From: david@gdstech.grumman.com (David Nettles)
Subject: Re:  Re: Interracial Dating
Reply-To: david@gdstech.UUCP (David Nettles)
Organization: Grumman Data Systems-Woodbury
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:44:51 GMT

In article <37507@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>In article <1992Oct23.130932.3482@gdstech.grumman.com> david@gdstech.UUCP (David Nettles) writes:
>
># These things you gain because the white people who came before you
># enslaved and all but extinguished the Natives who had nations here
># before and by enslaving the people of Africa to continue the work.
>
>It's true that the colonists stole this land and its resources from
>the Native Americans.  But it's also true that whatever benefits came
>from that theft accrue to *everyone* living here now -- including
>Indians alive today.

No.  That's not true.  You are essentially saying that there is a kind
of "trickle-down" effect associated with this theft.  The whites take
the land, blood, culture, and souls of the Natives and Blacks, use
them, destroy them, then return the damaged goods telling them to be
thankful for it.

You yourself realize the falicy of your own statement.  As you will
later state within this post

	"It is easy to demonstrate, both experimentally and
	statistically, that substantial discrimination still exists.
	There is a strong case for demanding government help against
	people who discriminate and perhaps for compensation to those
	who are discriminated against."

In your opening statement you state that "whatever benefits came from
that theft accrue to *everyone* living here now -- including Indians
alive today."  But by this statement you show that what you actually
believe is not what is represented by reality -- and further that you
do recognize it.

> I think we should give land back to Indian
>groups that want it, but I don't think most would go back to a
>stone-age existence.

I do sense at least racism in your statement.  Most certainly I sense
a great deal of culturalcentrism.  By stating that the Natives lived
in a "stone-age existence" you imply that there did not exist a valid
culture or lifestyle before the encounter with the Europeans.

The term "stone-age" implies that the people before had absolutely
nothing of value socialy, culturaly, or religiously.

This is reinforced by the notion that what the whites did to the
Natives was justified; that because they had no valid society
(socialy or culturaly) it was the right of the whites to enslave the
Natives and erradicate their culture.

>
># This is the legacy left behind by the whites who came before you.
>
>If you are talking about direct inheritance, this is certainly false.
>In the first place, more than 50% of the whites in America today are
>descended from people who came here after the end of slavery and after
>the theft of the land from the Indians.  In addition, the Civil War
>destroyed the wealth of most of the people profiting directly from
>slavery, and the Depression and other random financial disasters
>certainly wiped out most of the rest.  I doubt very much whether there
>is any measurable correlation between the assets and income of white
>people alive today and those of their direct ancestors at the time
>you're talking about.

You missed the point.  You inherit the right

	NOT to be descriminated against when seeking a housing loan
	NOT to be descriminated against when seeking a business loan
	NOT to be descriminated against when buying a house
	NOT to be descriminated against when looking for a job
	NOT to be harrassed by police
	NOT to be assumed a criminal when entering a store
	NOT to have your schools ignored when funding is needed
	NOT to have your neighborhoods ignored funding is needed
	NOT to have the media reinforce this stereotypes

on the basis of the color of your skin.

>
>If you are talking about a more general inheritance, it may well be
                                                         ^^^--??!
It most certainly is true.

>true that the American economy was advanced by the cheap forced labor
>of the slaves (although some economists seem to debate that point),
>but once slavery ended, as I said above, those benefits became
>available to all Americans, including the descendants of the slaves.

They did not.  Even though slavery ended, there were still laws on the
books that openly descriminated against Blacks.  For instance, up
until the late 1960's there were still some states in which it was
still considered illegal for a Black and a white to marry.  There were
still laws on the books that openly denied Blacks the right to vote.
Segregation within the all facets of American society was actually
supported by the government (remember "separate but equal"?).  It took
100 years after the slaves were freed before they were given their
rights as citizens.

>And if you're claiming that whites alive today should feel guilt for
>something someone did centuries ago -- well, you're whistling into the
>wind.  No one could take such a silly argument seriously -- except, of
>course, the "bleeding heart liberals" that we all like to sneer at.
>
># Nope.  But if because you are 5'10" you inherit the property
># stollen by the 5'10" people who murdered and stole before you, then
># you are in posession of stolen property, and will have to return
># it.
>#
># Classic modern day example of this is with regards to car theft.  A
># car thief steals a car in New York, then gives it as a gift to a
># friend in New Jersey to someone else.  The police find the stolen
># car, informs the new owner that the car was stolen, then returns
># the car to the original owner.
>#
># It is not important whether or not the thief was ever caught.
>
>Right.  But you have to find the car.  If your grandfather stole my
>grandfather's car, and I catch you driving the car, I can have it
>back.  But if your grandfather stole my grandfather's car and crashed
>it, I can't just come along and take your car.

In the first analogy there is the case of a car stolen by a grandparent
from another grandparent and being later returned to the grandson.

In the second analogy it is virtually the same case except that the
car was damaged.  You state that because the car was damaged by the
theif that the car cannot be returned to the grandson -- that is to
say that you believe that once the theif damages the goods, the goods
becomes the property of the theif.  This cannot be further from the
truth.  What really happens is that the owner receives their property
AND the theif is made to pay compensation for the damages and
depreciation caused by the theif.

>
># I would just like to point out that the government of the United
># States of America did pay reparations to the survivors and
># decendants of Japanese-American (I believe other Asian-American)
># citizens who were forced into American concentration camps during
># World War II.
>
>They paid survivors, but not descendants.  That's a critical
>distinction.

No.  They paid both.  This was in recognition of the fact that by
interning the parent (who survived or not) they destroyed the lives of
the children and the grandchildren that followed.

># And keep in mind that it can be demonstrated very easily how being
># white will afford a person (you for example) numerous advantages
># with regards to housing, approval for loans for home and business,
># advancement within corporate structures, treatment by police,
># service in resturants, and the list goes on and on.
>
>This is a completely different issue.
>
>It is easy to demonstrate, both experimentally and statistically, that
>substantial discrimination still exists.  There is a strong case for
>demanding government help against people who discriminate and perhaps
>for compensation to those who are discriminated against.

No.  It is very much related.  You in your opening statement stated
"But it's also true that whatever benefits came from that theft
accrue to *everyone* living here now -- including Indians alive
today."  You will have to choose which statement you believe in.

It is either the case that the "benefits [that] came from that theft"
are being enjoyed by "*everyone*" or that there is discrimination that
exists in American that prevents "*everyone*" from enjoying the
benifits.

It appears, David, that you, and other whites, enjoy the benifits that
came from that theft and that discrimination exists against those who
are non-white.

>It is also true that that just as there is little correlation between
>the affluence of living Americans and their ancestors from six
>generations back, there is a strong correlation between the affluence
>of two successive generations.  Most blacks alive today were either
>directly affected by the Jim Crow laws and concomitant discrimination
>that existed until the 60s or are the children of people in that
>category.  This means that the difference between black and white
>affluence today *is* largely due to factors outside the control of
>individual black people, and came about specifically because of the
>racial difference.
>
>It is this current and recent discrimination, not the era of slavery,
>that deserves remedy and compensation.

We came into this recent era of discrimination as the result of a 500
year assault on the culture and dignity of Native and Black peoples.
We are not talking about 500 years of aspousing "bad ideas" about
people.  We are talking about slavery and genocide.  We are talking
about the forced use of these peoples as the machinery that built the
nation.

To refuse this on your part is to declare that the claims of my people
are invalid.

We pay reparations to the children of Asians who were interned in the
American concetration camps.  And they deserve every penny and more
for what they went through.

But when it come to the plight of Black and Native peoples.  It is
always said that we have to forget the past.  It is always believed
that neither the Natives nor the Africans even had a cultures,
societies, or even souls that could be values as such.  It is always
believed that our peoples were done some great favor and that we
should be happy that we get to live in this America.

>The importance of this distinction is that bad arguments do not win
>battles.  Attempts to make whites feel guilty for the actions of
>people long since dead or for the current discrimination of people in
>positions of power will simply antagonize them.  If that's your goal,
>and you don't want their help, fine.  But most people are sympathetic
>toward the underdog, as the 80% disapproval rating of the verdict in
>the LA cop trial showed, for instance.

The goal is to end racism.
The goal is to end discrimination.
The goal is to make the true history of this nation known.
The goal is to make this nation recognize its true face and stare at
it long and hard and recognize that face for what it is.
The goal is to gain today the recognition and respect that our
ancestors never received.

And if you feel guilty over the fact that you are still gaining
benifits from your ancestors pilagry, then you have begun to recognize
the true face of this America.

After this comes the more difficult step.  Upon realizing the true
face of this culture and your place within it will you:

(a) fearfully deny it and fight to preserve it.

	or

(b) fight to end it.


>Why cloud the real issues with empty rhetorical cliches?

Very good point, Mr. Johns.  Let's examine some empty rhetorical
cliches:

	"It's true that the colonists stole this land and its
	resources from the Native Americans.  But it's also true that
	whatever benefits came from that theft accrue to *everyone*
	living here now -- including Indians alive today."
		-- David A. Johns

	"I think we should give land back to Indian groups that want
	it, but I don't think most would go back to a stone-age
	existence."
		-- David A. Johns

	"And if you're claiming that whites alive today should feel
	guilt for something someone did centuries ago -- well, you're
	whistling into the wind.  No one could take such a silly
	argument seriously -- except, of course, the "bleeding heart
	liberals" that we all like to sneer at."
		-- David A. Johns



****************************************************************************
David	-	Love
Edward	-	Protection
Nettles	-	Tenacity
My parents gave me the name... it's up to me to live up to it.
****************************************************************************
-- 
****************************************************************************
   David E. Nettles
   Internet: david@gdstech.grumman.com
   Grumman Data Systems
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american,triangle.politics,talk.politics.misc