exploited wrote:Do you have any evidence of apologies leading to less action, historically? You seem to want to claim that if we apologize for slavery, less will be done to deal with today's problems. What is the basis of this opinion? What are some historical examples of this happening?
No, again, I'm not suggesting any impact an apology has itself. I'm saying that the thought process that brings one to the point of idolizing this apology is detrimental. I'm saying that action is more important and should be the focus. I also don't think that this particular apology fits in the same category as many of the others you've suggested as pushing change. Those were more temporally relevant. The issue one that people could join together to end or where an apology would be heard by someone who was an actual victim.
There just isn't anything relevant at all about this issue anymore. At this point, the issue is with subtle biases exacerbated by extreme things, like inflexible laws (minimum sentencing, the war on drugs, even the profiteering of companies collecting city fines and private jails), excessive force (our militarized police forces) and on the flip-side, a feeling of exclusion so powerful as to feel that the rest of the nation, along with their own government, are a separate and distinct entity that needs to apologize and give them things (and by this, I don't mean welfare, I mean just the idea that these things aren't already ours
"Idolizing" an apology? What on earth does that mean, Medius? I don't know of any black activists who view it as the most important piece of social reform, and I haven't seen anyone here suggest that either. At most, Comrade and I have suggested that an apology is an important part of the healing process, and that while we individually may not get it
, we understand why it would be important to some. The biggest cause of our disagreement is this opinion:
The issue one that people could join together to end or where an apology would be heard by someone who was an actual victim.
That is an extremely immature opinion that makes very little sense. A substantial part of the American black population is, today, a victim of slavery. The vast majority of the social ills we are talking about have impacted blacks more precisely because they were once enslaved. You can trace a straight line between slavery and modern social issues facing blacks across America. I mean just think about it for a second.
1. We live in a capitalist society. Blacks have had substantially less time to develop family wealth, which is absolutely crucial to a person's economic well-being (the class you are born into is most often the class you stay in). For most of the 160 or so years since they were freed in America, they were unable to participate in the dominant economy, at least not in a way even close to being on fair terms. Alternative economic institutions were deliberately destroyed. Real estate discrimination and residential segregation is still huge. Blacks are way more likely to be poor - why? Might it have something to do with being enslaved and then given virtually nothing to get ahead once freed?
2. We live in a society that disenfranchises felons. 40% of the prison population is black and every black man has a 25% chance of going to prison, today
. You can't even imagine how much worse things were back in day. So for decades, America has removed millions of black men and women from the polity, drastically reducing voting power over many generations. Even now the South does literally everything it can to f**k with the black vote. Do you think that has an impact on black youth today? Could it perhaps feed the irritation and anger you are seeing from black youths?
3. We are biological creatures who are tremendously influenced by epigenomes. Not only do we have a genetic code, but that genetic code is altered by the physical environment. This is what happened to entire generations during slavery:
http://www.popsci.com/article/science/h ... etics-next
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_in_the_American_Slave_System#Typical_Slave_Diet wrote:The root cause for excessive infant mortality has been pinned on poor diets for years by scholars. Richard H. Steckel, a leading proponent of anthropometrics, studied the relationship between height-for-age and weight-for-age of twentieth-century populations, specifically within the slave population. Relying on twentieth-century data on U.S. stillbirths and on the relationship between weight and first month death among the poor, Steckel estimates birth-weight for slave children. These calculations indicate extraordinarily short slave children, extremely low slave birth-weights, and very high neonatal and infant mortality rates. The reasons for these findings are the work intensity of pregnant slaves, maternal diseases, poor diet of pregnant slaves, specific dietary deficiencies of pregnant slaves, and poor diet of slaves during infancy and childhood. Seasonal deaths of newly born children and pregnant mother are dependent on the timing of nutritional deprivation, nutritional status, and under-nutrition with diet or food intake.
So many adults in Cambodia are getting diabetes at such a young age, it's unbelievable. "You can go to every village with me and see it," endocrinologist Lim Keuky told PRI. "When I go abroad to developed countries, people say I'm lying. I'm not lying."
Cambodians are getting type 2—A.K.A. adult-onset—diabetes in their late 30s. In contrast, the average age of diagnosis in the U.S. is 54. Sure, Cambodians now eat more and do less physical work than they did in decades past. But that's not enough to explain their unusual diabetes rates, PRI reports. Something else is happening.
This new generation of diabetes patients was conceived and born during the Khmer Rouge regime, between 1975 and 1979. Scientists think their prenatal exposure to their mothers' starvation set them up for diabetes later in life. Plus, while the PRI story doesn't explicitly say so, it seems scientists think there may be an epigenetic effect going on, too. That is, being a fetus in a starving mother actually altered these people's DNA in a way that may be inherited by their own children.
Painter, who talked with PRI, examined one classic epigenetic case, the Dutch Hunger Winter. During the Dutch Hunger Winter, Nazis blocked food supply from coming into the western Netherlands. Dutch folks experienced extreme starvation. Scientists later found that not only were babies born during that time smaller than their siblings born before or after… their own children were born smaller, too. The Nazis left their mark on two generations of Dutch.
Considering how long slavery lasted, and given the extraordinary rates of illness among America's blacks, it seems obvious that we are still seeing direct genetic consequences of slavery impacting today's black youth. Which is so goddamned depressing
4. The criminal justice system is broken totally for black people, and always has been. Is this because blacks break the law more? Why do they do that? Nature? Or is it because of the environment? Or is it a combination of both (see points 2 and 3 above)? How can you possibly look at this issue and conclude slavery had nothing to do with it, when we've been figuring out ways to convict them into slavery since?
Honestly, to say that nobody alive today has been a victim of slavery is extremely
calloused and offensive, and should be perceived as such (this is where people chase me with pitchforks screaming "SJW!"). It ignores pretty much all scientific and academic study of the subject. It ignores the fact that you are seeing black families who have never once, in 160 years, moved out of the lower classes. It ignores alot dude. You need to reevaluate your stance on this.