is weak. -
2020-08-09 at 12:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Speedy Parker When you have to misrepresent what was said you admit your argument is weak.
Doesn't misrepresent what was said at all, except I suppose you would also say "Where's the proof that hot stove even exists? It's just your opinion the stove was hot! It was an 'invisible stove'!"
