Racism

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

You are making these ridiculous claims that the poor are somehow worse off in the United States than in Canada (with no evidence to support this), in order to bash the US. If you want to actually discuss something of substance, and stop referring to "you Americans" causing all these problems (implying that Aedes and myself, and other Americans on this board are personally responsible for some nonexistent mistreatment of poor people in America) then we could talk about policies that might actually help the poor (welfare was a failure). Until then, continue the anti-US bash-fest, it is quite hilarious that your jealousy inspires such violent passion!

Ya know, that you feel the compulsion to say that I, or any non-American, is jealous of you, really says a lot about how little you think of the rest of the world. It shows your atypical American utter contempt. Yes, I'm generalizing, but hey, when the whole world says that you scorn everything non-American, then just maybe you do.

To the heart of the matter; find a welfare system that does work. And, to appease Aedes and the "it works too well" type, (in other words, it doesn't actually work) find one that doesn't work too well. It ain't that hard, others have figured it out. You Americans can too! I believe in you America!:flowers::whistling:

@Solace,

Solace;34916 wrote:

Ya know, that you feel the compulsion to say that I, or any non-American, is jealous of you, really says a lot about how little you think of the rest of the world. It shows your atypical American utter contempt. Yes, I'm generalizing, but hey, when the whole world says that you scorn everything non-American, then just maybe you do.

I don't feel compelled to say this...but what else am I to think? You criticize us personally for the fact that our government threw out a failing welfare policy on what basis? Are poor people worse-off in the US compared to Canada? This is what you seem to claim, yet there is no data to support it. And if you do not claim this, then why are you whining about welfare if our poor people are doing just as well as those in Canada?

Quote:

To the heart of the matter; find a welfare system that does work. And, to appease Aedes and the "it works too well" type, (in other words, it doesn't actually work) find one that doesn't work too well. It ain't that hard, others have figured it out. You Americans can too! I believe in you America!:flowers::whistling:

Why do we need welfare? The goal of welfare is to help poor people, yet isn't there something else that could be done to help them, besides re-institute a wasteful govt.-run social program to suck down tax dollars?

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

I don't feel compelled to say this...but what else am I to think? You criticize us personally for the fact that our government threw out a failing welfare policy on what basis? Are poor people worse-off in the US compared to Canada? This is what you seem to claim, yet there is no data to support it. And if you do not claim this, then why are you whining about welfare if our poor people are doing just as well as those in Canada?

Why do we need welfare? The goal of welfare is to help poor people, yet isn't there something else that could be done to help them, besides re-institute a wasteful govt.-run social program to suck down tax dollars?

Okay let's not turn this around. Let's not forget that you were the one who said,

Quote:

And if you compare countries around the world, standards of living are better, and disparity between classes is lower, in those countries which tend to be more capitalist than socialist.

which automatically insinuates the further a country sways toward capitalism the better the standard of living becomes. Well, the US is more capitalistic than Canada, and Canada is more socialistic than the US. So you didn't stop to think for a moment that a Canadian (or anyone else from a country that is more socialistic than the US) might read what you said in that post and take absolutely justified offense?

I know I came on too strong and said things that I shouldn't have, and I apologize for that. But this sort of attitude is part and parcel to the very sorts of things that we've been talking about in this thread, not racism precisely but certainly prejudice and unfair judgements.

@Solace,

Solace;34919 wrote:

which automatically insinuates the further a country sways toward capitalism the better the standard of living becomes. Well, the US is more capitalistic than Canada, and Canada is more socialistic than the US. So you didn't stop to think for a moment that a Canadian (or anyone else from a country that is more socialistic than the US) might read what you said in that post and take absolutely justified offense?

I know I came on too strong and said things that I shouldn't have, and I apologize for that. But this sort of attitude is part and parcel to the very sorts of things that we've been talking about in this thread, not racism precisely but certainly prejudice and unfair judgements.

Making that statement was not a judgment; it was restating a fact that is accepted by the overwhelming majority of economists.

Saying that economies are better which tend more towards capitalism than towards socialism does not at all mean that the further a country moves towards capitalism, the better it is. If you took it to mean this, then that was not my intent.

When we define "socialist" and "capitalist" economic systems, we realize that in reality, all will fall between the two extremes. My statement was only to say that those countries tending toward capitalism more than socialism will be more prosperous, in general. And, while Canada may have more socialist policies than the United States, I would say that it still tends more towards being capitalist than it does towards being socialist (of course relatively speaking)...so I was not saying anything about Canada. I am certainly not saying that a capitalist extreme is desirable.

@Pangloss,

I can accept that a more capitalistic economy is stronger, yes, but it is how that strength is used that determines factors such as standard of living and disparity of wealth between social classes, and not how strong said economy is. Granted, the stronger it is the more it has to use, but also the more it has to abuse, as your commentary on the corruption of American welfare claims points out. So the trick for any country would be to figure out a proper balance between capitalism and socialism that not only keeps the economy strong but also uses that wealth to vitalize as many areas of social concern as that country can possibly strengthen. Doing so would be a good step toward alleviating poverty and resolving at least some of racial tension.

@OctoberMist,

OK... STOP! :nonooo:

While this bunny hop over to Canadian and American Economics could be passed of as, 'on topic'... technically it's not. It's another topic in and of itself. Feel free to open such a discussion in the Philosophy of Politics forum.

There's also been some of what we consider flaming in this thread which is prohibited in this forum. For those of you who don't know what flaming is:[INDENT]What is Flaming?

Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between members of the forum. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a forum discussion. An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others into remaining on topic.

Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attacking those that disagree.

Flaming is the use of insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject and are used to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they can be also be trolling.

What is Trolling?

An Internet troll, or simply trolling in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion. Trolling is not allowed in this forum.
[/INDENT]Thanks again for the efforts put forth by members to stay away from flaming each other on these forums. It's tough to do in some of the most volatile subjects of discussion... as we all know.

Please make any necessary edits in your posts to clean the flaming up and continue on with the topic of Racism without insult. :whistling: Thank you very much and thank you for being a participant here on the forums.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

That's only racism if the characteristics are pejorative! For me to say that black people generally have darker skin than white people is not racism. But to say that black people are savages would be racism.

When it's neutral it's a generalization; when it's overapplied to the point that it becomes an assumption, it's a stereotype. And when it's pejorative, demeaning, negative, then it's racism. Of course racism can be active, too -- I mean categorically refusing to hire people because of their race is racism, whether or not there is a generalization behind it.

Do you understand?

That's not correct even in theory. If (to simplify) 65% of the country is white, but 95% of "desirable job x" is filled by white people, then whites are overrepresented and minorities underrepresented in this job relative to their proportion in the general population. So affirmative action seeks to incentivize hiring of minorities such that they're represented in proportion to their fraction of the total population.

We'd love to. Any suggestions?

I know that is not racism, but its the meaning I give to the word, or rather, the meaning I believe the word should have. what you described should be called "negative racism" or something like it. I dont control the english language tough Smile

If in a country the minorities need a shair fare of representation else their situation gets grim then the people of this country are segregative. In this case trying to override the will of the population by forcing the majority to accept the minority in higher positions will only make things worse. The ideal solution would be for the government to promote campaings against segregation.

Yes. Lets start finding a way of doing so. We wont get a utopic civilization, like it seens that we want, if we dont start doing things that seen like utopic dreams.

@manored,

manored;35038 wrote:

I know that is not racism, but its the meaning I give to the word, or rather, the meaning I believe the word should have.

If we're going to find common ground in ideas, which is the whole point of philosophical discourse, we should probably at the bare minimum agree to use words the same way whether we fully agree or not!

Quote:

If in a country the minorities need a shair fare of representation else their situation gets grim then the people of this country are segregative.

Perhaps, but it also may be that the majority are not sufficiently aware of problems unique to that minority. That in itself is a justification for integration and representation.

Quote:

trying to override the will of the population by forcing the majority to accept the minority in higher positions will only make things worse.

You mean like abolishing slavery (opposed by the majority) made things worse? (And I'll remind you that slavery wasn't abolished until after the battle of Antietam in 1862, which was a crushing strategic defeat for the Confederacy -- the war was underway long before abolition).

The reason we elect people to office is that we can't always trust the popular majority to make the right or moral decision.

@OctoberMist,

It's a bit of a paradox, really. To judge someone by thier skin is to be a bigot, yet deveryone does it, no matter how minescule the difference seems. I use myself as an example. When I was about nine, I was mildly beaten by a few black teenagers. I still feel slightly uncomfortable around black men who i don't know. Yet I find nothing against black people, and have multiple black friends. I guess it just matters on what kind of history you've had with a race or sex.

@OctoberMist,

Oh and by the way Aedes, Antietam was technically only a marginal victory for the Union. You might be thinking of Guettysburg...

@averroes,

averroes;35114 wrote:

Oh and by the way Aedes, Antietam was technically only a marginal victory for the Union. You might be thinking of Guettysburg...

No, I'm thinking of Antietam. It was a tactical draw in terms of territory won, but it was an enormous strategic victory for the Union. The losses at Antietam were so severe that Lee was forced to withdraw from his first invasion of the north and fortify beyond the Rappahanock. In fact, had Ambrose Burnside and Joe Hooker (Union) not been so inept in the winter of 1862-1863 (after Antietam), running into their own slaughter at Fredericksburg and coughing up what could have been a devastating victory at Chancellorsville, there never would have been a Gettysburg or Vicksburg.

The Emancipation Proclamation was announced right after Antietam specifically because of the magnitude of that victory for the north, especially after their blunders at First and Second Bull Run and on the coast of Virginia. Lincoln counted on Europe (which was very anti-slavery) coming to the aid of the Union if 1) they abolished slavery and 2) the war didn't look like a lost cause. So the abolition of slavery was timed for international political strategy, and it was Antietam that made that possible.

@OctoberMist,

Granted, Confederate losses were devestating, but the Union casualties were equal if not larger. I forgot to consider how in numbers and supplies differed between the two armies. And I was debating the severity of the battle, not the Time of Emancipation Proclamation.

@averroes,

What you have to remember is that the Union could sustain those high losses, whereas the Confederacy could not.

@OctoberMist,

Yep...
When you look at it though, even with the same man to man ratio, had the Confederacy been able to give thier soldiers the same amount of provisions (guns, munitions, clothing) they would have won the war.

@OctoberMist,

Yes, casualties on both sides were horrific at Antietam and the Union botched and mismanaged the battle. But that's all tactical. As you guys have been discussing, the Confederacy was simply not able to withstand a war of attrition the way the Union could, especially during their two battles in Union lands (Antietam and Gettysburg) with long supply lines.

When Grant took over the Union army, finally giving it a competent leader, he did not bring any sort of magical tactical sensibility. I mean no one for the Union was even a shadow of the battlefield tactician of Lee, Jackson, or Longstreet. But Grant understood that the whole point of military strategy was to destroy your opponent's ability to wage war -- not to capture cities. So his overland campaign in Virginia in 1864, especially in the bigger battles like Spotsylvania and Wilderness, was a matter of bludgeoning the Confederate army into tactical stalemates, despite suffering grievous losses of his own. Because he knew that he could make up those losses and Lee couldn't. That's what eventually led to the siege of Petersburg, which was effectively a sneak peak at World War I tactics.

But anyway, back to racism, the point I was making was that Lincoln emancipated the southern slaves against a clear majority opposition (this was under his assumption that the confederate states were still part of the union); and in contrast to the post I'd responded to before, this WAS to the benefit of the country and to humanity. The majority isn't always right.

Quote:

When you look at it though, even with the same man to man ratio, had the Confederacy been able to give thier soldiers the same amount of provisions (guns, munitions, clothing) they would have won the war.

Obviously that's hard to know, but I'm not sure that's correct. I mean if the Confederacy had won the war, it would have only been because the North had lost the will to fight. But there is no circumstance in which I can imagine the Confederacy completely destroying the North's military, their agricultural or industrial productivity, or taking much of their territory. I mean the virtual entirety of the war was fought on southern land.

Remember that you are mainly focusing on Lee's army here, the Army of Northern Virginia. And that's where the Confederacy's resources and elite leadership was concentrated. But Jefferson Davis was an utter moron of a president, and he decided to micromanage the war himself and not have a military commander of all southern armies. So Robert E. Lee did NOT command the armies in Mississippi, in Kentucky, etc. On the other hand, Lincoln DID have a supreme command of all Union strategy under various people, initially Winfield Scott and ultimately Grant. This allowed coordinated strategy between different theaters in the war; and it's why the dual blow of Gettysburg and Vicksburg (perhaps more important than Gettysburg) was possible. Lincoln was clearly a better war leader than Davis, who with his coterie were basically a band of raving village idiots.

Also, don't forget the economic pressure and naval warfare in which the Union utterly trounced the Confederacy. The Union blockade of the southern ports, and then (after the battles of New Orleans and Vicksburg) complete control of the Mississippi, was every bit as effective and decisive as the Allied blockade of Germany during the first world war -- and it's chiefly responsible for the Confederacy's poverty and inability to supply its troops.

Finally, the famous southern generals were all brilliant battlefield tacticians in the style of Napoleonic warfare, i.e. maneuvering and studying height of land and using multipronged attacks and using cavalry, etc, etc. But apart from Longstreet (who was very much marginalized by Jackson), the south did NOT have anyone who truly understood modern warfare. The north had generals by the end who understood 1) that the defensive position is FAR stronger than the offensive one with modern weapons -- hence Pickett's charge, for instance; 2) that the movements of armies should not be to capture capital cities or to sway public opinion -- it should be to destroy the opponent's army; and 3) that a holistic war strategy includes destroying the opponent's industry and economy.

So all of this adds up to a bunch of things that STILL favored the Union in the end, and were perhaps more important than their advantage in numbers.

@OctoberMist,

On the matter of Pickett's Charge, that was an act of desperation unusual for Lee
And sure, in the middle of the war odds favored the Union, but before then, they only had the Confederacy at sea. Had Lee been able to set up a proper supply chain and been able to give his men what they needed, they could have taken Washington Before the end of the second or third year.

"But anyway, back to racism, the point I was making was that Lincoln emancipated the southern slaves against a clear majority opposition (this was under his assumption that the confederate states were still part of the union); and in contrast to the post I'd responded to before, this WAS to the benefit of the country and to humanity. The majority isn't always right."

I do have to say, as gripping as the speech was in itself, the E.P. has to be one of the most pointless documents in U.S. history

@averroes,

averroes;35143 wrote:

On the matter of Pickett's Charge, that was an act of desperation unusual for Lee

It was just one example, though. They made the same mistake on Little Round top on the previous day, it just wasn't so one sided. Longstreet had argued for them to take defensive postures on territory of their choosing, and Lee overruled him. All I'm saying, though, is that by the Civil War, when there were accurate rifles and machine guns, the tactical advantage heavily favored the defender. Fredericksburg and Cold Harbor were two Union debacles that made the same mistake as in Pickett's Charge.

Quote:

And sure, in the middle of the war odds favored the Union, but before then, they only had the Confederacy at sea. Had Lee been able to set up a proper supply chain and been able to give his men what they needed, they could have taken Washington Before the end of the second or third year.

Again, taking Washington would have been pointless if they didn't destroy the Union army. I mean the British took Washington during the war of 1812 and it didn't matter. They took Boston, New York, and Philadelphia during the Revolution and it didn't matter. Napoleon took Moscow and it didn't matter. Hitler took everything from Paris all the way to Odessa, Kiev, and Minsk, and it didn't matter. To win a war you need to defeat the enemy's army. The Union kept making the mistake thinking that taking Richmond would end the war. Hence the abortive Williamsburg campaign, the carelessness (really underestimation of their enemy) at First and Second Bull run, etc. In the end, Grant did not even attack Richmond. He moved towards Richmond and Petersburg only because he knew that it would force Lee to fight and expose his army.

Also, don't forget that the Confederacy's best chance to win the war was in 1861-1862 when the Union military leadership was most inept, the Confederacy's morale high, and their supplies better. And they couldn't get it done then. The Union had hideous morale in 1862 after botching the war up to that point. Even Lee knew that they couldn't "conquer" the north. His whole strategy was to invade Maryland (a Union state that had initially been a rebel state), and threaten (but NOT necessarily capture) Philadelphia and Washington. His hopes were that in so doing the North would give up. That led to Antietam, of course, and then he tried a similar approach again a year later at Gettysburg.

So if Lee at the height of the Confederacy's power didn't think they could beat the north except by demoralizing them to the point of withdrawal, I don't think a strong case can be made that later in the war they'd have fared any better.

@OctoberMist,

Fair point, yet you can only imagine how utterly demolished Union Morale would have been had Washingto been captured...

@OctoberMist,

That's very true. I think if it had happened very early in the war it might not have ended it. But there were many other points (even after Gettysburg) that the Union was in moral shambles (and Lincoln was no guarantee to win in 1864 when the Confederacy was a disaster).

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

If we're going to find common ground in ideas, which is the whole point of philosophical discourse, we should probably at the bare minimum agree to use words the same way whether we fully agree or not!

Perhaps, but it also may be that the majority are not sufficiently aware of problems unique to that minority. That in itself is a justification for integration and representation.

You mean like abolishing slavery (opposed by the majority) made things worse? (And I'll remind you that slavery wasn't abolished until after the battle of Antietam in 1862, which was a crushing strategic defeat for the Confederacy -- the war was underway long before abolition).

The reason we elect people to office is that we can't always trust the popular majority to make the right or moral decision.

Indeed but the meaning of racism was not clarified then the discussion started, actually it seens there were a lot of different meanings mixed up Smile

If there were problems unique to that minority then there would be either segregation involved or racism would be correct.

Well in the case of USA the abolishment helped the economy, if the abolishment had happened for social reasons alone it would not have worked until the people started agreeing with it, like I believe was exactly what happened.

You cant force people to respect others, but you can persuade. Making laws in favor of the minority to compensate the fact of that the majority doesnt respects it will make the majority angry.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know